PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

(HANSARD)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

FIFTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT

FIRST SESSION

TUESDAY, 2 FEBRUARY 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 Resources ...... The Hon. J Symes, MLC Minister for Transport Infrastructure and Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop ...... The Hon. JM Allan, MP Minister for Training and Skills and Minister for Higher Education .... The Hon. GA Tierney, MLC Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development and Minister for Industrial Relations ...... The Hon. TH Pallas, MP Minister for Public Transport and Minister for Roads and Road Safety . The Hon. BA Carroll, MP Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change and Minister for Solar Homes ...... The Hon. L D’Ambrosio, MP Minister for Child Protection and Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers ...... The Hon. LA Donnellan, MP Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services and Minister for Equality ...... The Hon. MP Foley, MP Minister for Ports and Freight, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation and Minister for Fishing and Boating ...... The Hon. MM Horne, MP Minister for Crime Prevention, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice and Minister for Victim Support ...... The Hon. NM Hutchins, MP Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development and Minister for Veterans ...... The Hon. SL Leane, MLC Minister for Water and Minister for Police and Emergency Services .... The Hon. LM Neville, MP Minister for Industry Support and Recovery, Minister for Trade, Minister for Business Precincts, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events and Minister for Racing ...... The Hon. MP Pakula, MP Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Regulatory Reform, Minister for Government Services and Minister for Creative Industries ...... The Hon. DJ Pearson, MP Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy and Minister for Small Business ...... The Hon. JL Pulford, MLC Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Community Sport and Minister for Youth ...... The Hon. RL Spence, MP Minister for Workplace Safety and Minister for Early Childhood ...... The Hon. I Stitt, MLC Minister for Agriculture and Minister for Regional Development ...... The Hon. M Thomas, MP Minister for Prevention of Family Violence, Minister for Women and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs ...... The Hon. G Williams, MP Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing ...... The Hon. RW Wynne, MP Cabinet Secretary ...... Ms S Kilkenny, MP 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 Ondarchie, Mr Rich-Phillips 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, Ms Crozier, 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, Mr McGhie, 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 D O’Brien, Ms Richards, Mr Richardson, Mr Riordan and Ms Vallence.

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

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 ...... 1 COVID-19 ...... 1 RULINGS BY THE CHAIR Motions of urgent public importance ...... 1 Divisions ...... 2 BILLS Appropriation (2020–2021) Bill 2020 ...... 2 Appropriation (Parliament 2020–2021) Bill 2020 ...... 2 Royal assent ...... 2 State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2020 ...... 2 Royal assent ...... 2 MEMBERS Ministry ...... 2 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Standing and sessional orders ...... 3 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Sole Trader Support Fund ...... 3 Central Pier, Docklands ...... 4 Ministers statements: Victorian Higher Education State Investment Fund ...... 5 COVID-19 ...... 5 Commercial Passenger Vehicle Victoria ...... 6 Ministers statements: Growing Suburbs Fund...... 7 Victims of crime ...... 8 Duck hunting ...... 8 Ministers statements: Peter Dostis ...... 9 Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission ...... 9 Youth justice system ...... 11 Ministers statements: kindergarten funding ...... 12 Written responses ...... 12 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Answers ...... 13 CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Eastern Victoria Region ...... 13 Western Victoria Region ...... 13 Northern Victoria Region ...... 13 Northern Victoria Region ...... 14 Eastern Victoria Region ...... 14 Western Metropolitan Region ...... 14 Northern Metropolitan Region ...... 14 South Eastern Metropolitan Region...... 14 Southern Metropolitan Region ...... 15 Southern Metropolitan Region ...... 15 Western Victoria Region ...... 15 Western Metropolitan Region ...... 15 PETITIONS Bush nursing centres ...... 17 Public land management ...... 17 Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020 ...... 18 Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020 ...... 18 BILLS Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Amendment Bill 2021 ...... 19 Introduction and first reading ...... 19 COMMITTEES Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee ...... 19 Alert Digest No. 1 ...... 19 Public Accounts and Estimates Committee ...... 20 Inquiry into the Victorian Government’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic ...... 20 Legal and Social Issues Committee ...... 20 Inquiry into the Victorian Government’s COVID‐19 Contact Tracing System and Testing Regime ...... 20 PAPERS Ombudsman ...... 23 Investigation into the Detention and Treatment of Public Housing Residents Arising from a COVID-19 ‘Hard Lockdown’ in July 2020 ...... 23 Board of Inquiry into the COVID-19 Hotel Quarantine Program ...... 23 COVID-19 Hotel Quarantine Inquiry Final Report and Recommendations ...... 23 Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability ...... 23 Report on Public Hearing 5: Experiences of People with Disability during the Ongoing COVID- 19 Pandemic ...... 23 Department of Health and Human Services ...... 23 9th Report to Parliament on the State of Emergency ...... 23 Papers ...... 23 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Notices ...... 25 General business ...... 26 MEMBERS STATEMENTS Eastern Victoria Region volunteer coastguards and lifesaving clubs ...... 26 Princes Highway, Tynong North ...... 26 Pauline Powell ...... 26 COVID-19 ...... 27 Australia Day awards ...... 27 Invasion Day rally ...... 28 COVID-19 ...... 28 Kingston planning ...... 28 Olga Tennison ...... 29 Wombat housing support services ...... 29 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Notices of motion ...... 29 BILLS Consumer and Other Acts Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2020 ...... 30 Second reading ...... 30 Third reading ...... 40 Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment Bill 2020 ...... 40 Second reading ...... 40 Committee ...... 59 Third reading ...... 65 ADJOURNMENT Fruit tree netting subsidy ...... 65 Western Metropolitan Region schools ...... 66 Animal welfare ...... 66 Latrobe Valley battery recycling plant ...... 67 Banyule biodiversity ...... 67 Fast-track remand court ...... 68 Student devices ...... 68 Water safety ...... 69 Fitness industry support ...... 70 SuniTAFE SMART Farm ...... 70 Suburban Rail Loop ...... 71 Electric vehicles ...... 72 COVID-19 ...... 72 Duck hunting ...... 73 Fire Rescue Victoria dry-cleaning contracts ...... 73 Kindergarten funding ...... 74 Responses ...... 74 WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES WorkSafe claim ...... 76 Fire services...... 76 Agriculture Victoria ...... 77 COVID-19 ...... 77 West Gate Tunnel ...... 79 Mental health services ...... 79 Family violence animal welfare ...... 80 Western Metropolitan Region train services...... 81 VicRoads licence testing ...... 81 Rural and regional mental health services ...... 82 Veterans employment strategy ...... 82 Ross Street, Tatura ...... 83 CONTENTS

COVID-19 ...... 83 COVID-19 ...... 83 Rothwell housing development, Tarneit ...... 83 COVID-19 ...... 84 COVID-19 ...... 84 Child protection ...... 85 Container deposit scheme ...... 85 COVID-19 ...... 86 China trade ...... 86 COVID-19 ...... 87 Horseracing ...... 87 Nillumbik small business ...... 88 Western Metropolitan Region internet access ...... 88 COVID-19 ...... 89 Department of Health and Human Services ...... 89 Casey planning ...... 90 Family violence ...... 90 World Animal Protection billboard ...... 91 Furniture-making apprenticeships ...... 91 Greater Shepparton Secondary College ...... 92 Western suburbs tree planting ...... 92 Plastic bag ban ...... 93 Mount Gellibrand fire tower ...... 93 East Gippsland roads ...... 93 Route 86 tram ...... 94 Western Metropolitan Region community sport ...... 94 Police conduct ...... 95 Victoria Police ...... 95 Creative industries sector ...... 95 Victims of crime ...... 96 Plenty Road, Bundoora ...... 96 Grampians National Park ...... 97 Bushfire recovery initiatives ...... 97 Grampians Peak Trail ...... 98 Northern Metropolitan Partnership ...... 98 Wild horse control ...... 98 Bellarine railway reserve vegetation removal...... 99 Victoria Police database ...... 100 Bushfire preparedness ...... 100 Hume City Council...... 100 Brimbank infrastructure strategy...... 101 Mont Albert and Surrey Hills train stations ...... 101 Qantas workforce ...... 101 Victoria’s India strategy ...... 102 Northern Victoria Region flood mitigation ...... 102 Kealba landfill ...... 103 Melton rail services ...... 103 Schools funding ...... 104 Cooper Street, Epping ...... 104 Autism education ...... 104 Victoria Police database ...... 105 Budget 2020–21 ...... 105 Upfield rail line duplication ...... 105 Birralee Primary School ...... 106 Seaford community safety ...... 106 Police resources ...... 107 Teacher education ...... 107 Edinburgh Gardens ...... 108

ANNOUNCEMENTS Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 1

Tuesday, 2 February 2021

The PRESIDENT (Hon. N Elasmar) took the chair at 11.04 am and read the prayer. Announcements ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY The PRESIDENT (11:05): 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. COVID-19 The PRESIDENT (11:05): Members, we talked about this last sitting week. You all know by now the formalities in this house and the safe plan for COVID-19. Come into the chamber through the doors behind me and exit the other side. You do not have to wear a mask; it is optional for you unless you are not able to distance. The other thing that is important is that any question or adjournment matter submitted for incorporation will be published in the final version of Hansard, and the day it is published will be the day it is considered asked for the purposes of a response being due. Divisions will continue to operate under the temporary orders agreed to by the house on 23 April 2020. Rulings by the Chair MOTIONS OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE The PRESIDENT (11:06): Pursuant to standing order 6.09, I received yesterday a submission from Mr Barton for the house to debate a matter of urgent public importance. The matter sought to be debated relates to a decision by Commercial Passenger Vehicles Victoria in relation to the multipurpose taxi program. Mr Barton submits that the effect of the decision is to allow Uber to offer subsidised trips through that program. Mr Barton further submits that this decision presents, among other negative impacts, an unacceptable safety risk to vulnerable citizens who may access subsidised trips through the ridesharing platform. Under standing orders, if the President is satisfied a matter is of such importance as to warrant urgent consideration, the matter must be dealt with as a priority over all other business. In determining the urgency of the matter, I am required to take into consideration a number of factors under standing order 6.10(1). I consider Mr Barton’s submission meets some of these criteria, including that the matter is of recent occurrence and is being raised at the first opportunity. It could also be argued that the matter is of sufficient public importance as to warrant invoking the urgency procedure. However, in considering these matters, I should also give consideration to two other important factors, those being whether the rights, welfare or security of citizens are in jeopardy and whether there is a distinct probability of the matter being brought before the house in reasonable time by other means. Firstly, I am not convinced that the subject of the proposed motion by Mr Barton, while obviously important to the commercial passenger vehicle industry and its patrons, is one in which the rights, welfare or security of citizens are sufficiently in jeopardy as to warrant an urgent motion which would set aside all other business of this house. Secondly, I believe there are other opportunities for the matter to be brought before the house in reasonable time by other means. Mr Barton may move a by-leave motion today. Mr Barton may alternatively give notice of a motion to be debated on a general business Wednesday. Mr Barton may also raise these matters during questions without notice and the adjournment debate. BILLS 2 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

Accordingly, while the request meets the criteria on some levels, on balance I am not satisfied that this should proceed to debate as a matter of urgent public importance. I do want to thank Mr Barton for his cooperation in this matter and for conveying his request to me at the earliest opportunity. DIVISIONS The PRESIDENT (11:10): I wish to remind the house of the rules relating to resolving questions before the Chair and the right to request that a division be conducted. When a question is proposed to the house the Chair will, without entertaining interjections from members, clearly state whether in their opinion the ayes or noes have it based on the voices. If any member disagrees with the Chair’s call, they may dispute the call. Only members determined by the Chair to be in the minority may dispute the call and request that a division occur. A member who disputes the Chair’s call should, when the house or committee divides, vote opposite to how the Chair called. The principle is that the vote should follow the voices. While participation may have wavered in the house over time, this approach is consistent with previous rulings as well as with our standing orders and the practices of other Westminster jurisdictions. In other words, if I say the ayes have it and you call for a division, it means you have to vote no. Bills APPROPRIATION (2020–2021) BILL 2020 APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENT 2020–2021) BILL 2020 Royal assent The PRESIDENT (11:11): I have a message from the Governor, dated 15 December 2020:

The Governor informs the Legislative Council that she has, on this day, given the Royal Assent to the undermentioned Act of the present Session presented to her by the Clerk of the Parliaments: 45/2020 Appropriation (2020–2021) Act 2020 46/2020 Appropriation (Parliament 2020–2021) Act 2020 STATE TAXATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL 2020 Royal assent The PRESIDENT (11:11): I have another message, dated 15 December 2020:

The Governor informs the Legislative Council that she has, on this day, given the Royal Assent to the undermentioned Act of the present Session presented to her by the Clerk of the Parliaments: 47/2020 State Taxation Acts Amendment Act 2020 Members MINISTRY The PRESIDENT (11:12): I have received a letter from the Governor, dated 16 December 2020, advising of the resignation of the Honourable Jill Hennessy as Attorney-General. Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (11:12): I wish to advise the house of changes to the government ministry. I now hold the portfolios of Attorney-General and resources. In addition to the Honourable Shaun Leane’s previous responsibilities, he will now answer questions on behalf of the Minister for Water. In the other place the Honourable Mary-Anne Thomas is now the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Regional Development. In addition to the Honourable Gayle Tierney’s previous responsibilities, she will now also answer questions on behalf of the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Regional Development. All other representative arrangements remain in place. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 3

Business of the house STANDING AND SESSIONAL ORDERS Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (11:13): I move, by leave:

That: (1) the temporary order agreed to by the house on 15 September 2020 relating to the order of business on a Tuesday be rescinded; (2) standing order 4.01(1) and sessional order 1 be suspended to the extent necessary to allow the following temporary arrangement to come into effect immediately and remain in place until the house resolves otherwise: 1. Days and hours of meeting Unless otherwise ordered by the Council the days and hours of meeting of the Council will be— (a) Tuesday at 11.00 a.m.; (b) Wednesday at 9.30 a.m.; (c) Thursday at 10.00 a.m.; and (d) Friday at 9.30 a.m. Motion agreed to. Questions without notice and ministers statements SOLE TRADER SUPPORT FUND Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (11:14): My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Minister, you are responsible for small businesses, including the almost 400 000 sole traders, our smallest businesses, who have done it very tough during the COVID crisis. Minister, the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee was told only $12 million of the government’s $100 million allocated to sole traders was allocated by 4 December 2020 and the complex application and administrative hurdles put in place by your government prevented sole traders from accessing these desperately needed funds, so I ask: what steps will you take as Minister for Small Business to make sure the money allocated is actually spent? Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (11:15): I thank Mr Davis for his question about the supports that are available for sole traders and specifically the Sole Trader Support Fund. I can indicate to Mr Davis that the amount paid and/or approved pending payment is now $15.2 million, and I would also indicate to the house that there are a number of programs and supports. The government has 14 different programs to provide support to our business community. There are four programs that are still open for application, and three of those I think are of particular interest and application for our sole traders. By the numbers, of Victoria’s more than 600 000 small businesses there are a little over 400 000 that are sole traders. There are of course many different types of business that are characterised as sole traders, and the nature of their work is as varied as the nature of tasks across the economy. As an effective proxy for income loss through the pandemic, the advice I have is that around one-third of Victoria’s sole traders were eligible for JobKeeper and therefore had a business that was earning income that had been impacted. I think in any assessment of sole traders it is important to note that there are many that have been able to continue to trade through restrictions, given the nature of their work. There are others who have been quite significantly impacted. Targeted support has been aimed very much at those, particularly those with higher overheads. And then there are some that have that type of tax designation that are not a source of income or an actively trading business. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 4 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

Our interest was particularly focused on the traders who had had significant loss of income through the pandemic, and like many of our programs, we used eligibility for JobKeeper as an effective indicator of financial hardship but also income prior to loss of income. So the Sole Trader Support Fund was designed to particularly—given that the federal government have throughout the pandemic, and we thank them for it, taken responsibility for income support—recognise that there are some sole traders that have greater fixed costs and overheads, and that is where our focus has been. Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (11:18): I am shocked by what I have heard. $15.2 million of $100 million of the Sole Trader Support Fund has been spent at this time; that means $84.8 million has not been spent. Therefore I ask the minister: will you insist or advocate that this fund is all spent to help sole traders, and will you get on with actually doing that? What are you actually going to do? Are you going to insist that this money be spent? I mean, there is nearly $85 million that is sitting there. You are sitting on this like a dragon on gold and these people need the money, so what are you going to do? Will you insist this money be spent? Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (11:19): As has been the case throughout the pandemic, when programs have had underspends or indeed in some cases overspends, adjustments have been made to where the need has been greatest, and that has been the government’s position throughout the administration of these funds. But can I just say that Mr Davis comes in here pretending to care about people in small business. The very last meeting I took before Christmas, on Christmas Eve, was with one of the organisations that you asked that I meet with. Their— Ms Crozier interjected. Ms PULFORD: Well, the very simple query went to Mr Davis, and he came in here to make some big political stunt out of his question, when in fact this business could have been trading. If you had not been so lazy, you could have done a Google search on current restrictions and given these people advice, like any member of Parliament in this place worth their salt. They deserve better from you. Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (11:20): I move:

That the minister’s extraordinary answer be taken into account on the next day of meeting. Motion agreed to. CENTRAL PIER, DOCKLANDS Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (11:20): My question is to the Minister for Workplace Safety and relates to Central Pier in Docklands. A recent article in the Age revealed that Development Victoria, the agency in charge of Central Pier, knew for quite a few years that the 100-year-old structure was at extreme risk of collapse, before it was shut down abruptly. The Federal Court documents show that prior to the shutdown on 28 August 2019 Development Victoria had been warned that the pier risked catastrophic failure but delayed acting in an apparent attempt to avoid spending tens of millions of dollars on repairs. Despite the clear and obvious workplace safety risk, an investigation was never launched, and this put at risk 1300 workers and the thousands of visitors to the pier, so I ask the minister to explain why no investigation was launched. Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (11:21): Thank you, Ms Patten, for your question. I have not been briefed by WorkSafe in relation to the matters that you are raising today. I note that the matters are before the court, but I am prepared to see if there is any further information that I am able to provide you with in relation to WorkSafe in particular. Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (11:21): Thank you, Minister. This has been going since 2013, as I mentioned. After the abrupt closure there was a request to WorkSafe that they do conduct an investigation, and this was requested by the tenants at Central Pier. WorkSafe said that there was QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 5 no need for this, despite the fact there had been an emergency evacuation from this place. I appreciate that you will look into this, and I definitely ask that you now launch an investigation into how this occurred. Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (11:22): I think it is important to indicate that I do not direct WorkSafe in relation to investigations that they may be conducting. They are the independent safety regulator, so their investigative work is at arm’s length from me as minister and my office, which is absolutely appropriate. But, as I indicated in my substantive answer, I have not been directly briefed about this matter, and I will see what information I might be able to provide. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: VICTORIAN HIGHER EDUCATION STATE INVESTMENT FUND Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (11:23): We know Victorian universities have been hit hard by the fallout of COVID. We also know what a critical role Victorian universities play in our economy and communities. That is why the Andrews government has established the $350 million Victorian Higher Education State Investment Fund. Last Friday I joined local MPs Michaela Settle and Juliana Addison in Ballarat to announce another grant under the fund: a $9.5 million investment in the Federation University Business Centre of Excellence. This new centre will form part of Federation University’s business school, which will be located in Ballarat’s CBD. The centre will be involved in the refurbishment of two beautiful old buildings, the former School of Mines—a magnificent 1880s heritage building that holds a special place in the hearts of the people of Ballarat owing to its historical significance—and the old Carlton & United Breweries site, which will be revitalised and transformed into the IBM Watson Internet of Things institute. Federation University’s creation of this centre is a perfect example of how universities can work with government and industry to ensure regional areas have highly skilled workers to fill high-value jobs. This project will boost educational opportunities in business and technology in the region. It will drive innovation and business acceleration by linking local industries to national and international expertise. It will stimulate jobs in areas such as manufacturing, renewable energy and med tech. It will have a ripple effect by attracting local business investment and building the connections we need to strengthen our regional economies. In relation to investments under the fund more broadly, we are just getting started. I look forward to updating the house on the many other exciting fund announcements that we will be making over the next few months. COVID-19 Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (11:25): My question is for the Minister for Small Business. Minister, the location of the border checkpoint on the Lincoln Causeway in Wodonga economically crippled four businesses located in the Gateway Island tourism and hospitality hub. Initially the businesses were completely cut off from customers, and subsequent arrangements forced potential Victorian customers to cross into New South Wales and back into Victoria to access the hub. The owners of the Victor Supper Club and the La Maison restaurant estimate a 90 per cent reduction in turnover from the same period last year. The owner of Musikids is reporting her term 1 enrolments are down 50 per cent, and last year the GIGS art gallery was forced to close. Minister, given the devastating financial impact the location of this checkpoint had on these businesses, including the loss of livelihoods and local jobs, will the state government provide adequate compensation to these businesses to cover the trade lost through no fault of their own? QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 6 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (11:26): I thank Ms Lovell for her question and for her advocacy on behalf of the businesses in Wodonga that were particularly impacted by the establishment of the checkpoint. Certainly, to the best of my knowledge, this issue has not been replicated to the same extent at the other checkpoints on the New South Wales-Victoria border, but I am certainly aware of the issues that Ms Lovell has raised. I had the opportunity, with the new Minister for Regional Development, to meet with some of the Wodonga business community’s leaders and representatives in early January, where they took us in some detail through these impacts. These businesses are, I believe, working with our department, Regional Development Victoria and the cross-border commissioner on what remedies can be provided to assist them. Mary-Anne Thomas now, as Minister for Regional Development, has the primary responsibility for cross-border issues and impacts, of which there are many. They occur from time to time, and they occur very quickly. We thank communities that are impacted by border closures for their forbearance. They do bear an extra inconvenience and an extra hardship because of the nature of where they are and because border closures have proven to be an important and effective part of our toolkit for dealing with this pandemic response. If I am able to provide Ms Lovell with some further information about the latest on those discussions, I will take the opportunity to take that part of my response on notice and perhaps confer with Minister Thomas and come back to you on that, but I can certainly advise that those businesses are working with our department and that the problems are well known and understood. The activity around the checkpoints now of course is not what it was in early January when I met with them, thankfully. Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (11:28): Thank you, Minister. I understand that the Minister for Regional Development is responsible for border closures, but you are responsible for small business. You, together with the Minister for Regional Development, did attend the La Maison restaurant on 5 January and spoke to one of the owners, who explained the difficulties these businesses were experiencing. In the four days following your visit the restaurant lost 130 bookings, which equated to literally hundreds of individual customers, because of the location of this checkpoint. So, Minister, what actions have you personally taken since that meeting to assist La Maison and the other local businesses severely impacted by the location of the checkpoint? Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (11:29): What I can indicate to Ms Lovell is that after our visit Minister Thomas and I discussed our responsibilities and which of us would then be following up actions—which people in our department would be supporting these businesses through this—as was the case when Minister Symes had the regional development portfolio. It is always better, I think, for communities if there is a clear line of responsibility. Minister Thomas was primarily going to be working with our department on the response to this, so as I indicated earlier, I will confer with her so that I can provide you with the most contemporary account of where these discussions and supports are at. COMMERCIAL PASSENGER VEHICLE VICTORIA Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (11:30): My question is for the Attorney-General. Back in October 2020 I asked Minister Carroll whether the regulator of the commercial passenger vehicle industry had acted as a model litigant during the recent Supreme Court proceedings with the taxi and hire car families. I received no reply, despite the standing orders requiring all adjournment questions to be answered within 30 days. After 3½ years of litigation, costing taxpayers what looks like being close to $1 million, the Supreme Court has ordered the regulator to release the documents for preliminary discovery and pay 80 per cent of the taxi and hire car families’ legal costs—information that no doubt could have been released by the regulator under the Freedom of Information Act 1982. Attorney, if there is nothing to hide, nor any reason to cause reasonable delay, is the regulator’s action that of a model litigant? QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 7

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (11:31): I thank Mr Barton for his question and his ongoing advocacy for taxi families and of course his using the house as an opportunity to raise these important issues. It is a little difficult for me to respond in a lot of detail to the questions that you have asked. I am more than happy to follow up with Minister Carroll in relation to that element of your question. You are also technically asking me for opinions, so I might just give some general comments in relation to model litigants. The Department of Justice and Community Safety have guidelines on the obligations of the state, its departments and its agencies to act as model litigants. All governments around Australia also have a common-law responsibility to act as model litigants. Victorian departments and agencies have a duty to behave as a model litigant in the conduct of all of their litigation, and, as I said, it is not really appropriate for me to comment or to give an opinion in this case. It is not something that I want to get into the practice of—commenting on individual cases, whether they are before the courts or indeed have been before the courts. But, as I said, these are important issues that you raise. I know they are an important court case and ongoing issues that taxi families are facing, and I will follow up with Minister Carroll in relation to any outstanding matters. Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (11:32): Thank you, Minister. As the courts have firmly held since 1912, it is an expectation that the state and its agencies will act as model litigants—that is, that they will act with propriety, fairly and to the highest professional standards possible. In particular the model litigant guidelines also include that the state and its agencies should keep litigation costs to a minimum and deal with claims promptly so as not to cause any unnecessary delay. Considering those factors and the way the regulator has acted over the past three years, I ask the Attorney: who is responsible for ensuring the agencies are acting as model litigants? Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (11:33): I thank Mr Barton for his supplementary question. As Attorney-General it is certainly my expectation that all government agencies act as model litigants. In relation to the specific responsibility of agencies and departments as to how they conduct their litigation practices, it is a matter for individual departments. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: GROWING SUBURBS FUND Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (11:33): I would like to update the house that new applications are open for the Growing Suburbs Fund. A further $50 million has been made available through the state budget to deliver more local jobs and more childcare and health centres, playgrounds, libraries, parks and streetscape upgrades in our fastest growing suburbs. This is on top of the $25 million that was made available earlier in the financial year, so $75 million all up. Since its establishment in 2015, the Growing Suburbs Fund has invested $325 million into 221 community projects, leveraging off more than $755 million in investment and creating more than 7500 jobs. I was lucky enough in recent days to actually see some of the ongoing projects. I went out with Ms Shing to an early childhood centre in Officer with the Cardinia shire—great advocacy, Ms Shing, thank you. Also, with Jordan Crugnale in Bass Coast shire, I had a look at their potential new Cowes cultural and community centre, which will be supported by the Growing Suburbs Fund. What a great MP she is as well, I have got to say. I also went out to Mornington Peninsula Shire Council to have a look at the potential new civic centre at Flinders with Chris Brayne. What a fantastic local MP, an impressive young man, he is. I also went with Michaela Settle and Steve McGhie to Moorabool shire to look at their potential Growing Suburbs Fund project, and what a fantastic— Members interjecting. Mr LEANE: Steve McGhie and Michaela Settle are great advocates for their community and the Growing Suburbs Fund. I look forward to going out with other MPs and seeing the fruits of their advocacy in this particular fund and seeing the great work those local MPs are doing as well. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 8 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

VICTIMS OF CRIME Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (11:35): My question is to the Attorney-General. Minister, congratulations on your appointment—a very important role in Victoria as Victoria’s first law officer. In that context I ask: what are the three highest priorities for you as Attorney-General over the next year? Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (11:36): I thank Mr O’Donohue for his question. It is an excellent question, and it looks at something that I have been turning my mind to over the last five weeks since my appointment. I hope many of you had the opportunity to take a break. I did have the opportunity to have a bit of a break, but obviously when you are given a new important role your mind is a little distracted. I have lots of priorities. I am very proud to have taken over from very capable, progressive Attorney- Generals, most recently Jill Hennessy. There are outstanding matters that it is my intention to complete. I intend on being a very accessible Attorney-General. I am yet to meet with the heads of jurisdiction, so I am keen to hear what their priorities are. I want to be open to victims of crime and make sure that our justice system is accessible for all. I had the pleasure of visiting the Office of Public Prosecutions (OPP) the other day to meet with staff there on how they are making sure that victims and witnesses are supported by providing that important information that they do to ensure that the processes are appropriate. Obviously we have a very important reform to deliver, which will be the subject of many hours in this chamber, I am sure, and that is implementing the recommendations of the royal commission. We will have more to say on that shortly, as we have commitments to provide updates and appointments in the first quarter of 2021. I guess I have not been specific in my answer to you, Mr O’Donohue. At the moment I want to ensure that the justice system is as best placed as it possibly can be to deliver great outcomes for those that rely on the justice system and to ensure that we can keep our society safe, respond to crime appropriately, punish where appropriate and divert where appropriate, and I am sure that my priorities will evolve over the coming months. Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (11:38): I appreciate, Minister, you have only had the role for five weeks, but if I ever had the privilege of sitting in your chair my answer would be unequivocally ‘supporting victims of crime’, and you only mentioned victims of crime in passing as part of a visit with the OPP. So my supplementary is: what will you do to assist victims of crime who continue to feel neglected under your government, and will you commit to attending a victims of crime consultative committee meeting? Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (11:39): Mr O’Donohue, that is really disingenuous. I certainly called out victims of crime as a major imperative of this portfolio. That is, frankly, the reason it exists. What I did commit to in my substantive answer was that I do intend to be accessible. I do intend to meet with victims. In fact many of you will know that this is a full circle for me, having been an adviser to the former Attorney- General. I can tell you now, the meetings that you have with the likes of George Halvagis and Rosie Batty and those people who have absolutely had their lives shattered by being a victim of a crime— particularly those that lose family members—do not leave you. And I do not intend to start this new job without having anything but the utmost respect for those people that have gone through a horrid time and rely on the justice system and have just that little bit of expectation of a state that will respond to what has happened to them. So victims of crime are certainly a priority for me and this government. DUCK HUNTING Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (11:40): My question is for the Minister for Agriculture, who I believe is represented by Minister Tierney at the moment. This is the second year in a row that QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 9

February has rolled around without a duck season announcement. Following one of the wettest years on record, I, like most Victorians, expected an announcement of a full season and full bag at the start of January. However, the start of the 2021 season is now less than seven weeks away, and still nothing. Hunters need to give notice for leave, rural towns in the hunting industry need time to order supplies. When will the minister announce the 2021 duck season? Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (11:40): I use this opportunity to welcome everyone back, and I hope you did have a restful break over the January period. In terms of the question that has been asked by Mr Bourman, it is a question for the new minister, Mary-Anne Thomas. I am sure that this is one of those items that is absolutely on the top of her desk at the moment, and I will endeavour to seek a response from her so that you do have some idea about when that decision might be made. Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (11:41): I thank the minister for her answer. I ask of Minister Thomas: can we assume this is going to be the new norm, or will the ministers and the departments finally be able to get their ducks in a row for the 2022 season? Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (11:41): I thank Mr Bourman for his supplementary. My response to his supplementary is the same as that which I gave to his substantive question. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: PETER DOSTIS Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (11:42): It is with great sadness that I rise today to express my deep condolences at the passing of a truly wonderful Victorian, a husband, a father of three, a friend to so many and an innovative business leader, Peter Dostis, who tragically passed away late last month. Peter was the co-founder and CEO of regional entrepreneurship program Runway. An important part of Victoria’s innovation ecosystem, Runway is an entrepreneurship program that brings people’s dreams of starting and growing their business to life. Peter founded Runway because he wanted to back Victorian entrepreneurs who were taking a leap of faith and having a go. He was a strong advocate for regional founders, seeing them as potentially more determined to succeed than their metropolitan counterparts. He was well known, a kind and tenacious leader, generously giving his time, energy and enthusiasm to the business community, including in his capacity as a director at the Geelong Chamber of Commerce. Peter leaves behind an incredible legacy, having made deep and lasting contributions to our state as well as to the many founders and entrepreneurs he was determined to support and champion. My heartfelt thoughts and deepest condolences go out to Peter’s wife, Elli; his children, Jaykob, Sebastian and Zoe; and his friends and colleagues during this incredibly challenging time. Peter’s passing is a great loss for Victoria and indeed its innovation ecosystem. This will be felt acutely across this community, particularly so in regional Victoria. He will be missed by everyone who had the privilege of knowing him. Vale, Peter Dostis. INDEPENDENT BROAD-BASED ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (11:43): My question is again to the Attorney-General. Attorney, I refer you to your government’s $4.4 million cut to IBAC funding this financial year. In early December last year the IBAC Commissioner, Robert Redlich, stated:

For some time I have publicly called for IBAC to be adequately funded to do the work required of us now and into the future. … These increased service levels cannot be delivered, even with IBAC’s recent allocation of funding. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 10 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

Noting your department’s recent response to questions put at the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee on 15 December last year that a backflip raiding of the hollow log IBAC trust account was conveniently approved by the Assistant Treasurer on 14 December, the day before your predecessor’s PAEC appearance, do you accept that this was just a last-minute bailout to provide cover for the government’s embarrassment at its appalling cut to IBAC funding? Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (11:44): I thank Mr O’Donohue for his question. Indeed this is a topic that we have canvassed in this chamber previously, but I am more than happy to revisit it. I do not agree with the construction of your question, Mr O’Donohue, in referring to IBAC’s funding as involving a cut. There has been a provision of $27.2 million in additional output funding over four years provided in this year’s budget and an ongoing $10 million increase to their recurrent funding to indeed enable them to do their important work. We want them to meet their current and future government and community expectations regarding the independent oversight of public sector corruption and indeed police misconduct. This will obviously be an ongoing topic. I understand that there is a proposal for this to be subject to a motion tomorrow, but I think it is important to understand that there has been funding. Some of the Commissioner’s comments indeed have been used for political purposes, and it might be a good opportunity to just put some of his quotes on the record so that people have got full context. Robert Redlich said in December:

I am most cognisant, however, of the expectations of the community, Parliament and other stakeholders for IBAC to do more—to expand our independent oversight of Victoria Police, to increase the number of public sector corruption and police misconduct matters we investigate and review, and to provide more prevention and education initiatives. These increased service levels cannot be delivered … with IBAC’s recent allocation of funding. So to suggest that the IBAC Commissioner has publicly suggested that he has received a cut to his organisation and that he cannot complete the work that he is required to is incorrect. What his quote indicated was that if more was expected of him then he would require more money. Indeed, if we look at the recommendations from the royal commission, that may very well be the case, and we will deal with that in this year’s budget and future budgets. But politicising this office, who do important work and continue to do important work with government’s adequate funding—indeed the IBAC Commissioner received the budget allocation this year of what they put to government and requested—Mr O’Donohue, I am fully cognisant that this is going to be an ongoing political debate, and I would urge caution in that regard when we are referring to independent agencies dealing with important matters in our state. Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (11:47): I thank the minister for her answer, and I think she is correct in that we will have ongoing discussion about this. Noting her response to my previous question—that she was an adviser to former Attorney Rob Hulls, one of the key ministers in the Bracks-Brumby government that opposed the creation of the IBAC—Labor’s hotchpotch of integrity agencies had more holes in it than— Mr Davis: Swiss cheese. Mr O’DONOHUE: Swiss cheese. Thank you, Mr Davis. Absolutely we look forward to ongoing discussions about this, and I am sure with the minister’s comments she will welcome Mr Davis’s motion tomorrow for further clarity from the IBAC Commissioner and others about their funding needs and funding requirements. So, Minister, I ask you this: do you agree that the IBAC having to go cap in hand to the government via public comments and elsewhere for funding top-ups is unacceptable and undermines transparency and the independence of IBAC to undertake its important role in the investigation of corruption in Victoria? QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 11

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (11:48): I am fairly confident that I responded to Mr O’Donohue’s supplementary question in the answer that I gave to his substantive question. It is appropriate for us to have these conversations; I do not have a problem with it. What I have a problem with is the politicisation of it. As I can confirm, the IBAC Commissioner’s submission to the budgetary process of government was met. He has indicated that if there are further requirements of his office to meet demand or changing circumstances then that is something that he would require additional resources for, and it is appropriate that that continues to go through an appropriate budget process as well. I would point out that we have an appropriate parliamentary committee. It is—I do not know its name now— A member: Oversight committee. Ms SYMES: the oversight committee. I was on the former Accountability and Oversight Committee and indeed was on it with the minister who was responsible for introducing the IBAC, Kim Wells, and so there has been— (Time expired) YOUTH JUSTICE SYSTEM Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (11:49): My question is to the Attorney-General, and I too congratulate you on your appointment. In 2019 almost 600 children between the ages of 10 and 13 were locked up around Australia, and thousands more were taken to court. The scientific evidence is clear: at this age children are still in a crucial developmental stage. There is also consensus that imprisonment causes long-term developmental damage to children under the age of 14, especially Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. The meeting last year of the Council of Attorneys- General yet again failed to raise the age of criminal responsibility for at least another year. Given that damage is happening to children in Victorian youth detention centres right now, will the Victorian government take action to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 14 in this state without any further delay? Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (11:50): I thank Dr Ratnam for her question and indeed important issues that I am sure will be subject to further conversations as well. As members may or may not be aware, on 27 July 2020 the Council of Attorneys-General noted that there is a working group brought together to do further work regarding the need for adequate processes and services for children who exhibit offending behaviour. A national process will ensure, hopefully, that there is consistency across jurisdictions and that the country is working together on the one issue. This would ensure that children are not left behind and you do not have a convoluted mix of different rules, which is not ideal. What I would say is that the conversation around raising the age of criminal responsibility is indeed important. I know that there is much interest in the community about this particular topic, but there are certainly a lot of issues that have to be discussed and considered along the way. I would point to the fact that there are a series of measures that should be implemented to ensure that children under 14 are not in detention, and indeed that is a commitment of this government through launching the youth strategy 2020–2030. Our youth strategy will help strengthen diversion and early interventions and create opportunities for children and young people to live productive lives through education, training and employment. The strategy also confirms a commitment to implementing the outcomes from the ongoing national process, as I have referred to before in relation to the raising of the age. Importantly I want to take the opportunity to recognise that the rate of Aboriginal over-representation in the youth justice system is completely unacceptable, and it is very pleasing that our plan sets out a particular framework to reduce this over-representation. I accept your question and thank you, Dr Ratnam. I am sure we will continue to have further discussions on this important topic as well, but at this point in time we are part of a national process and there is no option to change from that. Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (11:52): Thank you, Minister, for your response. I appreciate your desire for consistency in this process. However, I note that criminal justice laws are QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 12 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021 state responsibilities and differ widely between jurisdictions. Indeed rather than aim for consistency your government will often talk about being much tougher in terms of your crime laws that are passed in Victoria as compared to other states. Furthermore, the ACT has already decided not to wait for a national consensus and is acting alone to immediately raise the age, meaning already there is no consensus. So why is the government committed to a COAG process for this issue, causing lasting health damage to Victorian children, given that for all other justice issues you say you act in the best interests of all Victorians? Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (11:53): I thank the member for her supplementary question. I would say that a lot of that was canvassed in my answer to your substantive question, but I would reiterate that any consideration of change would need to be well considered and supported by the provision of associated services to ensure that there is adequate support for children that find themselves connected to the justice system. It is also important to recognise that currently it is presumed by the court that children between 10 and 13 are incapable of understanding their actions, and these are factors that are considered in our criminal justice system as it currently stands. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: KINDERGARTEN FUNDING Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (11:54): Yesterday I visited the AG Leech Kindergarten in Maryborough to celebrate the opening of term 1 of kindergarten in Victoria with local children and their hardworking teachers and educators— educators like Abbey Parker, the brand new three-year-old-kinder teacher at the AG Leech Kindergarten, who I had the pleasure of meeting yesterday. Abbey is a Maryborough local girl and a passionate advocate for early childhood. Abbey was able to complete her TAFE course and was then awarded an early childhood scholarship to fulfil her dream to become a qualified teacher. Teachers and educators like Abbey sit at the heart of early childhood education and care, including three-year-old kindergarten. As we continue to deliver on our reforms, we will see job creation in this sector, including in regional Victoria. AG Leech kinder in Maryborough is one of over 130 additional early childhood services across 15 local government areas that will deliver up to 15 hours a week of teacher-led programs for three-year-olds in 2021, and they join the existing six local government areas already delivering funded three-year-old kinder from last year. So from 2022 three-year-olds across the state will have access to 5 hours of a teacher-led kindergarten program, and this will increase to 15 hours by 2029. This is such an exciting time for families and for young learners, and I just want to take the opportunity to say good luck to all our hardworking early childhood teachers and educators in the Education State for what will be a very exciting year in early childhood. WRITTEN RESPONSES The PRESIDENT (11:56): Regarding questions today and their answers, Ms Patten to Ms Stitt, one day for the question; Ms Lovell to Ms Pulford, one day for the question and the supplementary; and Mr Bourman to Ms Tierney representing, two days for the question and supplementary. Dr Cumming: On the agenda it says:

Explanations may be sought by Government Members in relation to unanswered questions … It seems that you made a ruling earlier that due to— The PRESIDENT: Dr Cumming— Dr Cumming: A point of order? The PRESIDENT: It is not a point of order. First of all, you just said it: it is government members. You are not a government member. Do you want to raise a different point of order? QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 13

Dr Cumming: Yes. On a point of order, President, I am looking for an explanation in relation to unanswered questions. The PRESIDENT: That is for Wednesday. We will move on. Questions on notice ANSWERS Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (11:57): There is a total of 299 answers to questions: 1078, 1477–571, 1573–605, 1878, 2033, 2057–74, 2146, 2301, 2330, 2333, 2564, 2567, 2583, 2589, 2593, 2597–8, 2601, 2639–42, 2678, 2719, 2727, 2732, 2734–6, 2740, 2744, 2748, 2750, 2754, 2759–60, 2762, 2765, 2767–9, 2771, 2774, 2781–2, 2784, 2814, 2823–4, 2832, 2834, 2838, 2840, 2846–7, 2853–5, 2865, 2887–94, 2898, 2913, 2915, 2919, 2937, 2951, 2980, 2986, 3059–90, 3106, 3131–2, 3137, 3140–2, 3144–9, 3166–91, 3199– 200, 3202–9. Constituency questions EASTERN VICTORIA REGION Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (11:58): My question is for the Minister for Planning. On behalf of the Hazelwood North community, 12 months ago I called for an independent environmental assessment for the proposed used lead-acid battery facility. However, citing Chunxing’s self- assessment as being sufficient, you refused. Noting that the Latrobe City Council had refused to grant a permit and with a VCAT hearing pending, you called in the project. Homes are only 2 kilometres away. A primary school is less than that. My constituents are justifiably aggrieved, and they have multiple concerns. These include no transparency, lack of independent scrutiny and that it is in conflict with the Latrobe health innovation zone to improve, not undermine, health and potential lead exposure and toxicity. Minister, will you halt the planning approval process for a secondary lead smelter and conduct a truly independent environment effects statement? WESTERN VICTORIA REGION Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (11:59): My question is to the Attorney-General. A branch of the Royal Victorian Association of Honorary Justices from Western Victoria recently wrote to me to seek support for the expansion of the recruitment of justices of the peace in the region. This is especially urgent in the Warrnambool, Portland and Hamilton regions. An example of the community service they undertake is a document-signing service at Warrnambool police station, Monday to Friday from 12.00 pm to 2.00 pm. However, at times some of the JPs are contacted at home after hours and on weekends to attend out-of-court bail hearings. This can place immense pressure on the small number of individuals who partake in the JP program. I ask the Attorney-General if there are any plans for the government to expand the recruitment of honorary justices, especially in the south-western Victoria region, to relieve the pressure on current JPs. NORTHERN VICTORIA REGION Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (12:00): My question is for the Minister for Agriculture, and it concerns the ongoing shortage of harvest labour for the many horticulturalists throughout my electorate of Northern Victoria Region. The recently announced arrangement between the Victorian and Tasmanian governments for Pacific Islands harvest workers to quarantine in Tasmania before entering Victoria to work lacks clarity and detail. Growers are unaware of what the cost to the industry of the scheme will be, and with the arrival date of the first workers unknown there are genuine fears that workers will arrive after Victoria’s fruit season is finished. There are also concerns that Tasmanian labour needs will take priority over Victoria’s needs. Minister, what date do you expect the first Pacific Islands workers under the scheme to arrive in Victoria to help harvest our valuable produce, and how many workers will arrive in Victoria by the end of February? CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS 14 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

NORTHERN VICTORIA REGION Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (12:01): My question is for the Minister for Prevention of Family Violence regarding the need for safe and confidential entry areas for family violence victims. The Victorian Auditor-General’s Office report Managing Support and Safety Hubs details space limitations in Orange Door hubs that compromise the multidisciplinary approach, including specifically in the Mallee, where practitioners work from meeting rooms intended for client engagement. Similar issues exist in police stations in my electorate, with inappropriate foyer or interview spaces. This presents a very unsafe and uncomfortable situation for victims and sometimes includes the offender being in the same space at the very time they are making a report. I ask the minister to detail the actions at Orange Door hubs and police stations in my electorate to ensure fit- for-purpose and confidential physical entry points are available for victims seeking assistance regarding family violence matters. EASTERN VICTORIA REGION Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (12:02): I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Education, and it concerns the new school that the government announced on 24 December, Christmas Eve, in San Remo. Whilst new school infrastructure and capacity is welcomed by the local community, what is not included in the funding for this new school are upgrades to the local roads that will be used as access points to the school. Those current access roads are dirt and simply will not be able to cope with the volume of traffic that will flow as a result of a new school being constructed. I am also advised by local residents that they are concerned about how buses and students will access the school via arterial roads. This is a really important issue. We want to see more schools in our local communities, but the associated infrastructure to make it safe, to make it accessible and to protect local residents must also be provided, and that simply has not been done by this call-in by the government announced on 24 December, Christmas Eve, last year. WESTERN METROPOLITAN REGION Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (12:03): My constituency question is to the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change in the other place. Members of the Anti-Toxic Waste Alliance would like to know if the government has plans to bring forward the Environment Protection Amendment Act 2018 that was postponed to July 2021. They are concerned by the delay, as the act will provide a fundamental shift in the regulation and oversight of a sector with high capacity to do harm. As you would be aware, the health and safety of the communities and emergency services in Melbourne’s west have been put at ongoing risk due to illegal chemical stockpiling and multiple waste tip and industrial fires. This includes four fires in my region in July and September last year and another two this year, Laverton and Brooklyn. Minister, we need a response now. NORTHERN METROPOLITAN REGION Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (12:04): Thank you, President, and happy New Year. My constituency question is for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure in the other place, and it concerns Childs Road, Mill Park, in my electorate of Northern Metropolitan Region. Minister, my residents do not want speed humps on Childs Road. The 2018 works on Dalton Road left many residents and motorists angry with the raised speed humps at the intersections with traffic lights. In March last year I asked your government if it would be installing these raised intersection speed humps on Childs Road, and I also tabled a petition with 151 names on it objecting to them, but I have still not got a comprehensive answer. Minister, will you rule out any raised intersection speed humps on any of the new or current intersections on Childs Road? SOUTH EASTERN METROPOLITAN REGION Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (12:05): My constituency question is for the Minister for Roads and Road Safety. I was recently contacted by a member of my electorate who has purchased and begun using an electric scooter. He loves the scooter as it has great range, is CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 15 environmentally friendly and folds up small enough to be taken on public transport. As these scooters are becoming cheaper and faster, with better range, more people are turning to this alternative means of transport to beat the traffic and reduce emissions. Despite these great advantages, my constituent feels the regulations are too strict and outdated, specifically the maximum speed and power restrictions. My question to the minister is: are there any plans to update the regulations on e-scooters so people like this constituent can enjoy cheaper mobility? SOUTHERN METROPOLITAN REGION Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:05): My constituency question is to the Minister for Industry Support and Recovery, and it relates to those Victorians who were stuck in New South Wales when the border closed on 1 January 2021, before the traffic light system was implemented. I have been contacted by many constituents who as a result of being stuck interstate were unable to work and have no leave entitlements. These constituents were ineligible for both the $450 coronavirus test isolation payment and the $1500 pandemic leave disaster payment. These Victorians did not have COVID-19 and had not been in close contact with someone with COVID-19. As a result, many of these constituents were struggling to pay for their extended accommodation in New South Wales and other expenses. In many instances these individuals were not able to return to Victoria before 11.59 pm on 1 January as they had medical conditions or were caring for vulnerable relatives or for a variety of other reasons. So I ask: what consideration has the Victorian government given to payments or support for those who suffered financially as a result of being stuck in New South Wales due to the border closure, and will the government provide support in future if it suddenly closes the border again? SOUTHERN METROPOLITAN REGION Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:06): My matter is for the Minister for Public Transport, and it concerns the government’s new timetable that has come into operation this week, metropolitan and statewide. So many people are having longer journeys and are being forced to change; the quality of service has deteriorated under these arrangements. But in my electorate the Frankston line comes through Southern Metro, and many of the commuters in Southern Metro are being hit by the changes to the Frankston line, which will cut those trains from the city loop. It has been 40 years that trains have been running in the city loop from Frankston—since January 1981—and now under Daniel Andrews and this current minister they have cut them out. And yet Labor promised in 2014 it would not cut Frankston line trains from the city loop, and now it is doing that. So I ask the minister to review his decision and to keep Labor’s promise to keep Frankston line trains in the city loop instead of breaching that promise and cutting them out after 40 years. WESTERN VICTORIA REGION Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (12:08): My question is for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, since the Minister for Roads and Road Safety was unable to answer it in October—or even able to pass it on to his presumably close colleague. I trust that now, with the President’s important ruling in November, we have seen the last of this deliberately unhelpful practice and the waste of parliamentary time that it causes. So I ask again about the duplication of Barwon Heads Road. The federal budget last year dug the Premier out of a hole, committing $292 million and dropping the state commitment to just $73 million. My question, however, is: why has the budget blown out by $46 million, and why has the government repeatedly failed to respond to this legitimate question? I call on the minister to reveal immediately the nature and details of the $46 million cost blowout. WESTERN METROPOLITAN REGION Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (12:08): My constituency question is to the Minister for Roads and Road Safety. Minister, prior to the Premier’s lockdown VicRoads spent 13 months installing traffic lights at the intersection of Gap Road and Horne Street in Sunbury. Local residents were greatly inconvenienced that entire time, many wondering if the government was trying to set a new world record for such an installation. They were relieved, and I have to say slightly surprised, when works CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS 16 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021 finally concluded. I am sure the minister can imagine the shock of my constituents when the workers were back yesterday, with the accompanying traffic mayhem. Minister, how long will locals have to put up with this latest development? Mr Ondarchie: President, I have a point of order relating to unanswered constituency questions that I bring to the house’s attention. I find it totally unacceptable, on behalf of my constituents, that I have constituency questions that date back as far as 16 June last year—231 days. I have another one to the Minister for Mental Health, 140 days outstanding; to the Minister for Planning, 139 days outstanding; to the Minister for Public Transport, 110 days outstanding; 95 days to the Minister for Mental Health; 84 days to the Minister for Roads and Road Safety; and 56 days to the Minister for Mental Health. I draw to the house’s attention that this is an unacceptable practice from this government, who claim to be transparent and accountable. Indeed they are not, and I seek the house’s instructions to those ministers to reply to those constituency questions. The PRESIDENT: I do not know if Mr Ondarchie is aware—thanks for your point of order—but there is nothing I can do about it. It is not the house, it is you. You should chase it in a different way. Dr Cumming: President, I have the same point of order. You made a ruling to say that if we direct questions to the wrong minister, that minister will actually direct it to the right minister—seeing that the ministers are continually changing their portfolios, and this happened again today. This is for a constituency question that I raised on 10 December last year and it says, from this minister:

This matter does not fall within my portfolio responsibilities. You may wish to address your question to the Minister for Public Transport … President, could you please write a letter to all of these ministers and request, from your ruling, that if we address a question to the wrong minister, you would expect that the ministers can talk to each other and just forward it on to the minister rather than writing me a letter to tell me which minister the portfolio falls under. That was your ruling, President. The PRESIDENT: Thank you for your point of order. You know that is not in my capacity and it is not within the standing orders, but it is maybe something we can consider later on. Ms Pulford: On the point of order, as the one minister in the chamber at the moment, I think it is something of a shared responsibility. If ever there is an opportunity in the chamber, if somebody has directed a question somewhere not quite right, wherever the opportunity presents itself I think we all try to say, ‘Oh, look, you might get a better answer over here or over there’, because on so many issues there are shared interests, but obviously each individual matter has one hard point of accountability. Mr Limbrick is just there behind Dr Cumming, and I was reminded of his question about the QR codes. We knew who was responsible for each of the four different parts of the question, but it would be very difficult for somebody else, so I think we can try to all make an effort to mop them up on the way through. But of course it is also incumbent on members to have some familiarity with the general order. For instance, on the roads and transport infrastructure it is pretty clear, and I spent a year and a half redirecting traffic, which ironically was sort of also part of the job. Dr Cumming: On the point of order, my constituency question, Minister, was actually to Jacinta Allan, and she has forwarded it on to Ben Carroll, the Minister for Public Transport. So I absolutely, 100 per cent agree with what you are saying. As a member of Parliament I am trying my hardest on behalf of my constituents, so when ministers take this duckshoving time, they are not upsetting me, they are not making me look silly—they are actually not answering the questions promptly on behalf of my constituents. It is very easy for a minister—rather than writing me this letter saying, ‘Send it to this minister’—to just say, ‘I have forwarded this on to this minister because this is this minister’s responsibility’. This is actually not making me look silly, because I have got— The PRESIDENT: Thank you. I think your point of order was heard and the minister was trying to respond. When you ask a constituency question, it happens that sometimes the government changes ministers and things like that. That always happens. I am sure the minister will be happy to help you, PETITIONS Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 17 but I do not want to get involved in a debate when it is no more than a point of order. So, please, let us finish at this stage. You can talk to the minister outside. You can follow up these matters, and we will come back. Dr Cumming: President, it is not a debate. You made a ruling requesting that these ministers just forward it on to the right minister. I am just wondering if they have read your ruling and are actually doing what your ruling has requested. The PRESIDENT: And I responded to that before. Thank you. Petitions Following petitions presented to house: BUSH NURSING CENTRES • To the Legislative Council of Victoria • Concern about the lack of funding and certainty to be provided to the 15 Bush Nursing Centres across Victoria by the Andrews Labor Government • Notes the significant contribution and support Bush Nursing Centres provide to remote Victorian communities • In particular notes the enormous role Buchan, Cann Valley, Dargo, Ensay, Gelantipy, Swifts Creek, Bush Nursing Centres provided in the recent devastating bushfires including acting as a·relief centre, providing hundreds of meals for firefighters, undertaking welfare checks, and provision of primary and emergency care • And Calls on the Andrews Labor Government to immediately and properly resource Bush Nursing Centres to recognise an increase in operational costs and demands that Victoria’s Bush Nursing Centres that they constantly face. By Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (55 signatures). Laid on table. PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT To the Legislative Council of Victoria The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council the need to establish a Parliamentary inquiry into public land management. The inquiry should investigate: 1. why the policy of changing public land into parks and reserves has failed to deliver the promised environmental improvement, economic benefits and social outcomes; and 2. why several recommendations of the Bushfires Royal Commission and the Environment and Natural Resources Committees Inquiry into Public Land Management Practices on Bushfires in Victoria have not been implemented, especially those that relate to the lack of adequate fuel reduction burning; and 3. the effects of current public land management policies on the extent and severity of bushfires, on the environment and adjoining private property. The committee should make recommendations to the Government, which should include the: 1. establishment of a new public land advisory body to replace the narrow focus of the Victorian Environment Assessment Council. The new advisory body would include representation of recreational and commercial users of public land and the Country Fire Authority; and 2. the creation of a modern management system that allows for recreational and resource use of public land whilst maintaining environmental safeguards. The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council establish an inquiry into public land management and provide recommendations to the Government in a final report. By Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (75 signatures). Laid on table. PETITIONS 18 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

CHANGE OR SUPPRESSION (CONVERSION) PRACTICES PROHIBITION BILL 2020 Legislative Council Electronic Petition The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council that the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020 places too little emphasis on protecting children from physical and emotional harm and over-emphasises their entitlement to choose their treatment for gender dysphoria. Children under the age of 18 are not permitted to vote, purchase alcohol or cigarettes. Yet, this Bill permits children to choose serious, largely untested, medical treatments that can have irreversible effects. Under the threat of criminal sanction, it bans a ‘wait and see’ approach or warning against irreversible medical intervention. Promoting and protecting children’s human rights is a complex matter. Decision-makers must carefully balance the rights of a child to make choices with what is in their best interest. Important questions must be asked about a child’s capacity to provide informed consent and consider the significant risks associated with medical treatments for gender dysphoria. Young people shouldn’t have to carry the burden for consenting to their own treatment. Such decisions must involve open and honest conversations with the child, their family, health professional and community. This Bill risks silencing the loving and honest voices of family and community members. The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council vote against the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020. By Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (3625 signatures). Laid on table. Mr FINN: I move:

That the petition be taken into consideration on the next day of meeting. Motion agreed to. CHANGE OR SUPPRESSION (CONVERSION) PRACTICES PROHIBITION BILL 2020 To the Legislative Council of Victoria The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws the attention of the Legislative Council to the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020. This Bill: l. Will potentially make parents into criminals or domestic abusers, at risk of 10 years in prison, if they do anything less than fully support their young gender-questioning children in undertaking irreversible hormone replacement therapy. 2. Specifically names prayer as a criminal offence, also punishable by up to 10 years in prison. 3. Prevents same-sex attracted people asking for counsel to live faithfully according to their orthodox religious identity. Anyone counselling or providing pastoral support to help achieve this will be committing an offence and facing a potential jail term. The Petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council vote against the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020. By Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (4101 signatures). Laid on table. Mr FINN: I move:

That the petition be taken into consideration on the next day of meeting. Motion agreed to. BILLS Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 19

Bills COMMERCIAL PASSENGER VEHICLE INDUSTRY AMENDMENT BILL 2021 Introduction and first reading Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:18): I move to introduce a bill for an act to amend the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017 to make provision for and in relation to the safety and accessibility of commercial passenger vehicles and for other purposes, and I move:

That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Read first time. Mr BARTON: I move:

That the second reading be made an order of the day for the next day of meeting. Motion agreed to. Committees SCRUTINY OF ACTS AND REGULATIONS COMMITTEE Alert Digest No. 1 Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:19): Pursuant to section 35 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003, I lay on the table Alert Digest No. 1 of 2021 from the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, including appendices. I move:

That the report be published. Motion agreed to. Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (12:20): I move:

That the Council take note of the report. After a meeting in which it considered the expert advice of Associate Professor Jeremy Gans, the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee’s legal consultant wrote to the Attorney-General on 13 December requesting clarification on the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020 and its interaction with, and potential infringement of, the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities and other legislation; that was 52 days ago, more than seven weeks ago now. The bill has already passed the Assembly. It is to be discussed in this house this week, yet there is still no response from the Attorney-General. Ministers responding to letters from SARC is a key part of the scrutiny process. The committee writes only to raise serious issues. It is not a political football but an essential tool in improving the quality of Victorian legislation. The SARC process was introduced with this aim, but the contempt of ministers is undermining it. The questions raised should be answered and debated in this house before any new law is passed. This matters for any bill but all the more for a subject as controversial and potentially restrictive of freedom of expression as this bill. The Treasurer has not responded to a letter on the North East Link Bill 2020 from March last year. The Premier has not responded to SARC’s questions on the omnibus bill in June. There are another five letters unanswered from last year’s committee work. It is a clear indication that ministers consider SARC an optional extra in their work, just as they seem to take the Premier’s lead and consider Parliament an optional extra or, worse still, an inconvenience best bypassed. I just make note, as a member of the SARC committee, that it is extremely disturbing that on these important matters these ministers do not answer the questions that are rightly put by the committee. COMMITTEES 20 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (12:22): I too would like to just make some quick comments about the SARC Alert Digest No.1 of 2021, and I completely concur with Mrs McArthur. The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities is upheld by the role that the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee plays. It an absolutely crucial part of the act and of the reason we have the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. The courts can do very little, as we heard in the briefing that we had yesterday. The courts can do very little to address any breaches of the charter. SARC is actually one of the only places where concerns about breaches or infringements to that charter can be properly investigated and explored. So for ministers not to respond to what I think are very reasonable requests for further information—and, as we know, it is not like they have to say, ‘Yes, it’s compatible’. Legislation passes this place all of the time that is not compatible with the charter, but we explain why it is justifiable—and to not explain that, I think, is very disappointing. It has great impact on the charter itself, and we cannot actually have faith in that act because we have lost some faith in the process because our ministers are not responding to the committee. Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:24): (By leave) I just want to pick up Mrs McArthur’s point and the point made by my colleague here. The key point is that the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee is being treated poorly and the Parliament and the people of Victoria are increasingly being treated poorly. I have been very critical of SARC over a long period, but it is just appalling that a minister would not even deign to respond to SARC, that a minister with major bills would not even bother to send a response and explain themselves. Ms Patten said correctly that it is not as though things cannot pass here that are in breach of the charter, or indeed the common- law rights. SARC existed a long time before there was a charter of human rights and responsibilities. It is the guardian, at the end of the day, of the rights and privileges of Victorians, and some of those rights go back to the Magna Carta and way deep into British history. So I think the idea that the government would be rolling over these rights and not even be prepared to explain itself is absolutely disgraceful. I put the Attorney-General on notice. We have a series of important bills, not least the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020, which will be in this chamber this week, including likely today, and yet there has not been a response from government to SARC’s questions. It may be that, by leave, that document is tabled in the chamber as early as possible this afternoon. The government should come forward with that document. Motion agreed to. PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES COMMITTEE Inquiry into the Victorian Government’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (12:26): Pursuant to section 35 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003, I lay on the table the report on the inquiry into the Victorian government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including appendices, extracts of proceedings and minority reports. I further present transcripts of evidence, and I move:

That the transcripts of evidence lie on the table and the report be published. Motion agreed to. LEGAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES COMMITTEE Inquiry into the Victorian Government’s COVID‐19 Contact Tracing System and Testing Regime The Clerk: Pursuant to an order of the Council of 10 November 2020, I lay on the table a copy of the Legal and Social Issues Committee’s report on the inquiry into the Victorian government’s COVID‐19 contact-tracing system and testing regime. COMMITTEES Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 21

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (12:28): I present the transcripts of evidence and move:

That the transcripts of evidence lie on the table and the report be published. Motion agreed to. Ms PATTEN: I move:

That the Council take note of the report. It is a nice coincidence that the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee report on its inquiry into COVID-19 was tabled as well today. The Legal and Social Issues Committee inquiry into contact tracing and testing we adopted within six weeks. We were asked to inquire into this on 28 October, and we reported on 10 December. I would like to say that I was grateful for the many organisations, including the department, who were so quick in responding to our requests for information, for data and for experiences. We heard from many members of the community. We held three public hearings. It was a very interesting process. There was no doubt that what we found was that the system was completely overwhelmed and that in many places it failed us. When I say ‘failed’, people died. Families spent this Christmas mourning the loss of people. But what we were able to do was look very much at the current system and how it is working and what has changed. I am certainly very grateful to Professor Alan Finkel, who provided us with some of his assessments. He gave us some direction into what a top-class system of contact tracing and testing should look like, and I think we can be relatively confident that that system is in place now, that we are seeing test results returning within 24 hours, and that we are seeing close contacts contacted within 48 hours. But this is not just the work of governments and the work of organisations. This is the work of Victorians as well—the very hard work of Victorians. But we did hear that the government was late to the table with a digital data system; that our centralised health system has not assisted us in the rollout, particularly in regional areas; and that we did not take advantage of some of our public health networks and some of our GP networks when we could have, and I think that was especially and crucially important when we were looking at our CALD communities. I think we saw some real failures, but I think we have also seen that some considerable changes have been made to our systems in Victoria. I would also like to acknowledge that our Victorian health workers, both at the front line and in the contact tracing, were working around the clock, 24/7, throughout 2020. It was an extraordinarily difficult situation, and sometimes they did not have the tools they needed. I would also particularly like to thank the Parliamentary Budget Officer of the Parliament, Mr Anthony Close, who for the first time I think actually provided a parliamentary committee with some detailed budget advice as to how the money was spent and where the money went. I think that really assisted us in our deliberations. This is not over, and as we have just heard from the announcement this morning from the Premier and the Minister for Health, we are going to see further requests for further extensions of our state of emergency—or we will see legislation come before this house for debate about this. COVID is not over. We are seeing what is happening across the world. Also we are seeing what is happening in Perth and around here, so this is not over. We need to continue to monitor the situation. We have made a series of recommendations around how we think we can keep monitoring our systems to ensure that they are fit for purpose and ensure that they are meeting the needs of what we are now learning to be an ever-changing pandemic, and we will have to be nimble in our response to that. Finally, I would really like to thank the team in the Council standing committees office, who worked so hard on this inquiry and turned it around so quickly: our inquiry officer, Caitlin Connally; our research assistants, Meagan Murphy and Holly McLean; Justine Donohue and Cat Smith for administrative assistance; and of course the unflappable committee manager, Lilian Topic. I would also like to thank all the members of the committee, who really came forward and worked respectfully and openly. We took this on professionally and diligently. I commend the report to the house. COMMITTEES 22 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:33): I rise to also comment on the inquiry into contact tracing. I was very pleased that this house actually supported the motion that I moved to undertake this really important inquiry into the failures of the Andrews Labor government in contact tracing, because as Ms Patten said, people died—yes, over 800 Victorians died—as a result of the hotel quarantine breaches and the failures in contact tracing. That is an absolute tragedy for the family members of those 801 Victorians. I want to put on record my thanks to the secretariat. As Ms Patten said, we had six weeks to do this inquiry, and those witnesses that came before us gave us that evidence and gave us the conclusions, and as a result I think our inquiry actually gave the Victorian public more information and more confidence than the farcical hotel quarantine inquiry fiasco that was undertaken, because in six weeks we were able to determine what was going on and we were able to see what improvements needed to be made. Can I say that the inquiry did show many failings of the Andrews Labor government, exposing its failure to properly respond to outbreaks of COVID-19, which also contributed to the prolonged second wave. We heard from witnesses who spoke of the perceived reluctance of the Andrews government to appropriately prepare for the COVID-19 pandemic. Others were scathing in their assessment of the former Department of Health and Human Services’ defensive culture and lack of transparency. And that is what we have had through this entire pandemic: a lack of transparency and a lack of clear understanding of the government’s response. We have had arbitrary and kneejerk decisions the whole way along. I am very pleased that we were able to undertake this inquiry, and I want to thank all members and all witnesses and especially the secretariat for the work that they did to enable us to do that very important work. Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (12:35): I would just like to add to Ms Patten’s and Ms Crozier’s comments on the committee stage. It was a very interesting committee to be part of and, as they have both said, it was done in an incredibly short time frame. We do thank our secretariat, led by Lilian Topic, and all of the staff for the work that they did in assisting us to table this report. The report did find that the government’s systems were inadequate, and that is very sad for the families of the 820 people who have died in Victoria. I think the most concerning thing for me was to hear that the government had rejected an offer from Salesforce to implement a tracing system in March that would have hopefully prevented many of the deaths that occurred in Victoria. It was very clear that once the government realised that their system of using pens and paper and fax machines was not working, they then did take up that offer from Salesforce later on. They also took up the offer from New South Wales for New South Wales to show them how to do contact tracing, and things improved from that point on. But it is very sad for Victoria and for the families of the 820 people who died that the government did not get their act together sooner and were not prepared for the contact tracing as other states were and that we saw so many deaths in Victoria. Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (12:37): Firstly, I want to thank the committee members and contributors to the report for their hard work. We thank the former Department of Health and Human Services for their cooperation with the inquiry and all the stakeholders for their invaluable submissions. I want to single out the committee secretariat in the Council standing committee’s office, who worked relentlessly and diligently on this inquiry. Given the important nature of the topic it was crucial that this report be produced in a very, very short time frame. These are complex matters and the government, I believe, will respond in due course. But I have to say that the COVID-19 pandemic has been a one-in-100-years event and is an ever-changing situation that has put pressure on governments to rapidly expand their public health response. In response to the coronavirus pandemic the Andrews Labor government invested more than $1.9 billion in the Victorian health system. This injection of funds ensured that Victorian hospitals were well equipped with staff, equipment and infrastructure to tackle the increase in cases. I thank the staff and the frontline workers. PAPERS Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 23

The contact tracing and testing in place at present is world class, as confirmed by no-one less than the former chief scientist, Dr Alan Finkel, and it has helped us to suppress quickly recent outbreaks. Today is the 27th day without a community-transmitted case. Given the situation experienced in Queensland, South Australia and now Western Australia, it is clear that the methods utilised by the Victorian government are the standard to which state governments act when faced with a coronavirus outbreak. Motion agreed to. Papers OMBUDSMAN Investigation into the Detention and Treatment of Public Housing Residents Arising from a COVID- 19 ‘Hard Lockdown’ in July 2020 The Clerk: Pursuant to section 25AA(4)(c) of the Ombudsman Act 1973, I lay on the table a copy of the Ombudsman’s report Investigation into the Detention and Treatment of Public Housing Residents Arising from a COVID-19 ‘Hard Lockdown’ in July 2020. BOARD OF INQUIRY INTO THE COVID-19 HOTEL QUARANTINE PROGRAM COVID-19 Hotel Quarantine Inquiry Final Report and Recommendations The Clerk: Pursuant to section 77(3)(c) of the Inquiries Act 2014, I lay on the table a copy of the COVID-19 Hotel Quarantine Inquiry Final Report and Recommendations, December 2020. ROYAL COMMISSION INTO VIOLENCE, ABUSE, NEGLECT AND EXPLOITATION OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY Report on Public Hearing 5: Experiences of People with Disability during the Ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic The Clerk: Pursuant to section 37(3)(c) of the Inquiries Act 2014, I lay on the table a copy of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability Report on Public Hearing 5: Experiences of People with Disability during the Ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 9th Report to Parliament on the State of Emergency The Clerk: Pursuant to section 198(8B)(b) of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, I lay on the table a copy of the 9th Report to Parliament on the State of Emergency. PAPERS Tabled by Clerk: Bendigo Cemeteries Trust—Report, 2019–20. Crimes (Assumed Identities) Act 2004—Report, 2019–20, under section 31 by Victoria Police. Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958—Report, 2019–20, under section 42BI by Victoria Police. Judicial Entitlements Act 2015—Attorney-General’s recommendation statement to the 2020 Own Motion Recommendation Report of the Judicial Entitlements Panel, under section 34 of the Act. Murray-Darling Basin Authority—Report, 2019–20. Planning and Environment Act 1987—Notices of Approval of the following amendments to planning schemes— Alpine Planning Scheme—Amendment C55. Ararat, Boroondara, Glen Eira, Greater Geelong, Knox, Melbourne, Queenscliffe, Wellington and Whitehorse Planning Schemes—Amendment GC172. Banyule Planning Scheme—Amendment C153. PAPERS 24 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

Banyule, Boroondara, Manningham, Nillumbik, Stonnington and Yarra Planning Schemes— Amendment GC177. Baw Baw Planning Scheme—Amendment C131. Boroondara Planning Scheme—Amendments C305, C318, C330, C334 and C338. Boroondara and Knox Planning Schemes—Amendment GC178. Brimbank, Greater Geelong, Melbourne, Whittlesea Planning Schemes—Amendment GC176. Cardinia Planning Scheme—Amendments C234 and C251. Casey Planning Scheme—Amendment C258. Colac Otway Planning Scheme—Amendment C107. Darebin Planning Scheme—Amendment C196. Frankston Planning Scheme—Amendment C147. Glen Eira Planning Scheme—Amendments C201 and C219. Glenelg Planning Scheme—Amendment C105. Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme—Amendments C232 and C245. Greater Geelong Planning Scheme—Amendments C419 and C424. Greater Shepparton, Hume, Mitchell, Strathbogie and Whittlesea Planning Schemes— Amendment GC174. Indigo Planning Scheme—Amendment C74. Latrobe Planning Scheme—Amendment C129. Manningham Planning Scheme—Amendment C131. Mansfield Planning Scheme—Amendment C46. Maribyrnong Planning Scheme—Amendment C171. Melbourne Planning Scheme—Amendments C391 and C400. Moonee Valley Planning Scheme—Amendment C215. Moorabool Planning Scheme—Amendment C96. Moreland Planning Scheme—Amendments C167, C200 and C211. Murrindindi Planning Scheme—Amendment C70. Nillumbik Planning Scheme—Amendment C132. Port of Melbourne Planning Scheme—Amendment C2. Southern Grampians Planning Scheme—Amendment C57. Victoria Planning Provisions—Amendment VC188. Wangaratta Planning Scheme—Amendment C84. Whittlesea Planning Scheme—Amendments C250, C254 and C256. Yarra Planning Scheme—Amendments C238 and C289. Project Development and Construction Management Act 1994—Nomination Order and Application Order of 22 December 2020, under sections 6 and 8 of the Act and a statement of reasons for making a Nomination Order of 14 December 2020, under section 9 of the Act. Statutory Rules under the following Acts of Parliament— Child Wellbeing and Safety Act 2005—No. 135/2020. Climate Change Act 2007—No. 144/2020. Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017—No. 146/2020. COVID-19 Omnibus (Emergency Measures) Act 2020—No. 147/2020. Criminal Procedure Act 2009—No. 134/2020. Dangerous Goods Act 1985—No. 140/2020. Education and Training Reform Act 2006—No. 143/2020. Electricity Safety Act 1998—No. 136/2020. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 25

Family Violence Protection Act 2008—No. 139/2020. National Parks Act 1975—No. 137/2020. Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004—No. 141/2020. Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008—Nos. 149/2020 and 1/2021. Residential Tenancies Act 1997—No. 3/2021. Service Victoria Act 2018—No. 138/2020. Subordinate Legislation Act 1994—No. 145/2020. Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Act 2007—No. 142/2020. Wildlife Act 1975—No. 148/2020. Worker Screening Act 2020—No. 2/2021. Subordinate Legislation Act 1994— Documents under section 15 in respect of Statutory Rule Nos. 130/2020, 133/2020 to 143/2020, 145/2020 to 148/2020, 1/2021 and 2/2021. Legislative instruments and related documents under section 16B in respect of— Code for the Disabled Persons Parking Scheme, 29 October 2020 under the Road Safety Act 1986. Determination of Objectives to Minimise Salinity Impacts from Irrigation in High Salinity Impact Zones 2021 of 21 December 2020 under the Water Act 1989. Determination of Salinity Impact Zones and Salinity Impact Charges 2021 of 21 December 2020 under the Water Act 1989. Electricity Safety Exemption Order 2020 of 22 December 2020 under the Electricity Safety Act 1998. Ministerial Order of 13 January 2021 amending Ministerial Order 1316 (Constitution of Government School Councils) 2020, under the Education and Training Reform Act 2006. Surveillance Devices Act 1999—Report, 2019–20, under section 30L by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission. Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation—Report, 2019–20. Proclamations of the Governor in Council fixing operative dates in respect of the following acts:

Cladding Safety Victoria Act 2020—Whole Act (other than ss 57A, 57B, 57C, 57D, 57E, 57F and 58A)— 1 December 2020; remaining provisions—1 February 2021 (Gazette No. S624, 1 December 2020). Consumer Legislation Amendment Act 2020—Part 4—1 February 2021 (Gazette No. S685, 22 December 2020). Parks and Crown Land Legislation Amendment Act 2020—Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 (except section 30), Part 4 (except sections 32, 33 and 34), Part 5 (except section 49), Part 6 (except section 61), Part 7 (except sections 63, 64, 68, 70, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 82(3), 83, 84(3), 109, 110, 111 and 112), Part 8, Part 9 and Part 11—15 December 2020 (Gazette No. S666, 15 December 2020). Police and Emergency Legislation Amendment Act 2020—Whole Act (other than sections 3 and 4 and Parts 4 and 5)—2 December 2020 (Gazette No. S624, 1 December 2020). Project Development and Construction Management Amendment Act 2020—Whole Act—22 December 2020 (Gazette No. S685, 22 December 2020). Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2018—Remaining provisions—29 March 2021 (Gazette No. S42, 27 January 2021). Worker Screening Act 2020—Whole Act (other than Division 19 of Part 9.3)—1 February 2021 (Gazette No. S647, 8 December 2020). Business of the house NOTICES Notices of motion given. Notices of intention to make a statement given. MEMBERS STATEMENTS 26 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

GENERAL BUSINESS Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:54): I move, by leave:

That precedence be given to the following general business on Wednesday, 3 February 2021: (1) the notice of motion given this day by Mr Barton on the production of documents relating to the multipurpose taxi program trial; (2) the notice of motion given this day by Mr Davis on the attendance of the Ombudsman and the IBAC Commissioner in the Council chamber; (3) the notice of motion given this day by Ms Crozier on the New South Wales border closures; (4) notice of motion 386 standing in the name of Mr Davis on the production of documents relating to advice received by the Minister for Transport Infrastructure on CRRC Changchun Railway Vehicles Co. Ltd and the high-capacity metro construction; and (5) notice of motion 422, standing in the name of Mr Hayes, concerning sessional order 8 and standing order 5.03 allowing new time limits for general business. Motion agreed to. Members statements EASTERN VICTORIA REGION VOLUNTEER COASTGUARDS AND LIFESAVING CLUBS Ms GARRETT (Eastern Victoria) (12:55): Late last year I, like many other MPs, was delighted that coastguards and lifesaving clubs across my electorate of Eastern Victoria had successfully received funding to share in the Victorian government’s $20 million investment into the emergency services refurbishment fund. This is all part of the Andrews Labor government’s $2.7 billion building works package, which supports Victorian businesses and workers affected by the downturn in the economy caused by the pandemic to develop job opportunities within the local community. The most deserving and hardworking clubs that achieved successful funding include Mornington Life Saving Club, Mount Martha Life Saving Club, Woodside Beach Surf Life Saving Club, Mornington Volunteer Marine Rescue, Paynesville coastguard, Port Welshpool coastguard and Western Port coastguard. This funding boost will allow all these clubs to improve the conditions of their infrastructure and to continue the incredible work that they do to keep their communities safe. What we have all seen this summer is just how important that work is. It has been a treacherous stretch, and unfortunately we again lost too many lives. I take this opportunity to thank all of our coastguards and lifeguards right across this beautiful state. They have their work cut out for them, and it is really important that all Victorians take heed and swim between those flags. PRINCES HIGHWAY, TYNONG NORTH Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (12:57): Recently there was a fatality at Tynong North near Gumbuya World in my electorate. Gumbuya World is a fantastic addition to my electorate and an attraction for people across Victoria, but this tragedy, this fatality that took place on 25 January, demonstrates that this part of the Princes Highway must be upgraded. It needs additional safety measures to stop this type of tragedy happening again, and I call on the Minister for Roads and Road Safety to take urgent and immediate action. PAULINE POWELL Mr O’DONOHUE: On a different matter, I would like to note the passing of Pauline Powell, OAM, who was a committed community pharmacist in Rye from 1958 to 1994 and was involved in so many local community organisations on the southern Mornington Peninsula. She was made a life governor of the then Southern Peninsula Hospital in 1971, she was made an honorary life member of the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia in 2005 and she was heavily involved in the local historical society and a range of other important community organisations. Ms Powell was a friend and MEMBERS STATEMENTS Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 27 colleague of my father, who was also a community pharmacist on the Mornington Peninsula for three decades. She was a woman of integrity who added so much. My sympathies to her family. COVID-19 Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (12:58): On New Year’s Eve a year ago I was at my family farm at Adelong. The parties were cancelled. We were frantically running around because lightning had started a fire that would not go out. That fire then crashed over the border into Victoria and burnt for weeks. I could say something about the failure to properly control the fire on the first night, but this members statement is not about that fire. This year on New Year’s Eve the government lit a fire. At 4.00 pm they announced the New South Wales-Victoria border would be closed at midnight. Having a week earlier started a desperate rush for the Victorian border by New South Wales residents desperate to avoid having their family Christmases cancelled, they now started a much larger rush as tens of thousands of Victorians cut short their holidays and raced desperately to get home before midnight. Never mind that this border closure was a massive overreaction to a small outbreak in Sydney that was, as it later became apparent, competently managed. Never mind that the shutdown caused further devastation to border economies and to border communities. The way this border closure was announced and implemented was grossly incompetent—people packing everything into cars and driving for the border; sitting in queues for up to 7 hours; driving non-stop all night to try to make the cut-off; the roads into Victoria turning into peak-hour city gridlock; people making the decision to drive after drinking because they could not afford to be quarantined for weeks; and broken-down cars on the sides of the highway, leaving Victorian families watching the exodus stream by. This government lit this unnecessary fire on our borders. Whether it was panic based on past failures or just COVID theatre for Melbourne voters, your overreaction burnt many Victorians and border residents. AUSTRALIA DAY AWARDS Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (13:00): As a member of Parliament it is always an honour to join many communities throughout my electorate to celebrate Australia Day and acknowledge the wonderful contributors that help make our country so great, and Australia Day 2021 was no different. My Australia Day celebrations started just over a week early when I attended the Moira shire Australia Day awards on 14 January in Cobram. It was a pleasure to join mayor Libro Mustica and the local community to honour local award recipients, including Citizens of the Year Numurkah’s Bernadette Steward and Nathalia’s David McKenzie and Young Citizens of the Year Isabella Boys from Cobram and Justin Watson from Nathalia. On Australia Day I attended the Greater Shepparton City Council’s celebrations in the Queens Gardens. I congratulate all those recognised with Australia Day awards, including Greater Shepparton’s Citizen of the Year Camuran Albanoi and Greater Shepparton’s Young Citizen of the Year Natalie Dobbyn. In Shepparton, Camuran was also Citizen of the Year and Alana Cook was the Young Citizen of the Year, and Senior Citizen of the Year was John Painter. I then travelled to Tatura, where I was honoured to speak at the ceremony and acknowledge many community members, including Citizen of the Year Kaye Watson. It was then on to Mooroopna, where I again spoke and paid tribute to more recipients, including Mooroopna’s Citizen of the Year, Cath Birkett. I finished Australia Day in Nathalia for the town’s twilight ceremony, and I gave a short address and assisted in presenting Citizen of the Year to David Vaughan and Junior Citizen of the Year to Justin Watson. I would like to congratulate the many winners of local community Australia Day awards and the recipients of Australia Day honours throughout my electorate. MEMBERS STATEMENTS 28 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

INVASION DAY RALLY Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (13:02): I was proud to stand alongside thousands of Victorians at the Invasion Day rally on 26 January this year in solidarity with our First Nations people. A tide is turning. These rallies have grown year after year as more and more of us come to recognise that 26 January is a day of mourning for the loss and devastation endured by our First People since colonisation. While we should be proud that Victoria has embarked on a journey towards a treaty with its First People, we cannot ignore the daily disadvantage, discrimination and oppression suffered by our First Nations and must recommit to doing all that we can in this place to end deaths in custody, disproportionate incarceration and the racism that First Nations people experience every day. This movement should not and cannot be ignored. The rise of the Black Lives Matter rallies across the world should make every one of us recognise that we need to reckon with the injustices that continue daily. Sadly we are seeing too many, including people in this place, respond to the calls for racial justice by denying, ignoring and, worse still, attacking those already on the receiving end of historic systemic racism. Just last week we heard disturbing reports about a group of Neo-Nazis meeting for a training camp in the Grampians. That sent a shiver down my spine. To know that these parts of our society are getting mobilised is horrifying. We cannot dismiss this threat as isolated. The far-right and right-wing nationalism is having an effect on our politics. We see some parts of the media give these groups a platform to preach hate and normalise bigotry and vilification. I have seen some in here do the same. It is time to call this out; it is time to tell the truth, reconcile, heal and end racism. COVID-19 Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (13:03): The farce of the hotel quarantine inquiry has been further exposed, with legal representation of the government costing more than the inquiry itself—an inquiry that could not get the answers to the most basic of questions of who made the decision to hire private security. If the inquiry had the powers of a royal commission, documents and key witnesses, such as the Premier’s chief of staff, could have been called and provided that evidence that was so necessary—not just the inquiry making a creeping assumption on various issues that were raised. There are still questions that remain, and surely if this government had any decency whatsoever they would have ensured a full royal commission into what went wrong and why—not a selective board of inquiry with limited powers. Over 800 Victorians lost their lives due to the policy decisions made by the Andrews government. Not only do the family members of those who lost their lives deserve the truth, so does every single Victorian. Instead, what Victorians heard was an orchestrated legal response of ‘I can’t recall. I can’t remember’ from the bureaucrats, ministers and Premier that fronted the inquiry. What a deceptive move to make on the Victorian public. The inquiry itself was around $5.7 million in costs, and we still have not got the final figure of the legal fees. It says a lot about an individual when the bureaucrats, the ministers and the Premier are all legalled up to protect themselves with their unconvincing collective amnesia at the inquiry. If Daniel Andrews had any decency, he would have allowed the truth to come out. He was prepared to spend more defending and protecting his government than getting to the truth. These lawyers— (Time expired) KINGSTON PLANNING Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (13:05): I have been contacted by residents concerned about the erosion of Kingston’s green wedge. The proposed train stabling yard is to be built in the green wedge at Heatherton, but this green wedge land was promised to form a chain of parks by the government. It is theft of green wedge space by a government which made much of protecting Melbourne’s green wedges from so-called ‘Skyscraper Guy’. This is not the only incursion into green wedge open space. Places of worship, car washes, schools and concrete crushers have all been shoved into what was once mandated to be preserved as the lungs of our city. How absolutely inappropriate BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 29 that this green wedge site, now preserved as parkland, will be used for the train stabling yards. Theft of green wedge and sporting parks will never be reclaimed once the rail yards are there. The Heatherton community has spent 30 years fighting the proposed industrial uses on the Delta site and was promised by both local and state governments that they were committed to transforming this green wedge land into a chain of parks. The announcement by the government of the extra pocket parks in various locations is mere window-dressing. It is in comparison a distraction, shuffling the deckchairs on the Titanic of disappearing green wedges. I call on the government to immediately withdraw its proposal and look at alternative sites put up by the green wedge coalition. OLGA TENNISON Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (13:06): Some people have a profound influence for the better on the lives of others. One such individual was Mrs Olga Tennison. Her generosity and support was directly responsible for the establishment of Australia’s first research centre dedicated to autism in 2008, the Olga Tennison Autism Research Centre based at La Trobe University. Can I also say that I believe it to be the best in Australia. I recall the first time that I visited OTARC and the excitement I felt when viewing the work the centre was doing to assist families with autism. I have kept a very close eye on the wonderful work it continues to do. It really is an amazing place, an extraordinary place indeed. It was with great sadness that I learned of the death of Mrs Tennison on 19 January. What an extraordinary legacy this extraordinary human being has left. Thousands will never forget what she has done, what she has contributed to so many. I offer my most sincere sympathy to Mrs Tennison’s family and those that loved her the most. They can take consolation in the knowledge that she has made life better for many who otherwise would not have enjoyed that improvement. Olga Tennison, thank you. Thank you for all you have done. May you rest in peace. WOMBAT HOUSING SUPPORT SERVICES Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (13:08): I rise to commend the work of Wombat Housing Support Services, one of the largest providers of housing-related support services to people in Western Metro. It is a community-based organisation. They provide crucial services to a wide range of the community. Wombat’s services include support and advocacy for social housing tenants; support programs for Department of Health youth clients; transitional support services for families, single people and youth; and support programs for young people on parole and leaving care. Over 30 per cent of social housing applicants are on a priority list and can wait up to 10 years for a property. In my electorate they are put on a temporary basis in a nearby hospital with no kitchen facilities in their rooms. The incredible demand often means that the client who is desperate for housing will return to their abuser or continue to couch surf when they can do so. They do everything they can do to keep going, often living under financial stress and in unsafe conditions. Wombat are doing a great job through their programs of breaking these cycles, and I would like to thank Wombat services on behalf of my community. Business of the house NOTICES OF MOTION Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (13:10): I move:

That the consideration of notices of motion, government business, 403 to 447, be postponed until later this day. Motion agreed to. BILLS 30 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

Bills CONSUMER AND OTHER ACTS MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS BILL 2020 Second reading Debate resumed on motion of Ms PULFORD: That the bill be now read a second time. Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (13:10): I rise to make a few brief remarks on the Consumer and Other Acts Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2020. This is a bill that has actually been in the Parliament for the best part of eight months. It was introduced in the other place in mid- June and sat on the notice paper over there until our sitting in December, and indeed several provisions in this bill were redundant as a consequence of the time which had elapsed since its original introduction to Parliament and its subsequent passage through the Assembly and now progress to this place. So there were house amendments passed in the other place to knock out a number of the amending provisions in this bill. In essence this is an omnibus bill that seeks to amend, or did seek to amend, 12 principal acts in the broader consumer affairs portfolio. Just to run through those briefly, the amendments the bill sought to make were to amend the Associations Incorporation Reform Act 2012 with respect to annual financial reporting requirements for tier 2 incorporated associations and to update a reference to what is now Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand—which I think used to be Chartered Accountants Australia, so it is merely a name reference change—and to clarify the requirements with respect to tier 2 incorporated associations. The tier 2 associations are those with turnover between $250 000 and $1 million. There are the smaller associations with less than $250 000 turnover and the large associations with more than $1 million, and these are the mid-tier associations. I will come back to associations shortly. The bill seeks to amend in the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 the definition of ‘intergovernmental agreement’ to refer to intergovernmental agreements which are ‘in force from time to time’, because the current act refers to particular agreements made at a certain date. Obviously as COAG and the ministerial councils amend those agreements or change those agreements, the operative dates of those agreements will change. So a reference to an agreement as ‘in force from time to time’ will ensure that in future that statute will not need to be repeatedly changed as those agreements change. The bill amends the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 in relation to wagering and betting, keno and the monitoring licence and amends the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 in relation to betting on licensed premises, and it seeks:

(e) to amend the Residential Tenancies Act 1997— (i) to provide for periodic residential rental agreements in writing to be in the prescribed standard form; and (ii) to provide that certain notices to vacate cannot be issued if a caravan park or Part 4A site is to be closed; and (iii) to change the repeal of Part 16 of that Act to 26 September 2020; and (f) to amend the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2018 to make further amendments and to clarify the operation of various amendments in that Act; and (g) to amend the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 as a consequence of the enactment of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2018; and (h) to amend the Rooming House Operators Act 2016 to clarify the duration of a rooming house operator’s licence in respect of which an application for renewal has been made … BILLS Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 31

The bill then sought in its introduction draft:

(i) to amend the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 to provide for the delegation of certain powers and duties to specified Tribunal staff and to make related and consequential amendments; and (j) to amend the Victims of Crime Commissioner Act 2015— (i) to extend the maximum period of appointment for committee members; and (ii) to enable committee members who are victims of crime to be reappointed for a period of up to 6 months and to clarify that those members may receive remuneration and allowances; and (k) to amend the Working with Children Act 2005— (i) to require the Secretary to disclose information to the ACC about negative notices given under that Act; and (ii) to obtain from the ACC and use information about persons who have been excluded from child- related work in another State or a Territory … As I indicated, this bill has been on the notice paper for eight months. As a consequence, the amendments to the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996, the Victims of Crime Commissioner Act 2015 and the Working with Children Act 2005 were actually overtaken by subsequent legislation, and accordingly those provisions in this bill were omitted by way of house amendment in the other place. So the bill no longer seeks to amend those particular principal acts. As I said, with those omissions the bill covers nine principal statutes that it seeks to amend, and I will just comment briefly on a couple of those. The first amendments are in relation to the Associations Incorporation Reform Act 2012. Many members of Parliament have extensive dealings with incorporated associations. Most community groups that members deal with—community groups, clubs et cetera—are constituted as incorporated associations under that act. So it is a very important piece of legislation for the Victorian community. It sets out in the new act, which was put in place by the former Liberal-National government, model rules and a model constitution which incorporated associations can adopt and can then, in accordance with the act, modify. One of the areas, though, which I have in recent years seen as a growing area of concern is the framework around ensuring that the provisions of the act—be it the constitution and model rules or the alternatives which are put in place by an incorporated association—are actually upheld. There are very limited capacities available under that act for a member of an incorporated association who believes there has been a mismanagement or there has been a deliberate act by committee members of an incorporated association to seek redress through Consumer Affairs Victoria. One of the problems we have in some of these associations, which might be made up of a couple of hundred members, is you will have a group or a faction within an association gain control of an association and then seek to use their position as office-bearers in an association to block access of other members to the association or to use their position as office-bearers to actually ensure that they are able to continue their position as office-bearers by not conducting elections in accordance with the constitution of the particular association or by not necessarily managing the finances of an association in accordance with its constitution or the act. And there are very few opportunities for a member who is not part of the administration of an association and who becomes aware of that to actually seek redress from Consumer Affairs Victoria or seek enforcement from Consumer Affairs Victoria. Even when there are well-founded concerns and well-grounded evidence that a constitution is not being upheld, there are very few avenues available for members of incorporated associations to actually seek redress and seek to have constitutions enforced. Even where members may be elected to a committee of management in an incorporated association, if they are in a minority, the capacity for an association or paid executives at an association to ignore a committee member—notwithstanding that there are certain powers given to committee members, that there are certain powers or entitlements given to all association members to have access to documents et cetera—and the capacity for a professional executive in an association to ignore those rights of members and rights of board members seems to be, in many respects, without challenge, because there are very few opportunities for BILLS 32 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

Consumer Affairs Victoria to engage and seek redress or seek remedy for those situations. In recent years in my electorate, talking to a number of incorporated associations and their members, I have come across numerous examples where constitutions, by-laws and replaceable rules are not being upheld in associations and there is very limited opportunity for that to be corrected. The other area I will touch on briefly is the amendments to the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 and the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998, which sit under the purview of the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation. This is an area where I think many Victorians have concerns, and those concerns relate to the apparent way in which the commission has been asleep in relation to its responsibilities in gambling. Particularly I refer to of course the casino, Crown Casino, where we have seen over the last 12 months a number of revelations in New South Wales through its inquiry process around the Barangaroo casino licence, issues arising from what occurred with Crown in China—and nothing but silence from the commission here in Victoria. We know that there is a very close relationship between the Premier and the principals of Crown Casino, but that does not take away from the responsibility that the commission has to ensure that the licence conditions for Crown, the statutory obligations under the gambling act for Crown, are upheld and adhered to. It is frankly an embarrassment to Victoria that we have seen the revelations come out of New South Wales and there has been no commensurate action in Victoria, and indeed until the public disclosure in New South Wales, there was apparently no activity at all from the Victorian regulator in ensuring that probity was being upheld in that operation when clearly what has come out of New South Wales suggests there is a number of concerns. The other area I will touch on is the amendment to the Rooming House Operators Act 2016. Rooming houses are something with which I have become very familiar in my electorate, particularly in and around Dandenong, where there are a number of rooming houses on the periphery of the Dandenong CBD. There is a number of concerns in those areas in the local community as to the way in which rooming houses are operating and the way in which they are being overseen by Consumer Affairs Victoria. Last year I put in a number of questions on notice to the minister with respect to oversight of rooming houses, with respect to onsite inspections of rooming houses, and the information that came back in response to those questions on notice revealed that inspections by CAV of those rooming houses, despite a high level of community concern about some of the activities that go on in those rooming houses, are in fact very, very limited. There are very limited inspections of those rooming houses to ensure that the obligations under their licences and the obligations under the act are being enforced. So again we are seeing shortcomings in the consumer affairs area, where important oversight functions, important regulatory functions, are not being performed at an adequate level to ensure that the problems which have been occurring around those Dandenong rooming houses are being addressed. So it continues to be of concern to the community in Dandenong. I am thinking particularly of the triangle to the west of the CBD, the broader Hemmings Street area west of the Dandenong CBD, where there has been ineffective oversight of rooming houses by CAV and where that problem is continuing to this day. This bill is an omnibus bill. The amendments it makes are relatively minor in their nature and cover a broad spectrum of principal legislation in the consumer affairs portfolio. The coalition does not oppose this bill, and I expect that finally, after eight months on the notice paper in this Parliament, we will see its passage today. Mr ERDOGAN (Southern Metropolitan) (13:24): I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in support of the Consumer and Other Acts Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2020. This bill amends several acts in the consumer affairs, gaming and liquor regulation portfolio to improve their operation, clarify requirements and update outdated references. Notably the bill includes important amendments to establish future gambling licensing arrangements and amendments to support the implementation of the government’s residential tenancies reforms. It addresses numerous portfolio issues identified by stakeholders and delivers a package of reforms to a wide range of consumer laws. This bill BILLS Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 33 demonstrates the government’s commitment to ensuring Victorian consumers have protections that are strong, fair and workable. It also assists the implementation of a number of key portfolio initiatives, including the Fairer Safer Housing package of rental reforms and future gambling licensing arrangements. Firstly, the bill will reform the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 and implement the Victorian government’s policy decisions following the keno licensing project and the wagering and betting licensing project. Considering that existing licences are due to expire in 2022 and 2024 respectively, this is the right time to reform and modernise the regulatory framework that surrounds these types of gaming products by establishing future gambling licensing arrangements. The bill removes the registration-of-interest stage from the wagering and betting licensing process. In doing so it brings the wagering and betting licensing process in line with the more flexible and less onerous process applied to lotteries and keno licensing, which already benefit from a more streamlined application process. This amendment will reduce red tape to make the process more efficient for licence applicants and governments alike. It makes the change while maintaining existing probity measures, including the appointment of external probity advisers and oversight by the independent review panel. This will help ensure integrity and fairness throughout the licensing process. The bill will give the minister responsible the authority to determine how many keno licences should be issued during each licence-awarding process, how long their terms should be and whether they should incorporate exclusivity periods. The amendment will allow the Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation to determine the number of keno licences to be issued during the licensing procedure. This will provide the government more flexibility in responding to the latest market conditions when awarding licences, allowing the government to extract maximum value from its keno licences for the benefit of all Victorians. The bill also takes an important step in protecting Victorians from gambling-related harm by giving the minister responsible the authority to issue harm minimisation directives to keno game providers on a point-of-consumption basis. This will ensure the keno harm minimisation framework will apply to all gambling providers that provide keno games to Victorians, irrespective of where they are licensed. This is a very important area of modernisation given the rise of online betting and wagering products out there. Accordingly, the minister responsible will be able to prohibit interjurisdictional licensed keno game providers, such as those based in other states and territories, from offering potentially harmful products to Victorian consumers. These reforms will also allow the Victorian government to place conditions on any keno games that are offered to consumers if it is warranted. These measures will be particularly important in addressing the risk of harm carried by online gambling. The changes will bring keno’s harm minimisation measures into line with Victoria’s wagering and betting arrangements, where point-of-consumption harm minimisation measures have been put in place to support the implementation of the national consumer protection framework for online wagering. The amendments in this bill will introduce obligations on keno licensees regarding the management of registered player accounts and player funds, strengthening the provision around the management of online keno accounts. The new measures and obligations— The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Erdogan. I have to interrupt the house and allow the chamber to be cleaned. Sitting suspended 1.29 pm until 2.05 pm. Mr ERDOGAN: As I stated earlier, the amendments to the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 will be particularly important in addressing the risk of harm carried by online gambling. The amendments in this bill will introduce obligations on keno licensees regarding the management of registered player accounts and player funds, strengthening the provisions around the management of online keno BILLS 34 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021 accounts. The new measures put obligations on the keno licensee to verify the identity of registered players and keep registered player funds in trust for the player, and they require licensees to provide the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation with a list of their registered players upon request. These measures will help to mitigate the risks of under-age online gambling and enhance consumer protections by legislating the ways in which player funds must be held and remitted by licensees. They mimic the measures that are required of the wagering and betting licensees. The bill introduces a regulation-making power by allowing the minister responsible to further specify features of a keno game by prescribing certain matters such as the minimum and maximum frequency of draws. Another area of reform is the residential tenancies amendments, which many in this chamber would have heard about or followed the passing of legislation on in 2019. The bill also makes a number of amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 and the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2018 to support the effective implementation of the government’s rental reform package. It clarifies the period within which a renter must reimburse a residential rental provider for the reasonable cost of repairs to 14 days after the repairs are completed. By making this crucial clarification it reduces the confusion for tenants and landlords alike and helps avoid unnecessary conflict. It also ensures better living standards for Victorian renters by requiring rental minimum standards to comply with an industry or statutory standard besides those enshrined in existing legislation. Enshrining this requirement in legislation will allow greater flexibility to set rental minimum standards which promote energy and water efficiency going beyond the bare minimum. It specifies that such terms are void and unenforceable, protecting tenants from agreements where they are pressured to contribute to fees which they are not liable for. This bill will amend the new definition of the term ‘temporary crisis accommodation’ to provide flexibility in settling future requirements for the prescription of such accommodation. This amendment will remove the requirement to have a prescribed period for such accommodation, helping vulnerable Victorians benefit from the accommodation for a longer period than originally envisioned or necessary. It also inserts new provisions to provide for the termination of existing agreements and the creation of new agreements where a party to an agreement has been subject to family or personal violence. These provisions support victims of family or personal violence by making arrangements for rental agreements to be amended in light of hardship or intervention. The bill also carries an amendment to provide for the expiry of COVID-19 emergency measures contained in part 16 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 on 26 September 2020. This is to ensure alignment with the expiry of the Residential Tenancies Regulations 2020 and facilitate the smooth transition to the commencement of the new rental laws in 2021. Finally, the bill carries an amendment to the Consumer Legislation Amendment Act 2019 to ensure that residential tenancies amendments carried by this act can commence at the same time as the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2018. This bill also includes two small but important reforms in relation to the consumer affairs portfolio. It will amend the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 to reflect the endorsement of a revised intergovernmental agreement by consumer affairs ministers from the commonwealth, states and territories on 30 August 2019 to ensure the act continues to operate effectively. In order to avoid the need for future amendments, the revised definition will be capable of applying to any future iteration of the agreement as well. The bill will also amend the Rooming House Operators Act 2016 to clarify that, when a rooming house operator has applied to the Business Licensing Authority for renewal of their licence within the period permitted by the act, their existing licence remains in force until a decision has been made to renew or to refuse the renewal of a licence. To be clear, this amendment will provide greater certainty for rooming house operators by clarifying that existing licensees will remain active while renewal applications are being processed and avoid the expiry of licences in the event of any administrative delay for any reason. Mr Rich-Phillips also touched on a number of issues which I believe do need a response. He raised an issue in regard to victims of crime amendments in this bill, and one may ask: why were victims of BILLS Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 35 crime reforms removed from this bill? I guess it is important to explain that house amendments were passed in November 2020 to remove the time-critical victims-of-crime reforms in the Consumer and Other Acts Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2020 which had progressed in a more urgent legislative vehicle, the Justice Legislation Amendment (Supporting Victims and Other Matters) Bill 2020. The justice bill was introduced into the Victorian Parliament on 13 October 2020. The Legislative Assembly passed the justice bill on 29 October 2020. The government made an election commitment to significantly progress reforms in the way financial assistance is provided to victims of crime. The timely passage of these reforms represents a critical step to delivering on that commitment. The victims of crime reforms which were removed from this bill and progressed through the justice bill will amend the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 to assist in reducing the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal’s backlog by broadening the Chief Magistrate’s power to delegate award decisions, making a new class of staff to be known as tribunal officers. It also amended the Victims of Crime Commissioner Act 2015 to increase term lengths and clarify that remuneration and allowances may be paid to certain members of the Victims of Crime Consultative Committee. Mr Rich-Phillips also raised issues about working with children amendments. I want to explain why these changes were made and also why those to the Working with Children Act 2005 in part 11 of this bill were removed. The Worker Screening Act 2020, which received royal assent on 4 November 2020 and was due to commence on 1 February 2021—so it has commenced—repeals the Working with Children Act 2005. The Worker Screening Act 2020 includes provisions contained in this bill that were to amend the Working with Children Act 2005. As these commenced on 1 February 2021, the Working with Children Act amendments contained in this bill are no longer necessary. I guess it is important to understand what the previous Working with Children Act amendments in this bill do. The bill included amendments to the Working with Children Act 2005 to enable the sharing of working with children check information with the national reference system. That is a national online database of negative assessment decisions. This will alert Victorian officials if an applicant or a person who holds a Victorian check becomes subject to a negative assessment decision in another state or territory. Why did we proceed with a separate bill? At the time, the drafting of the Consumer and Other Acts Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2020 provided the best opportunity for Victoria’s timely participation in the national reference system, giving effect to recommendation 3a of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sex Abuse. However, given Victoria’s commitment to implement worker screening for the national disability insurance scheme by 1 February 2021 and the decision to provide for NDIS and child-related worker screening in the same act, the Worker Screening Act 2020 progressed through Parliament more quickly than the Consumer and Other Acts Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2020. The Worker Screening Act 2020 repeals the Working with Children Act 2005 but continues the requirements relating to working with children checks in the new act and includes reforms regarding the national reference system. To conclude, the majority of amendments contained in this bill directly respond to policy issues raised by stakeholders. By facilitating a smoother licensing process for keno operators and mandating better management standards, this bill will cut red tape while strengthening the harm minimisation measures which protect Victorian consumers. The various amendments to residential tenancies legislation will help make Victoria a better and fairer place for renters and will protect vulnerable Victorians during times of crisis and personal violence. The bill delivers a wide range of reforms to various consumer laws and demonstrates the government’s ongoing commitment to ensuring that Victorians have strong, fair and workable consumer protections. We will continue to put people first. I commend the bill to the house. BILLS 36 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (14:15): I rise to make only a few brief comments on this bill, particularly in relation to boarding houses. The member for Caulfield, Mr Southwick, in the other place, labelled the bill a missed opportunity in this sector, and I must say that I agree. This bill makes fleeting reference to the administration of boarding house licences but does nothing to improve the regulatory challenges in this somewhat troubled sector. In particular, the current situation where only boarding houses with 10 or more rooms are regulated is leading, somewhat predictably, to a large number of boarding houses emerging that are nine rooms or less. And while they provide much-needed accommodation, these types of smaller boarding houses are not even under council control. There is no ability for health and safety and wellbeing to be enforced, and the losers are the boarding houses residents and neighbourhoods in which they operate. The boarding house sector needs to be properly regulated on the basis of community need. The number of rooms in a boarding house should not be the deciding factor. As Mr Southwick pointed out, many other businesses in this state require a licence. With boarding houses under 10 rooms it is a free-for-all. The Glen Eira council, in my region, has called for minimum standards in relation to these boarding houses. It and other councils have made representations to this government for a review of the planning law and, in particular, greater simplification and clarity in the regulation process of rooming houses. To my mind more needs to be done, and this bill before us is really a missed opportunity where we could have improved outcomes for this sector. Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (14:17): I rise to make some brief comments on the Consumer and Other Acts Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2020, and an omnibus bill it is. To start with, just to look at the amendments to the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 in regard to the wagering and betting of keno and the monitoring of licences, I think it actually does do some good things. I must say most times when we have been talking about gambling in this chamber, or I have been speaking about gambling in this chamber, it has been about pushing the government to do more. But I think this goes some way to protecting under 18s from having access to gambling facilities. It goes some way to curbing money laundering. It certainly does remove some of that bureaucratic red tape, which has actually led to, I think, some greater transparency around the licensing scheme. Obviously I would love to see it go further, but I was pleased to see that this is also giving the minister power to issue harm minimisation directions, and I would hope that the minister takes advantage of that position that this bill gives the minister. As we know, the Australian Institute of Family Studies found that, while most 16- to 17-year-olds do not gamble, a significant number—one in five boys and one in eight girls—have reported spending money on at least one gambling activity in the last 12 months. So it is important that we do look at ways to address this amongst young people. We know the scourge that problem gambling is on our community. We know the effect that problem gambling has, and I would again implore the government to do more to assist those problem gamblers. I am pleased to see the ability to introduce some harm minimisation, but I would love to see a reduction in cashless gaming, enabling maximum bets per spin of $1 and reducing the trading hours of poker machine venues. We saw last year that millions and millions and millions of dollars were saved by households because they did not go to poker machine places, because they were shut. We would love to see a reset here, where we show concern for the effects that gambling has on many people and on their lives. There are small things to do, but I am pleased to see that this bill does introduce some greater transparency. But over the long term let us see if we can decouple the Victorian government from poker machine revenue. The other area of this bill that I would like to make some quick comments on is the reforms to the Residential Tenancies Act 1997. I completely concur with my colleague Mr Hayes that this was a missed opportunity with rooming houses. Certainly, as the chair of the homelessness inquiry, we have heard terrible, tragic stories of people living in incredibly unsuitable accommodation—that being rooming houses. These are some of our most vulnerable people being forced into some of the most unsuitable and often most dangerous forms of housing. To make it even worse, we are paying for it. BILLS Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 37

Through the various schemes that we provide in our homelessness services, we are actually paying for our most vulnerable community members to go into rooming houses that are not properly regulated. I know we have made attempts and I know we have tried to improve that but, as Mr Hayes said, I think this was a missed opportunity. The same goes for part 4A parks. This is this incredibly difficult space where many of the people who are living in part 4A parks are retirees, yet these places are not considered retirement villages and they do not have the same protections. Those parks quite often are overcharging for utilities and are not providing adequate services. I do not think we have found the right balance of regulation in those areas. I think that is another vulnerable cohort of people that in future I certainly hope this government addresses. I think it is important that this act provides the means for victims of family violence to exit leases without financial penalty. Deputy President, we are both members of the inquiry into homelessness, and we have heard time and time again that family violence is one of the main causes of homelessness in Victoria; 44 per cent of people who are using specialist homelessness services report family and domestic violence as the reason. The Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute has suggested that those domestic violence support programs cannot compensate for the absence of affordable and suitable housing. There is very little that we can do moving from crisis into stable and secure accommodation, and I think enabling people to exit those leases more quickly is one way to do it. I would suggest one of the other areas that we heard about during the inquiry is that for many people family violence actually does damage to the house that they are renting, and when those people have to escape that house, escape that family home, not only are they left with the bill for the repairs but they are left with a very black mark against them when they go to the next real estate agent for a home. I am not trying to pre-empt the report from the inquiry, but I think certainly we have heard time and time again that we need to do more to assist survivors and victims of family violence to find stable long-term accommodation. So with those few notes I would say that I think this bill is a good step forward. I would certainly like to see us—through tenancy legislation, through a variety of levers that governments have—focus on early intervention to identify and support those at risk of homelessness and look at coordinated multi- agency and well-funded responses for homelessness. I am really speaking from the Reason Party’s bible in this area. We would love to see the appointment of a Victorian commissioner for homelessness. I think also just finally—and I know this is not completely connected to this bill—we know that social isolation amongst young people is another area that we can do more on. There is a connection between kids spending a lot of time online and possibly moving into gambling online and social isolation—you can put those two things together. With those few comments, I commend the bill to the house. Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (14:25): I rise to make a contribution in regard to this bill, the Consumer and Other Acts Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2020. The bill by and large has a couple of functions which really are more about harmonising existing pieces of legislation by way of technical amendments and the like. The bill makes amendments to a number of acts in the consumer affairs, gaming and liquor regulation portfolio—and I will speak to that area in a moment—but it also carries important amendments to establish future gambling licensing arrangements and amendments to support the implementation of the government’s residential tenancy reforms. As we have heard in the debate today from other speakers before me—and Mr Erdogan eloquently outlined a range of changes that are going to be enacted under the bill and why—these reforms are important because they allow this consumer affairs framework legislation to be modernised and to keep pace with some of the other changes that the government is making in terms of rolling out its progressive agenda. I note that we just heard Ms Patten talk about family violence and the need for people who may be in a relationship and in a lease that they need to break being taken care of. As we all know, the Royal Commission into Family Violence was completed in 2015. There were 227 recommendations that BILLS 38 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021 came out of that royal commission, and the government has accepted each and every one of them. Of course this making changes to residential tenancies aspect of the bill is not the first time these reforms have come up; again this is just another example of needing to streamline some of the consumer affairs legislation to take account of some of the changes. But the royal commission completed its work in 2015, so this is a progressive way of continuing to update and modernise legislation, and I will come to some more detail about the changes to the residential tenancies side of it in a moment. By and large I note some speakers have raised other issues around this bill, but it really is about technical amendments to streamline things to make things work better but also to make things better for people. Again, I will come in a moment to more detail around residential tenancies or rooming houses with applications on foot; I will come to that in a second. But, first of all, in talking about the amendments to the consumer affairs, gaming and liquor regulations portfolio, the first aspect is keno. Now, I do not know how many people in here may or may not have played keno, but it is a game that is enjoyed by a number of people; many people seem to enjoy it. I note Ms Patten’s earlier comment about problem gambling, and of course the government has also completed a body of work in this area for people who have a problem with gambling. I am not sure whether anyone saw the program the other day on SBS called Addicted Australia. It is a series that talks about addiction, and problem gambling is certainly one of those things that falls under that umbrella term of ‘addiction’. But problem gambling is something where the government has worked on implementing reforms and supports for people who may be struggling, so one of the changes in this area is to ensure that the minister can implement harm minimisation mechanisms to support people who may be struggling with problem gambling. But importantly—and getting back to the point about keno—the reforms in this area will enable multiple keno licences to be issued and for the terms to include that any exclusivity period be set in the licence. This will allow the secretary of the department to have some flexibility and also to delegate functions to the deputy secretary or executive director. The new measures will also put in place obligations on keno licensees to verify registered player identities to prevent under-age gambling and money laundering. Ms Patten just talked about her concerns around under-age gambling, and of course we are now in a very different world. If you look back 20 or 30 years, the gambling landscape was quite different. People used to go to venues or pubs or clubs or TABs or the like. But online gambling is something that is proliferating, and it is because we live in an online world. Of course having these sorts of measures where people need to register so that there can be some kind of verification process around the player identities will obviously help prevent under-age gambling and money laundering. So just having those sorts of measures put into place is important to make sure that either people are not engaging in criminal activity or perhaps under-age people are not being put at risk—or should not be there in the first place, because they are under-age obviously. Also these measures will keep registered player funds in trust for the player so they are not used by the licensee for unauthorised purposes. They will also require the licensees to provide the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation with a list of registered players on request, and this will assist them in their regulatory capacity. So presumably there will be some ability for the department to perhaps audit or review the sorts of people who are participating in gambling in this area, and that is important. Again, that is going to look at dovetailing into these harm minimisation mechanisms. Being able to have data and to check and review who is actually participating in these things is very important. Again, this amendment is about introducing a point of consumption for a keno harm minimisation framework. The details of this will be determined prior to the awarding of any licence, and the amendment is designed to give the minister the power to specify the harm minimisation measures. So again there is that flexibility that will enable the minister to make these determinations and to respond in an appropriate way, given the prevailing circumstances at the time. This bill will also introduce regulation-making power that will allow the minister to further specify features of a keno game. The legislation currently provides for the minister to only approve a keno BILLS Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 39 game if the game is a rapid draw lottery, is a game where the outcome is determined by a random number generator that draws a number or a set of numbers from a larger set of numbers, is not a game that is conducted on a totalisator and is not a game where the results are based on the outcome of a live event. So again these are important changes to ensure that with the introduction of this power the minister can further specify features of a keno game on an as-needed basis, depending on the prevailing circumstances at the time, so providing that flexibility and ability to respond appropriately. It is also proposed to amend the definition of a keno game by inserting a regulation-making power to prescribe certain matters, such as the minimum number of draws that must be conducted a day and the maximum frequency of draws that will be permitted, and also expressly providing for keno game results to be able to be determined by a single number. Of course there is a multitude of online arrangements that are available. You only have to look at your smartphone at the moment to look at all the myriad apps that are available out there. There are some very smart cookies out there who can develop new games and new ways to spend your money online, if that is particularly what you want to do. So of course the minister obviously under this regime will be able to keep up to date and to respond to the prevailing circumstances to make sure that the regulation framework can continue to properly regulate keno gaming. Something may not look like the ordinary keno game because it is something new on the market, but by looking at these criteria the minister can determine that in fact it is keno and it needs to be regulated, and therefore that is an appropriate response as well. The changes will also amend section 115 of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998, which prohibits betting in licensed premises with no retail agency—for example, the old TAB. This currently means that keno, which is a form of betting, is prohibited in a licensed venue without a TAB. The exceptions to this provision need to be updated to reflect the current gambling licences to ensure that keno ticket agents are not in contravention of the act. You could have someone playing keno in a pub, but if there is no TAB, that technically means they could be in contravention of the act. So that just amends that provision to say that, yes, you can play keno. Just because there is not a TAB there it does not mean you are in contravention of the act. Chapter 6 of the act will be repealed, which relates to club keno. Chapter 6 was superseded in 2008 following the introduction of the new keno licensing regime. At the beginning of my contribution I made the point that these reforms are about keeping pace with our reforms that we have made in other areas. It is important to continue on this trajectory to make sure we continue to modernise all relevant pieces of legislation that impact this area. As its provisions are no longer in effect, repealing chapter 6 will improve clarity for stakeholders. Consequential amendments are being made to the act to remove any references to club keno and any other terminology specific to chapter 6. Again, this is providing certainty and clarity to stakeholders in this area by streamlining and modernising. These are technical amendments—that is what I said at the beginning of my contribution—and it is important to continue on with those amendments. In regard to wagering, the amendments will remove the registration-of-interest stage from the wagering and betting licensing procedure. This cuts red tape and allows the government to proceed immediately to the expression-of-interest stage. It also brings the wagering licence process into line with the process used for both keno and lotteries. These provisions are important. I was reading through the notes earlier and noted that, for example, if you want to play online keno, I think there is only one registered place in Australia, and that is the ACT. For example, you can log on anywhere in Australia, but you would be accessing that keno game in the ACT. That money that is being spent via that platform and any taxes or revenue that is collected through that portal, if you like— for want of a better term—goes to the ACT. Victoria is perhaps missing out on some ability to generate revenue from that arrangement, so these provisions will also allow the minister to develop or approve, if there is a licence, keno being enacted into Victoria. Then Victorians could in fact play, if it was BILLS 40 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021 enacted or approved, an online keno arrangement in Victoria and any funds generated through that for the purposes of revenue would be retained in Victoria. That is important for us in Victoria—that we get the benefit of any spend in that area. The next bit I want to move on to is the residential tenancies amendments. This bill will make a number of amendments in regard to those acts. I might just quickly move to rooming houses as well. I note Ms Patten and Mr Hayes talked about the challenges with rooming houses and the notion that they propounded that if you have nine rooms or less, those rooming houses are not in fact covered by this regime. That is not quite correct. The regime provides that rooming houses would then be recognised where you have four people or more, and there are a range of regulatory frameworks that continue to regulate rooming houses that are defined by that definition. So it is not just about numbers of rooms— there are a range of regulations. There are health regulations, there are council regulations, there are health standards. Consumer Affairs Victoria have standards. So it was not quite correct what Mr Hayes outlined earlier, and there certainly still are strong frameworks that apply to rooming houses. I think Ms Patten sort of conflated the idea of homelessness services and rooming houses. We do know that people who are homeless might access rooming houses for accommodation, but we also know that it is important to have wraparound services for people who are experiencing homelessness. One of the things the Andrews Labor government has done, as many of you will know, is we have made a significant investment into mental health, and we have also made a significant announcement—I think it was $5.3 billion—for social housing. With those sorts of announcements you can see that the government is serious about ensuring that we really break the back of homelessness. Just because you provide a roof over someone’s head does not mean they are going to stay there, and that is the whole point about providing mental health supports and wraparound services—to make sure that whoever is moving into a house can stay there and get the support they need. So, again, rooming houses are not necessarily the solution for everybody, and, again, as I said, I think there is a bit of a conflation. Homelessness is a massive problem in comparison to what are talking about. This is really about, as I said at the beginning, making technical amendments and changes to ensure the act can be streamlined. I think I will leave my contribution there. I commend this bill to the house. Read second time. Third reading Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (14:41): I move, by leave:

That the bill be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Read third time. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment. PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELLBEING AMENDMENT BILL 2020 Second reading Debate resumed on motion of Ms TIERNEY: That the bill be now read a second time. Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (14:42): I rise to speak to the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment Bill 2020. The purpose of this bill, as proposed by the government, is to amend the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 to exclude noise or emissions from wind turbines at wind energy facilities, as highlighted in parts of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act. This bill obviously sounds BILLS Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 41 fairly simple. The government has highlighted that they want to reduce the ability of noise complaints about wind turbines and wind facilities to be put into a process under the EPA. During the briefing stage of the bill to the opposition members, various information was provided by the government as to how that would occur. If you actually look at what the Public Health and Wellbeing Act does, it does go to the very point that this bill is addressing. In part 6 of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act it highlights the regulatory provisions administered by councils, because currently a complaint of noise coming from a wind farm would go to a local council. Indeed the Public Health and Wellbeing Act says the application of division 1 in the regulatory provisions administered by councils:

… applies to nuisances which are, or are liable to be, dangerous to health or offensive. It goes on to say:

Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), this Division applies in particular to nuisances arising from or constituted by any— (a) premises; or (b) water; or (c) animal, including a bird or insect, capable of carrying a disease transmissible to human beings; or (d) refuse; or (e) noise or emission— which is actually the main point of this bill—

or (f) state, condition or activity; or (g) other matter or thing— which is, or is liable to be, dangerous to health or offensive. Part 6 of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act goes on to explain:

In this section, offensive means noxious or injurious to personal comfort. I think that is the main point: the government is removing those issues from the Public Health and Wellbeing Act and is putting them under the EPA. Now, it will be slated by those opposite that the Liberals and Nationals are anti-renewable energy. That is far from what this is about in terms of our argument. We are arguing that community members need to have a process where they can make complaints on the basis of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act regarding nuisance and what is offensive, because actually the whole point of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act is to promote and protect the wellbeing and health of Victorians. When there are issues around various nuisances, whether you are in country areas or metropolitan areas or built-up regional areas, there should be an ability for individuals and community members to be able to have a complaints process, and I want to speak about that a little bit more. But as I said, it was pretty clear from the briefing from the government that they had a few areas that they wanted to highlight. They did explain that the purpose of this bill was to, as I said, decrease the duplication in the regulation of wind farm noise, and importantly they wanted to exclude the noise or emissions from a wind turbine at a wind energy facility from that nuisance provision of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act. But they also said they wanted to bring certainty and clarity to the wind farm industry around this because it is needed to increase confidence in the regulatory framework for wind farm energy facility noise, and this bill will assist the government with meeting its renewable energy targets by addressing a particular risk to investor confidence in constructing wind energy facilities in Victoria. That is the crux of this bill. It is not about a complaints process for the community; it is actually about giving certainty to the wind farm industry. That is what this bill is about, and the government is deliberately removing that ability for community members to make a legitimate BILLS 42 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021 complaint to their local authority on an issue that is concerning them and is moving it sideways into the EPA—and I want to speak about the EPA’s complaints process, because I have looked into that. But before I go to that, the consultation process, the government told us, was with a number of shires that are affected by wind farms, and there are a number in western Victoria and there are some in Gippsland. Those councils understandably do not have the ability to undertake some of the very expensive acoustic testing that is required to determine some of these complaints. They are needing some assistance—we understand that—but I will be asking the minister about those areas in the committee stage because I want to get a greater understanding about the numbers of councils that are actually affected by wind farm projects. I see from the wind energy projects that are on the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning site that there are 2346 operating wind energy facilities and there are an approved but not operational 1334. There are planning permit applications lodged and a process underway for a further 776, and under construction there are 1949. So in total there are around 6407 wind energy facilities. Now, I do not think anyone wants to say I am ignoring that they can have an impact; that is a hell of a lot of wind turbines. They can have an impact on some people’s health and wellbeing. Governments have a responsibility for that and to get it right. So I am quite concerned that this bill is really pushing forward all of those current projects more to meet the government’s renewable energy targets. They have said that. They have set their targets for 2025 and 2030 and they want to meet those, so they are pushing through, and it is very characteristic of this government. They will push over communities, they will not consult and they will not take into consideration the real needs of those local communities. That is what I am concerned about, because that is an area that does need to be supported. Those people in those communities do need to be supported, because when you look at the EPA’s website and their responsibilities around reporting noise pollution, they state that:

Noise pollution is sound at a level that’s annoying, distracting or harmful to a person’s wellbeing. So the EPA actually state what the Public Health and Wellbeing Act is all about. And that is the issue for me: that we are taking it out of this very act where we are meant to be protecting the health and wellbeing of Victorians and we are putting it into this body that then refers all of these other noise pollutions on. I am going to just quote the EPA:

Ways to report noise pollution Report residential noise and noisy neighbours What do you do? You can report residential noise to the police or to your local council. Also:

Report noisy vehicles, trains and trams What can you do? Report to the Department of Transport, companies that manage the road, the police or your local council. And:

Report noise from public transport services to the companies that manage them … the transport ombudsman or the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator. There are all these bodies that you can make complaints to. You can report commercial noise to your local council. You can report noise from wind farms to your local council or the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning; construction noise, again to your local council; roadworks noise, to VicRoads or again to your local council. Local council has a responsibility here, as stated by the EPA. Also:

Report music noise from indoor venues Again, report it to your local council. Taking away the ability for community members to report complaints to local council and putting it into the EPA is not giving community members a proper ability to get that complaints process underway. When we asked in the bill briefing, ‘Could you explain the process?’, the government was unable to do that. What does it mean for a community member BILLS Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 43 who has got a complaints process, who feels that their health and wellbeing is compromised? The government was unable to answer that very basic question. I wanted to make that point because the EPA also talks about what this bill, when it is passed, will mean, when these changes are through, and what it will mean to the complaints process. It talks about the existing system and how noise concerns are managed. The existing system is that:

• wind farm operators must respond to concerns in the first instance • the relevant council may take action based on evidence of a breach of compliance with planning permits, or of a nuisance under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008. What will it mean under the proposed system, once this goes through? It says:

• wind farm operators must demonstrate ongoing compliance, and must respond to concerns in the first instance • EPA will take action in line with its compliance and enforcement policy. When you go and look at that, when you actually go and look at the EPA’s compliance and enforcement policy, it does not give you, the citizen, very much information at all. It just directs you to a hotline. Well, we know how good that is. Again it says here:

From 1 July 2021 if people believe they are being affected by noise pollution they will also be able to report it to EPA via the … Pollution Report hotline … EPA will respond in line with its compliance and enforcement policy. I do not think that is good enough for people, and there are numerous people, who have put in their concerns around the effects of wind turbines. I have spoken to people over many years that have said, ‘I have real disturbances with my sleep’, ‘The noise comes, the flicker’, ‘It affects me more than it affects my wife’, so people are reacting in different ways. I think we do have to look this in terms of protecting those individuals or giving them an ability to be able to complain. Of course this all came about when we looked at what happened with the Bald Hills case down in Gippsland when the individual concerned—who was not against wind farms but was living next door to the Bald Hills wind farm—started complaining about some of those noise emissions. As I said, they affect people in different ways, from my understanding. So he did make complaints. He made complaints to the Minister for Planning, who is obviously the minister responsible for the permits for these things, and to the council, the National Wind Farm Commissioner and the EPA. No-one did anything to help him, including the EPA. So how can we guarantee, and I will be asking this in committee, what the process will be rather than just this enforcement and compliance policy, this stuff that is already there on the website that says, ‘Well, we’ll take action in line with our compliance and enforcement policy’—what does that mean for somebody who has got a legitimate complaint about their health and wellbeing? I think that this is not about the protection of the community in relation to their concerns. It is certainly not supporting the councils, and I understand the councils have had significant issues in trying to deal with these issues because of the acousticians, noise monitoring and other requirements in and around this. But surely they could be supported by government in these complaints; there are not dozens or hundreds of them, but they are legitimate complaints. And now where does the community go to? Where do those communities go to who have legitimate concerns? They go to the EPA, an agency— some bureaucrat sitting at some desk down here in Nicholson Street or wherever they live. It is taking it all away from the local community. That is what this government does: it takes away things from communities and from individuals all the time. We saw it last year, and we are seeing it with legislation through and through this place in this term. I have got concerns about why all of those other noise emissions, from all those other venues—whether it is road construction or nightclubs or whether it is from noisy trucks and trams—still remain under this act and the complaints process still goes through local council, yet somebody in their own local BILLS 44 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021 community cannot go to their local representative in their local council and ask for help and make a complaint about emissions from wind turbines. That is why we are not supporting this. It is very clear, as I said, in the government’s own briefing:

This Bill will assist the Government with meeting its renewable energy targets by addressing a particular risk to investor confidence in constructing wind energy facilities in Victoria. That is what this bill is all about, and it is taking away the ability for community members— Victorians—to have a legitimate complaints process with their local councils. Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (14:58): I will keep it brief. In fact Ms Crozier has gone through pretty well in detail everything I would have gone through. We are sold a nirvana, a utopia or whatever you want to call it, of renewable energy, how it is basically pain free and there are no problems, but for all this energy to happen something needs to be in someone’s backyard. Now, we can accuse the people—I think it is mainly Moyne shire I have seen from the emails—of being nimbys, not in my backyard, but they have a legitimate concern that would be dealt with through a current process. What it looks like is that this is a shifting of the goalposts. The goalposts are that one day you go through the council and the next day you go through the EPA. I really do not think that is fair. I understand what they are trying to do as far as investor confidence and things like that go, but this is a case of people that have issues going through a complaints process, and they are now halfway through the process and are in a situation where they now have to—I will not say restart—go and get a move on. So I will not be supporting this bill either. Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (14:59): I am delighted to have the opportunity to make my contribution to the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment Bill 2020. This bill will make important changes to the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 to exclude noise and emissions from wind turbines and wind energy facilities from the nuisance provisions. This bill will assist the government with meeting its renewable energy targets by addressing a particular risk to investor confidence in constructing wind energy facilities in Victoria. Since getting elected in 2014 we have been providing reliable, affordable and clean energy for Victoria. Renewable energy is on the rise across Victoria. People from the Western Metropolitan Region and other regions have adopted renewable energy with open arms. Solar and wind farms are being built at a fast pace across the state. Since 2014, 26 projects providing 1177 megawatts have been completed and six projects providing 1326 megawatts are undergoing commissioning and are already providing clean energy to the grid. Eleven renewable energy projects totalling 1744 megawatts are currently under construction. Because of this success we have hit our renewable energy target of 25 per cent renewables by 2020, sourcing more than 25 per cent of our electricity from renewables last year. The previous government handed us almost nothing when it came to renewable energy. Since getting elected we have delivered great renewable infrastructure. People from the opposition destroyed the renewable energy sector when they were in government through destructive planning laws and archaic ideological opposition to action on climate change. The massive investment has seen Victoria become a leader in renewable energy jobs. The Clean Energy Council’s Clean Energy at Work study showed that more jobs were created in renewables in Victoria than in any other state. The survey was comprehensive across the renewable energy sector. In fact 30 per cent of jobs in renewables were in Victoria, more than in New South Wales, which had 24 per cent, or in Queensland, which also had 24 per cent. The Victorian renewable energy target 2030 will create 24 000 jobs, drive an additional $5.8 billion in economic activity and reduce prices by $32 a year for households, $3100 a year for medium businesses and $150 000 a year for large companies, and we are not slowing down. We recently announced a market sounding to bring on line another 600 megawatts of renewable energy through a second VRET auction. This auction will be linked to government usage, meaning we can use the power to run our trains, hospitals and schools. This bill will allow for a much-needed appropriate regulatory framework for dealing with noise complaints in relation to wind turbines. The nuisance provisions in the Public Health and Wellbeing BILLS Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 45

Act are an important tool for councils to deal with local health risks. However, these provisions were not drafted with the complexity and size of the wind energy facility industry in mind. Nuisance laws take inspiration from the early 19th century. Victoria’s Public Health and Wellbeing Act today defines a nuisance as being something that is liable to be, or is, ‘dangerous to health or offensive’. Some examples of nuisance include smoke from burning off, odours from uncollected rubbish, damaged drainage or water run-offs from a neighbour’s property, unhygienic enclosures for birds or other animals, and buildings or other structures that are in disrepair. Councils are the responsible authorities under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act. Councils deal with the nuisance if it is raised. These local nuisance laws work fine when you are dealing with disputes among neighbours or, for example, the incidents that I highlighted, because councils can act on them. But it is a different framework when it comes to wind farms. This means that councils are required under the act to investigate complaints relating to noise or emissions from wind turbines at wind energy facilities, even if the wind energy facility is compliant with the noise requirements of the planning permit that authorises it. There is currently no way that a council can refer a complaint about wind turbine noise to another regulator, which creates a significant cost and resourcing burden on those councils that are home to wind energy facilities. Wind farms are highly regulated. There is a meticulous planning process when a wind farm is being set up. The process includes consideration of the noise and environmental impacts. All planning permit applications for wind farms are subject to extensive notice to enable neighbouring communities to have their say about a proposal before it is determined. Applications are required to be accompanied by a predictive noise assessment that demonstrates the proposal will comply with the relevant noise standard—the New Zealand standard. If a permit is granted, conditions also require that the post-construction noise assessment of the operating wind farm is undertaken to demonstrate the project complies with the noise standard. A wind farm can be entirely compliant with its planning permit, demonstrating that it is operating within those noise requirements that have been clearly set out, but can still be subject to additional complaints through this provision. This creates uncertainty for wind farm operators and the community alike. Councils are not properly equipped to deal with these complaints. The current noise regulations cover the wind farm noise, and complaints about that can occur through the EPA. This amendment will reduce the duplication of the process. Local councils believe that the responsibility to investigate complaints about wind farm noise is unduly burdensome. It is costly for ratepayers and communities. Noise and emissions investigations require a high level of technical expertise. Councils may not have the necessary expertise in house. These assessments are long and expensive. It is a very specialised evaluation. Professional acoustic consultants use complex analytical tools to do the assessment. It takes months to finalise it. There are significant costs. Spending resources and capital on these complex compliance activities is not reasonable. More being spent on noise assessments means less money being available for roads and rubbish. This is a large resource burden for the councils and their local communities. Councils have to investigate nuisance complaints, regardless of whether the wind farms are operating in accordance with the planning permits. It is very inefficient, and the impacts are felt by residents, farm owners and investors. This is why councils are asking us to change this law. Glenelg shire, Moorabool shire and Corangamite shire have all written to the Minister for Health requesting changes to the nuisance provisions of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act. Councils have cited the unsustainable cost to ratepayers of having to undertake acoustic and health assessments of wind farms in response to complaints made under the nuisance provisions. The Municipal Association of Victoria, MAV, also support this change because they know that the state government is better placed to manage wind farm noise through its dedicated environmental regulator. In fact the MAV passed a motion asking the government to address the inconsistency between the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 and the Planning and Environment Act 1987 in relation to wind farm enforcement. The wind farm commissioner, Andrew Dyer, also supports BILLS 46 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021 changes to the Public Health and Wellbeing Act. The commissioner, appointed by the federal coalition, has played an important role in helping mediate disputes across wind farms. He has publicly supported changes to this act to bring it into line with best practice. As wind and solar farms have become larger, the permit burden has become more significant. A person who is affected by noise or emissions from a wind turbine at a wind energy facility will still have the option of notifying the EPA, who will be able to investigate. If the person is not happy with the EPA’s decision, they can go to the Victorian Ombudsman, who can review the decision. The EPA will provide a consistent statewide approach and technical expertise, building on its responsibilities since 2018 in the auditing of wind farm noise assessments. This will mean that the EPA will have a central regulatory role as the responsible authority for enforcing the general environmental duty and unreasonable noise provisions under the Environment Protection Act. The cornerstone of the Environment Protection Amendment Act 2018 is the GED. The GED will focus on Victorian businesses, industry and the community, on preventing harm. The general environmental duty requires any person who is engaging in any activity that may give rise to risks of harm to human health or the environment from pollution or waste to minimise those risks so far as reasonably practicable. Victoria is a leader in environmental leadership. We were one of the first jurisdictions in the world to establish environment protection legislation and an Environment Protection Authority. The Andrews Labor government was elected with a commitment to commission an independent inquiry into the EPA to examine whether the EPA has the right powers and proper resourcing to tackle the current and upcoming environmental challenges. The Andrews Labor government has allocated significant resources to the EPA to rebuild it after a period of neglect during the previous government’s term of office. The government has now committed an additional $190 million over five years to deliver these reforms. This is a massive investment in ensuring Victorians have the EPA we need to protect human health and the environment from the harmful effects of pollution and waste. This massive investment will boost the EPA’s ability to detect, prevent and respond to illegal activities and waste crime, including establishing a waste crime prevention inspectorate, introducing an electronic waste-tracking system and a waste crime intelligence committee with co-regulators and emergency service agencies. The opposition does not want Victoria to have the progress that renewables have brought. Besides the positive environmental impact, the renewables sector has brought many jobs to Victoria and Australia. Renewable energy sources are affordable and reliable and are helping reduce emissions. The objective of the bill is to exclude noise or emissions from wind turbines at wind energy facilities from the nuisance provisions, bring certainty and clarity to the wind farm industry and councils, provide communities with increased confidence in the regulatory framework for wind energy facility noise and address duplication in regulatory schemes whereby a nuisance complaint can be made under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 about wind turbine noise even if the wind energy facility is compliant with the noise requirement of the planning permit that authorises it. This bill will assist the government with meeting its renewable energy target by addressing a particular risk to investor confidence in constructing wind energy facilities in Victoria. I commend the bill to the house. Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (15:13): It is great to rise to join the debate on the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment Bill 2020, the purpose of which, as we have just heard, is to amend the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 to exclude noise emissions from wind turbines and wind energy facilities from nuisance provisions. Now, as we heard a little earlier in our debate from my friend and colleague Ms Crozier, it is intended that this bill will commence on the same day as the Environment Protection Amendment Act 2018, which will amend the environment protection act from the year before to introduce a framework for a complaints process regarding wind turbines. We have been told by the government that the bill before us today will avoid the duplication of regulatory frameworks for such a process. Right at the outset I want to make it abundantly clear that I, as is the case when it comes to so many members from right around this chamber, support renewable energy and the expansion of renewable energy sources here in our state. We know from peak industry bodies, for example, that wind power BILLS Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 47 produced by turbines is currently one of the cheapest large-scale sources of renewable energy. In 2019 I was interested to note that wind power overtook hydro as Australia’s leading source of clean energy, and with further technological advances, which I am hopeful of, the energy output is projected to continue to increase. All of those are good things. Several projects for developing wind farms are currently in progress right across Australia, with more to come, and that will create, I hope, many much-needed jobs for people, especially in our regional and remote communities. Many studies indicate that electrification through renewable technologies is the path towards a cleaner energy mix here in Victoria, and I support this. As Victoria continues its energy transition, I care deeply about ensuring that we have reliable, accessible and sustainable energy that enables us here in Victoria to reduce our emissions and output. This makes sense both from a market and an environmental perspective. Some members of the house know that I was recently part of an inquiry into the prohibition of nuclear energy in Victoria. With my friends Mrs McArthur and also Mr Limbrick, I wrote a minority report that recommended that the government should repeal the Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act 1983 so that a business case for the prospect of nuclear energy technology as part of our future energy mix could be considered. This position is consistent with other jurisdictions like New South Wales, where an inquiry was also recently conducted and recommended cooperation with the federal government to consider the lifting of the nuclear prohibition there, ultimately with a view only to a consideration of the full range of energy options as part of our future energy mix. Here in Australia we have the most abundant known uranium resources, which presents us with an opportunity, I feel, to at some point in the future develop these resources and ensure that Victoria is not left behind in the global race towards energy diversification that is clean and affordable. This is a position supported by the right of the Australian Labor Party and key unions like the Australian Workers Union and the CFMEU. Returning to the specifics of the bill before the house today, its main purpose is to exclude people in affected communities from making complaints under the nuisance provisions of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 for noise and emissions created from wind turbines. In doing this, the Labor government is attempting to limit the avenues through which people can seek redress from wind turbine noise. It is doing this, and in doing this it is attempting to silence, particularly, rural Victorians, which is of concern to me. As I said earlier, I support an energy transition here in Victoria, and renewables will and must play a big part in that. That being said, we must pursue development in the right way by taking into account the impacts any development may have on local communities. Wind turbines generate electricity from the naturally occurring power of the wind, which propels the blades and drives an electricity generator that produces electricity for export to the broader grid. Now, while this seems like an inoffensive means of generating electricity, the turbines actually emit quite a lot of noise. Local residents who live close to wind farms can be negatively impacted by this noise. The bill before us today would needlessly eliminate, in my view, the rights of residents in local communities who are, as I say, impacted by noise emitted from wind turbines to be represented through local avenues of representation. Currently this is the primary method through which residents seek redress, and it does not require payment from residents to engage in the complaints process. If this bill passes, residents will have to seek compensation under the common law, a process which is far more complex and would likely expose residents to some substantial costs. These expenses could make the process inaccessible for many Victorians—especially those who live in regional areas, as I have said, whose lives, comfort and wellbeing have been impacted by the noise from wind turbines. It seems to me that the Labor government has taken a simplistic view that these wind farms are off in the country, far beyond the tofu curtain, out somewhere in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by rural communities whose voices perhaps do not matter so much and can simply be ignored or even silenced. However, I am far more concerned that that should be the case. We live in a state where everyone has a right to speak and a right to be heard. BILLS 48 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

Ms Dominica Tannock, who represented Gippsland council in their win over the Bald Hills wind farm, astutely said, and I will quote her for the benefit of the house:

Yes, we do want renewable energy, we do want wind farms, but they have to built in the right locations with the right buffers and they can’t be built too close to people’s homes. Energy from renewable sources is fantastic and must be part of our energy mix, now and increasingly into the future. However, the right way to do this is not to severely limit people’s ability to voice their concerns over wind turbines for the sake of developing more wind farms more quickly, rather, this development needs to occur in the right places and with the proper consultation. That is something that this bill will not help us achieve. Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (15:20): I rise to speak to the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment Bill 2020. It is heartening to hear Dr Bach, from the opposite side, declare that the coalition believes in using clean, reliable, more accessible and greener energy, but the actions of the federal government do not show such a belief, a trust or a direction—or any investment in such a direction. Ms Crozier: That’s rubbish. That’s just wrong. Dr KIEU: Well, not to the standard they could have done. We are on the cusp of very threatening risks of climate change, and as a nation, as a whole race— A member interjected. Dr KIEU: I know you do not believe in that, but let me finish. We had better start somewhere rather than doing nothing, so we need long-term and integrated energy and climate change policies so that we can address the problem—which is not too soon, nowadays. In contrast, particularly in Victoria, the Andrews Labor government has moved energy away from carbon-based fuels, particularly fossil fuels, as a priority, and our record has shown that. My colleague Ms Kaushaliya Vaghela has outlined some of these achievements. It is important to highlight once again some of our commitments and achievements. We committed to an energy target of 25 per cent renewable energy by 2020, and we have achieved that. We are also on target to reach 50 per cent by 2030. One of the arguments people have brought up against renewable, accessible and cleaner energy is about the loss of jobs, but we have shown that that is manageable. In fact we have, as a state, led the nation in creating jobs affiliated with and stemming from clean and renewable energy. Of the whole nation, 30 per cent of jobs in renewables were in fact created in Victoria. The next biggest state in the rankings is New South Wales, where 24 per cent of renewable jobs have been created. There is a similar number in the state of Queensland. We are at 30 per cent, so we are leading the nation. We are able to on the one hand move away from fossil fuels and carbon-based fuels— Ms Crozier: On a point of order, Acting President, I have been listening to Dr Kieu, and I understand he is a great supporter of renewable energy; we are all supporting renewable energy. This bill is about removing the complaints process for people affected by wind turbine noise in those rural communities where the wind farms are, but Dr Kieu is talking about renewable energy, the federal government, Queensland and everything else but the complaints process in relation to this important element of this bill. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): Before the member’s intervention I think Dr Kieu was about to actually say exactly that. I think a number of speakers have gone and talked about various energy sources, including nuclear and so forth. There is no point of order. Dr KIEU: Thank you very much. In order to have reached the target that we have sought out and committed to, we need the investment from the private sector in renewable energy and some other form away from fossil fuels. That is a big investment, and to make a big investment people need stability. People need the trust and the confidence to do so, because these are very big projects that will be in operation in decades to come. That is on the one hand, but on the other hand people have BILLS Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 49 the right to complain and to bring a complaint to the authorities if a certain development has impacted on their life, on their comfort or indeed on their health. We do have the so-called ‘nuisance provisions’ in the act to deal with such legitimate rights of people, but the existing nuisance provisions—particularly for wind turbine noise and emissions, which is a form of energy creation away from fossil fuels—in the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 were not drafted with the complexity and the size of the wind energy facilities and industry in mind at that time. In fact the nuisance laws are very old. We must look further back to the early 19th century for the antecedent to today’s law. At that time in the early 19th century, nuisance laws were commonly applied for things that could possibly cause hurt, inconvenience, discomfort and damage, and were not limited to dangers to health. Victoria’s Public Health and Wellbeing Act today defines a nuisance as being something that is liable to be or is dangerous to health or to be offensive. It traditionally has been the responsibility of the council. They are required under the act to investigate complaints relating to noise or to the emissions from wind turbines and from those wind energy production facilities, even if the wind energy facility has already been compliant with the noise requirements of the planning permit that authorises it to be in existence. At the moment there is no way that the council can refer the complaint from the citizen about the wind turbine noise to another regulator. That creates a significant cost resourcing burden on the council that is the home for the wind energy facilities. The process for obtaining a licence to build and operate a wind farm is already very highly regulated. The planning permit applications are subject to extensive notice about the noise management to enable neighbouring communities to have their say about a proposal before it is determined and approved. The noise output in particular is a key consideration for the Minister for Planning, the responsible minister, before he approves any permit application for a wind farm. Once the approval is given and the permit is granted, conditions also require that a post-construction noise assessment of the operating wind farm is to be undertaken to demonstrate that the project does indeed comply with the noise standard as predicted and projected in the planning application. In fact it is a mandatory requirement that there is a statutory audit of predictive and post-construction noise reports to show that the operations satisfy the planning application. On top of that, the planning permits for wind farms also include complaints management plans. The wind farm operators are required to be responsive to their communities and have to investigate and rectify any legitimate complaints in a prompt time frame. The option also exists for councils or neighbours to commence enforcement proceedings if they believe that the wind farm is not complying with the relevant noise standard that has been set out in the act. However, nuisance provisions for the Public Health and Wellbeing Act can be very costly for council, can be long and drawn out and can create uncertainty in long, drawn-out legal proceedings. So the nuisance provisions of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act do indeed create a second avenue for wind farm operators to manage. Now I will just try to touch upon the need for a regulator and also the need for this bill in front of the house. This amendment, it has to be emphasised, does not take away the rights of members of the community to make complaints about wind farm noise. This is about clarifying a single process to provide confidence for the community and certainty to the wind farm operators. First, the complainant can raise a concern about wind farm noise with the wind farm operator directly, or they can report it to the pollution report hotline, which is a 24/7 hotline of Environment Protection Authority Victoria. If the Environment Protection Authority confirm the need for further investigation, then they can undertake a visit to take their own action. If the complainant is not satisfied with the process achieved at that stage, then they can request that the EPA escalate it, putting the EPA in line with internal customer service processes. Furthermore, if the EPA process is not satisfactory in the view of the complainant, they can in fact contact the Victorian Ombudsman. Furthermore, they can also raise concerns with the National Wind Farm Commissioner. This amendment should not be taken to suggest that there is a corrosion of the health protection for people affected by wind farm noise. These measures are put in place to, on the one hand, protect the community members and, on the other hand, give certainty and a single venue and process for BILLS 50 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021 complaints about wind farm noise. I think this bill has addressed the needs of both, and I therefore commend the bill to the house. Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (15:36): At the outset, a very happy new year to colleagues in this chamber and to staff and to all of those folk here who no doubt are excited for the parliamentary year to have commenced. I would like to add my voice to this particular bill and to the amendments which propose, on the one hand, to reduce and remove duplication but, on the other, to recognise the fundamental increases in the scale of this particular industry as we have ramped up investment into renewables and as we have sent key signals to the market in encouraging more investment in wind energy in particular. This is an issue which is very relevant to me as a local member, relating as it does to wind farm development and to the initial discussions around proposals of enormous scale right down to proposals of a more modest investment to generate wind energy into the network and to provide a better level of energy security and reliability through a mix of resources into the grid. There are a number of things which I would like to pick up from contributions already made in the course of this bill. It is disappointing that those opposite have said that they will not be supporting this bill, but on the other hand I note the starting points for Dr Bach and also for Ms Crozier in their contributions indicated that renewable energy is in fact an important part of the way in which we grow and diversify industry as well as make sure that we are not left in the wake of global developments as they relate to energy technology and as they relate to creating better supply for markets not just within Victoria but as part of the national grid, which we have a better set of resources for in adjacent states as well. There are a number of pieces of work which are going on in relation to wind energy which speak to the sheer scale of what is being proposed by developers and investors alike. One thing I would like to go to is the Star of the South proposal and the extraordinary, unprecedented level of investment being proposed to use wind energy offshore as well as to understand the way in which onshore development can proceed. One of the challenges that has arisen in this upturn in scale has been the way in which the regulatory environment has kept pace or not with the increased number of complaints and concerns raised by communities who are in the vicinity of proposed wind farms. This bill in fact has the support of the MAV, the Municipal Association of Victoria, and comes off the back of a number of councils in fact indicating support for these changes, which will alleviate the burden—often a cost burden, often a resourcing burden—on councils to understand and to assess the impact of wind farms and wind investment in local communities. Noise attenuation is one of those really significant areas which, as Ms Crozier has correctly pointed out, does affect different people in different ways. There may well be people who cannot hear and who are not affected by the operation of wind turbines close to them, but correspondingly there may be others for whom the impact of wind generation does present a number of challenges. This is where councils have often found themselves in the invidious position of needing to invest significant resourcing as well as funds, which as we know from our friends in local government, are frequently scarce, particularly in an environment where we do have rate capping and where we do have limitations on the budget envelopes that are available to council—again, measures supported by the coalition when these reforms were introduced in the last Parliament and passed. But what we do know is that understanding the acoustic impact and the environmental impact of noise relating to wind farms and to their operation is really costly. It does not come with a one-size-fits-all approach to understanding impact, and we do need expert and technical approaches to understanding how wind farms may impact upon the environment and upon human health and what can be done to ameliorate or mitigate that risk as it may arise. So I would like to talk, with the time I have available to me, about the changes that are being introduced as part of reforms to the legislation which will govern these particular changes, and the Environment Protection Amendment Act 2018 is the centrepiece of these changes. In relation to this particular bill— and there are many other parts of the bill that I could go to, but given the constraints of time I will not—there are a number of parts that impose the general environmental duty as relevant to the BILLS Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 51 operation of wind farms. This is an important part of streamlining the complaints process but also of providing clear signals to operators and to investors around the way in which we will remove duplication arising from complaints that perhaps may be made at a local government level under planning schemes and under council provisions on the one hand versus the planning approach which wind farms may have and have relied upon in obtaining and proceeding with construction and operation of wind farms through the planning permit system. So there are very, very significant penalties that are included within the framework that will commence on and from 1 July this year. One of the things that I would like to make clear in the context of these duties around the general environmental duty is that these provisions will apply in a range of different situations and circumstances. When they talk about general duties in this act, it is about using and maintaining plant, equipment and processes to minimise risks to human health and the environment; using and maintaining systems for identification and assessment and control of risks of harm to human health and the environment, including from pollution and waste arising in connection with an activity, so a downstream impact there, if you will excuse the pun; using and maintaining adequate systems to ensure that if there is a risk of harm to human health its harmful effects are minimised, so again it is those mitigation and amelioration duties that apply; ensuring, perhaps not so relevantly to this particular bill, that substances are handled, stored, used or transported in a manner that minimises risk of harm to human health; and then, finally, an obligation and a duty to provide information, instruction, supervision and training to any person engaging in the activity to enable those persons to comply with the duty. This particular general duty and the list which I have just outlined will be rigorously enforced, and compliance will in fact be a centrepiece of the framework that commences on 1 July. When we turn to what those penalties are, we can compare them to the current framework in now very anachronistic legislation that does require the update and will be updated when the new Environment Protection Amendment Act comes into effect. But the current penalty units that are imposed for breaches relate to 120 penalty units, which is around $19 000 at the current calculation, up to a maximum of 600 penalty units for a corporate breach, so that is around $99 000 for offences which cause nuisance. When we compare that with the penalties which will be applicable as a maximum and on a scale for the purposes of compliance under the new act, we can see that a breach of the general environmental duty will in fact contain a penalty of up to five years or a maximum of $3.2 million in penalty fines applicable for causing material harm. And when we look at a simple breach under this new general environmental duty when the new act commences later this year, there is a maximum penalty of $1.6 million, so a huge increase in the penalties that will be applicable. This comes alongside the changes which will enable people to make complaints in the first instance to the operator and in the second instance to the EPA, and the work associated with being able to then proceed with a complaint once that process is exhausted, to the extent that it is, to the Victorian Ombudsman. Now, we want to make sure that we are streamlining the complaints process whilst also providing a level of consistency to the industry as renewable energy scales up, and scales up dramatically. And we know from the experience in Australia, when we look to other jurisdictions, particularly in Europe, that—again, excuse the pun—the surge of uptake in renewable energy, and particularly wind energy, shows no sign of slowing. Say that twice and do not slip up, and I will probably buy you a beer! But what we have to remember is that unless we have the right regulatory framework in place to assist industry to provide a harmonised process for the making and investigation of and action on complaints, unless we have a significant investment in the way in which the general environmental duty applies and an understanding of ‘nuisance’ and unless we reduce the regulatory burden upon councils, it is likely—it is probable—that we will see irregular outcomes based on the assessment of councils and insufficient resources being deployed by councils who have competing priorities at the best of times. And therefore there is the risk of matters not being investigated as fulsomely, simply because a council—particularly some of the smaller rural councils—may not have the resources available to them to ensure that acoustic impact, amongst other things, is well and properly understood and can be benchmarked against the necessary technical levels that apply in the circumstance of understanding noise and noise impact. So ‘nuisance’ is in fact, as other speakers have outlined, a very, very old BILLS 52 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021 concept, and we need to make sure we are modernising our statute book to match the modernising of technology that applies to renewables. And, again, what a disappointment to hear from those opposite that they support renewable energy— ‘but’. This is a pretty constant refrain from people who oppose the legislative program of this government, who in fact oppose the record investment in renewables and in fact oppose the renewable energy targets—those ambitious targets, and deliberately ambitious targets, which have been created, which have been legislated for as required and which are being implemented with the support of industry, with the support of investors and with the support, largely, of communities who are benefiting from this investment. We need to make sure that, to the best extent possible, government is keeping up with the requirements and the concerns and the priorities not just of industry but of communities as well—that we are accommodating the challenges, the changes and the impacts of new and renewable energy technology as it is proposed, as it is developed, as it is implemented and as it is regulated. Without meeting these obligations government is derelict in its duty to work not only alongside local government but also in conjunction with the federal government and the way in which it has proposed a degree of regulation, including through the commissioner’s role, to understand the way in which we are working towards facilitating a national grid which has harmonised approaches to decision-making, avenues of complaint and avenues of redress that eliminate that uncertainty and that again make it abundantly clear that those obligations as set out in the environment protection act are adequately maintained and consistently applied. I do not intend to cover, with the time I have available, the specific operation of planning permit applications and the way in which the Minister for Planning will approach these particular changes once implemented. Other speakers have done that and have done a commendable job in outlining that level of detail, and Ms Vaghela and Dr Kieu again in particular have been exhaustive in that process. What I do want to place on the record, however, and finally, is our government’s commitment to doing the work necessary to ensure that we have a responsible, a reliable, a well-resourced and a well- regarded system of renewable energy not just now but for all the years to come. I commend this bill. Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (15:51): I rise to speak on the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment Bill 2020. Whilst the bill itself is a small bill, probably one of the shortest that I have seen in my time here at this place, it touches on an issue of global relevance. Countries around the world are adopting new energy technologies to reduce emissions from energy production in an attempt to manage humanity’s impact on the climate. While there is appropriate debate on exactly how this is done, most people agree that it is a worthy endeavour. Onshore wind energy, however, is creating tensions in rural communities around the world as their neighbourhoods are becoming more akin to industrial energy parks than the quiet farming communities that they are used to. For some people the loss of visual landscape is a tragedy, but for others, particularly people with a neighbouring property, it is an issue of property rights and health. We see many advocates for renewable energy dismiss these concerns and dismiss the people that make them as being climate change deniers, conspiracy theorists and hypochondriacs. I say ‘renewable energy’ advocates as I think that many of these people are not really advocates for climate change actions, because they oppose any solution that is not their preferred technology. For these rural communities around the world and those experiencing these issues in Victoria, it becomes a real David and Goliath battle when they are up against big business and big government with all of the power and resources at their disposal. The primary tool for assessing wind farm noise in Victoria is the New Zealand standard NZS 6808:2010. This provides the framework for how to measure noise and forms the basis for permit approvals and compliance testing. It is not something that I presume all members debating this bill today would know. Despite frequently being labelled as conspiracy theorists and hypochondriacs, many of the neighbours of existing or proposed wind farms are very aware of this framework. Not only are they very aware but they can provide an articulate and evidence-based critique of the standards and the compliance testing. While the debate today is not necessarily about whether or not the BILLS Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 53 standards are appropriate, they are important to consider in the context of this legislation, as something can be a nuisance to public health, as per the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, while still being compliant with permit conditions. As I understand it, that is one of the key reasons for the nuisance provisions existing in the act in the first place. The National Wind Farm Commissioner highlights that the New Zealand standard can be difficult to apply to Victoria as their protocols do not apply to some circumstances in our planning scheme. For example, there is no concept of low- and high-amenity areas in Victoria’s planning scheme. The commissioner has also recommended consistency of standards and regulations around Australia, which would suggest that a setback limit of 1.5 kilometres would be more appropriate as this would be in line with the majority of other jurisdictions in Australia. There is also a lot of complexity to measuring noise in general and particularly with noise related to wind farms. For example, a temperature inversion layer can cause sound to travel further than under normal conditions. It is also assumed that there would be a sound attenuation of 10 decibels from a dwelling under the New Zealand standards, and this may very much depend on the quality and age of the structure. Certainly I have heard testimony from people that have explained how they have had to turn up the television on days of high wind farm noise. I acknowledge that some of the key markers for sleep disturbance, such as the time taken to fall asleep and the total duration of sleep, did not show a significant impact. However, they did uncover other impacts on sleep quality. The normal sleep cycle seems to be disrupted, with less time spent in deep sleep. There is also a question of property rights. One thing that I was not aware of until doing background research for this legislation was that the setback distance between a wind turbine and a dwelling can be entirely on the neighbouring property. That would prevent any future construction of a dwelling in that area. The National Wind Farm Commissioner has also made recommendations that there should be at least some minimal setback on the hosting property in some circumstances. All of this is simply to state that the bill aims to exclude one specific industry from the nuisance provisions and leave compliance with the regulations as the only basis on which a complaint could be formed. This would all seem to suggest that the regulations related to wind farms are infallible and not worthy of review. I had never spent much time in a community surrounded by wind farms, so I went down to the Moyne shire myself over the summer break to meet with people that have issues with wind farm noise, and I would just like to thank the members of the community that introduced me to people and showed me how these issues affect their community. The idea that I had seen peddled sometimes that these people are making stuff up or just complaining about their visual amenity being disturbed is simply offensive. I saw a community that were frustrated at how this is causing divisions between people that have been friends for years. They were also very across the details of this policy area. They had maps of proposed facilities, understood the regulations, were very engaged with the planning approval processes and understood the role of the National Wind Farm Commissioner very well. One of the things that I wanted to experience when I went out there to see for myself was the actual noise and why these people felt that it is such a problem. One of the properties that I visited was about 2 kilometres from the nearest turbine, with a dense line of trees in between, but I could still clearly hear the thumping sound that is produced by the compression of air as the turbine blades pass over the tower. The residents explained to me that this was not a particularly loud day and that on the bad days it could be really loud inside their house. One thing that I had not considered was that this thumping sound was not a standard rhythm or beat; it was a strange sort of syncopated rhythm. I can see how this would be a particular nuisance. The childhood chess prodigy, Josh Waitzkin, spoke about this in the book The Art of Learning. A Russian player would tap a piece on the side of the table, and even though it was barely audible the discordant rhythm would throw off the opponent’s thought process. BILLS 54 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

There are several people who have sold or abandoned their homes due to the impact of wind farm noise, and I find it hard to believe that all these people would make up these concerns. I also find it a bit strange that some representatives and members of the community would choose to side with big business—in some cases, fossil fuel companies—over community concerns. Indeed AGL were a joint partner in the development of the largest wind farm in the Southern Hemisphere. What a strange position for environmentalists—to support a fossil fuel company bullying a local community. For these people, with interrupted sleep, with turbines right up to their property boundary, with light flickering in the kitchens in the late afternoon as though they were at some rave party, making a nuisance complaint under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act is their last desperate tactic. For the residents of Bald Hills in the South Gippsland shire, this played out over many years, with the council initially stating that there was not a nuisance and the Supreme Court ordering an independent investigation. An independent health consultant determined that there was a nuisance, as sound was frequently audible inside homes despite the wind farm being compliant with its permit. After receiving this report, the council passed a resolution determining that there was a nuisance, a decision that the company took back to the courts in an unsuccessful attempt to try and quash the motion. So here we are with this legislation today, attempting to close the door on those residents’ last right of complaint. In the cosy relationship between big government and big wind, we have here a free kick to one particular industry. The government have commissioned a regulatory impact statement on changes to the EPA regulations that would allow for a pathway that gives better certainty to both the industry and concerned communities. But from the draft EPA regulations that have been published, it is not clear that they will incorporate the recommendations from this study and sort this mess out. The Liberal Democrats do not believe in over-regulating industries, but we do believe in property rights. Without the certainty that new regulations will deliver better outcomes for all involved, we are not willing to shut the door on these communities from having their concerns independently investigated. Sitting suspended 4.00 pm until 4.23 pm. Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (16:23): I will be brief. Some legislation is challenging. It requires a lot of consideration and consultation before you decide whether you want to support it or not. This legislation is not like that. This legislation is corporate cronyism, plain and obvious, and the Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly reject it. Corporate cronyism is what happens when governments implement special laws for their mates in business, when companies buy politicians and get them to enact legislation that favours them over other businesses. This bill provides a specific exemption for wind farms from nuisance laws. Nuisance laws are a way to sort out minor property rights infringements when an action taken on one person’s property negatively affects someone else’s property. Everyone is subject to these laws. Nightclubs, restaurants, retail, garages, clinics, mines, quarries and everything else are all subject to nuisance rules. If this bill passes, wind turbines will become the only exemption. Nuisance laws are far from a perfect way of resolving these disputes, but they do provide an avenue for people to raise issues when their property is affected. I encourage those listening to pay close attention to how the Greens vote on this bill. The Greens pretend to oppose corporate influence in politics, but with this legislation will vote to create a legal loophole for corporate interests that support their agenda at the expense of local residents. If you only oppose corporate cronyism when it comes to corporations you dislike, then you do not oppose corporate cronyism. This bill is all about protecting the profits of wind farm investors over the interests of ordinary people. The Liberal Democrats are a party of principle and we do oppose cronyism, so we will be voting against this bill. Wind farms are a virtue-signalling tool for city-based green-leaning voters: support wind farms and you are a good person. Like so many of these virtue-signalling tools, the benefits go to the city-based BILLS Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 55 green-leaning voters while the costs are borne by those who live in the bush where the wind farms are. This bill is one more attempt to impose costs on rural voters to make city voters feel better. To be clear: I am not opposed to wind farms. They are certainly a low-carbon-emission form of power generation. Probably only nuclear power has lower emission levels. Personally I quite like the sight of the big white windmills turning in the distance, on the odd occasions that they are actually turning. But we are not here to debate the benefits of wind turbines. We are debating legislation aimed at removing legal rights from ordinary regional Victorians to protect the interests of politically connected investors. We do not support this bill. Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (16:27): Well, originally I was not going to speak on the bill, but— Ms Tierney: But you had to. Ms TAYLOR: I had to! There were things said and I thought, ‘I have got to rebut them’. I have got to rebut them because it annoys me when people take a really long bow, and you are like, ‘Well, we’ve just got to set the record straight’. So I am just going to rebut a few things and then we can move it along. It is true that we certainly do support our renewable energy target, funnily enough, because it is actually a really good way to reduce emissions and it gives certainty to the market. Funnily enough we are actually supporting the market. We are actually supporting businesses out there—how about that?— by giving them certainty in the energy sector. So it is not so bad, not so bad at all. When we look at the Victorian renewable energy target 2030, it will create 24 000 jobs, drive an additional $5.8 billion in economic activity and reduce prices by $32 a year for households, $3100 a year for medium businesses and $150 000 a year for large companies. So this is a serious investment which reaps rewards across the whole Victorian community; it is not just the people of the inner suburbs of Melbourne, it is also regional Victoria as well. We are creating jobs but also reducing emissions, which is also good when you are looking at the climate, because ultimately if we do not target these high carbon emissions we are all in trouble, farmers particularly. They feel the brunt of it, so we are thinking about them as well. But at the end of the day what we are looking at here is appropriate regulation, regulation that is fair and fit for purpose. It is safe to say that there has been a huge uptake in renewable energy, with good reason, so therefore the regulatory framework must be appropriate and fit for that change in the market. But we do not want to, as has been alleged, deny the community their voice. They still need their voice to be heard and that is assured through the process. Now, there was something that I was going to just cover off, because a lot of different things have been said today—that is part of having a debate—and one of them was about looking at different types of noise pollution. I think it is important to make the distinction between local and industrial noise. Live music venues and so forth are more appropriately managed at a local level, whereas wind farms have implications for the whole state—just to provide clarity on that point that was raised earlier. I am glad these points have been raised. It is better that we have a good and robust discussion, and it is also important for the community to understand the rationale behind these sorts of reforms. Also there is no reason the bill cannot have a positive impact on residents affected by wind farms by clarifying process, because part of this is not to actually hide the processes for the community. We welcome community actually following through with those processes. No-one is trying to hide them, and we will certainly be making sure that the community are well aware of their rights and their capacity to be able to pursue their various rights under the EPA regulatory framework. And really it is a win-win all round. Certainly our government has consulted widely, and we have been reached out to by councils because they find it, and have found it, too onerous. I do not think there is disagreement in the chamber. I did hear before—and I do not want to put words in people’s mouths—that because the industry is very large now it is simply too onerous for councils to be able to take on these matters, BILLS 56 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021 and this is why they have actually reached out to government and requested these reforms be brought into being. It is also to prevent duplication. I mean, we are always talking about cutting red tape and not having layer upon layer upon layer, which ultimately has got to be confusing for the community as well. So I think actually you will find that this is more a streamlining of process and is in no way trying to take away rights from the community. I should also note that the EPA has representation not only in the city; we do also have regional representation as well. So again it is not about harbouring the advice and the access in the city area; it is also about making sure that people do have access in regional areas to that assistance, should these issues come up. I know there were allegations about how people might be called different names if they raise issues about wind farms. Nobody is name-calling here. We are not here to persecute people if they have concerns about noise with wind farms. Granted if they have concerns, they have the right to pursue those concerns. We are not here to try and interrupt those processes. So I just want to allay some of the concerns that I believe were raised by Mr Limbrick around name-calling and so forth of people who might raise concerns they have about noise. I just want to assure them this is not about repudiating or nullifying their concerns but rather making a very logical process which people can pursue if they feel aggrieved with regard to wind farm noise. We know that as wind and solar farms have become larger the permitting burden has become more significant, and that is why we announced that all wind, solar and other energy infrastructure would be approved by the Minister for Planning, rather than being dealt with by councils. You can see really at the end of the day it is a pragmatic and considered change that respects what councils have been through with these rapid changes in industry. I also would take offence at the suggestion that this is just about pursuing the renewable energy target. I will put the caveat that, yes, we do want to pursue that target, we are proud of that target and we know what it delivers for the community in terms of bringing certainty to the market. We can see by the uptake in the Solar Homes program that the Victorian community do appreciate it, they do want renewable energy and they do want to take back their power over energy within their homes, to be able to control energy prices and so forth. I think it was already actually rebutted very well by Ms Shing—it might have been Ms Shing or it might even have been the Leader of the House—that we are only talking about renewable energy here to the extent that it is relevant to the conversation that we are having about this bill and about the application and the relevance, because there are increases and changes in the industry which are at the end of the day the trigger to improve the regulation for the benefit of all parties. And so it was kind of a little bit weird how there was this tangent into nuclear. I am like, ‘How is that relevant to regulation here with wind farms and the nuisance provision?’. I do not know how that got popped in. I think it was very creative, but it certainly is not relevant to the discussion that we are having here today. I just want to make some clarifications regarding this issue of the nuisance provision, because I think there are concerns that, ‘Oh, my goodness. If we let this go with regard to wind farms, suddenly the community are going to be left high and dry’. Well, the fact is that nuisance provisions were not drafted with the complexity and size of the wind energy facility industry in mind. Laws should always, as best they can—and we know how difficult it can be; everyone here knows how difficult it can be to get the drafting just right—be responsive to the changing needs of the community and the market. But we are doing that and we have not been shy of reform. I mean, there has been a huge reform agenda in energy from our government, and in the four years previous to when I was elected as well, and it is something that we are extremely proud of. So it is not like we are going out on a limb here and suddenly introducing reforms. It is one of the many considered reforms that are bringing about beneficial change for the community at large. And the nuisance provisions are used as a safety net when there is no other suitable regulatory framework. Commercial industrial noise is usually dealt with, however, under environment protection policy and legislation. So it is simply ill fitting, and you have got to concede that. The industry has changed and councils are feeling overburdened. It is overly BILLS Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 57 onerous and it does not make sense to continue with what essentially, at the end of day, is a duplication of processes. I also want to raise this point because it is very important not to unbalance the conversation: the amendment helps to bring certainty and clarity to the wind farm industry, yes, and councils—and confidence for communities in a strengthened regulatory framework for wind turbine noise. So it is not only one beneficiary, as I believe was alleged over there. They were saying, ‘Oh, it’s just about the wind farm industry’. No, it is also about councils and confidence for communities, and I think we need to be really clear about what the actual benefits are at the end of the day. I think you will all find that it is a very constructive and considered change. There are three core elements of this bill, just to reiterate so that we are really clear for all in the community because there is nothing worse than a community not getting the full information on a really important reform that is for their benefit. The bill addresses three key issues: unsuitability of the nuisance provisions for wind turbine noise; burden on councils; and duplication and inconsistency in regulatory schemes. And I just want to reinforce: it does not take away the right of members of the community to make complaints about wind farm noise. This is about clarifying a single process to provide confidence to both community and wind farm operators. I am not going to go through the complaints process now, but suffice to say having a nice, straightforward complaints process has got to be to the benefit of a community rather than having duplicated processes which, I would have to say, have to be quite confusing or at least onerous in terms of councils having to take on matters which really are beyond their capacity, I should say. It is not their capability, it is their capacity in terms of their parameters and their fiscal framework at the end of the day. Just to pursue—because this is really critical—the nuisance element, the nuisance provisions of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 are an important tool for councils to deal with local health risks. Further to Mr Quilty’s points about the nuisance provisions, I understand your concerns and I am not here to dismiss them, but those provisions were not drafted with the complexity and size of the wind energy facility industry in mind. So at the end of the day these are really old provisions and they no longer fit the purpose for which they were originally designed with regard to wind farms. That is why we are making this considered change. We are not getting rid of the nuisance provisions per se. So I just thought that it was very important that we have that clarity for Mr Quilty and others who might be concerned about seeing this as some kind of loss for the community when at the end of the day it is actually responding to changes in the market and the complexity of the wind farm industry per se. The other point I was going to raise: wind farms are already highly regulated, with extensive planning and community consultation requirements put in place before they are built. All planning permit applications for wind farms are subject to extensive notice to enable neighbouring communities to have their say about a proposal before it is determined. So this is really, really important in this conversation we are having right now because I know there are allegations of community being cut out, but clearly prior to the process of the wind farm being built et cetera there are these mechanisms which ensure community consultation along the way, and that gives me comfort as well. Noise output is a key consideration for the Minister for Planning before he determines—he or she, I should say, but in this case it is ‘he’—all permit applications for wind farms. Just to be really clear about the fact: no- one is trying to dismiss the community. On the contrary, it is actually simplifying the process but not taking away the avenues for redress for those who may have issues and concerns about noise with wind farms. And on that note, I commend the bill to the house. Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (16:40): I thank members for their contributions today in relation to the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment Bill 2020. Today’s amendments to the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 address some important issues of duplication in the regulation of wind farm noise while ensuring that the BILLS 58 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021 community is protected. The Public Health and Wellbeing Act contains nuisance provisions that are an important tool for councils to deal with local health risks, but as Ms Taylor has just been touching on, these nuisance provisions were not really drafted with the complexity and size of the wind energy facility industry in mind. The nuisance provisions are used really as a safety net when there is no other suitable regulatory framework available. Commercial and industrial noise is usually dealt with under environmental protection policy and legislation. Today’s amendments will ensure that investors can keep building and operating wind farms, which are creating thousands of jobs in the Victorian community. They also draw on well-established standards, such as the New Zealand standards, which are used in South Australia, New South Wales and Queensland, and I make that point particularly given Mr Limbrick’s contribution about whether or not the New Zealand standard is entirely applicable. It is important to note those other jurisdictions use the New Zealand standard. Indeed the existing Victorian planning permits are based on the New Zealand standard. So as others have said in their contributions, it takes the regulatory burden off councils, which are not able to manage the costs associated with regulating the Public Health and Wellbeing Act for such complex facilities. Councils have asked for this, the Municipal Association of Victoria have asked for this and the wind farm industry has also asked for this. The government will work with industry to develop appropriate ways to meet the new general environmental duty, which will be in place from 1 July this year. Regardless of this, suspected noise pollution can be reported to the EPA at any time via the 24/7 pollution reports hotline. This involves a preliminary risk assessment, which may include contacting the pollution reporter, the wind farm operator, the local council and the wind farm commission to gather data and the history of complaints. If the EPA confirms the need for further investigation, the EPA may undertake site visits or take other action in line with compliance and enforcement policy. The EPA’s standard practice includes informing all pollution reporters of the outcome of their report when requested. If a reporter is unsatisfied with the outcome of their report, they can escalate it within the EPA and ultimately to the Ombudsman if that is appropriate. This means that there will be a single avenue for complaints to be made rather than two parallel avenues under different legislation. So this is good for wind farms, but it is also good for Victorians, providing one standardised approach for all Victorians rather than relying on different councils to undertake these complex matters on their own. I am happy to answer any questions when we move into the committee stage. House divided on motion:

Ayes, 24 Barton, Mr Leane, Mr Stitt, Ms Cumming, Dr Maxwell, Ms Symes, Ms Elasmar, Mr Meddick, Mr Tarlamis, Mr Erdogan, Mr Melhem, Mr Taylor, Ms Garrett, Ms Patten, Ms Terpstra, Ms Grimley, Mr Pulford, Ms Tierney, Ms Hayes, Mr Ratnam, Dr Vaghela, Ms Kieu, Dr Shing, Ms Watt, Ms Noes, 13 Atkinson, Mr Davis, Mr O’Donohue, Mr Bach, Dr Finn, Mr Ondarchie, Mr Bath, Ms Limbrick, Mr Quilty, Mr Bourman, Mr Lovell, Ms Rich-Phillips, Mr Crozier, Ms Motion agreed to. BILLS Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 59

Read second time. Committed. Committee Clause 1 (16:52) Ms CROZIER: Minister, in regard to the bill briefing that we were provided with and which I referred to, the government and a number of government members have spoken about the government’s renewable targets and about their 2025 targets and their further targets in years to come. Could you provide to the committee or to the house what number of wind energy facilities is required to get to that target? Or what is the estimate—what the government thinks it will require? Ms STITT: Thank you, Ms Crozier, for your question. I am advised that that issue is actually outside of the scope of the bill, and it is not information that I have to hand now. But it is not actually within the scope of the bill before the house today. Ms CROZIER: Well, Minister, I can tackle this if you like. This is the briefing that was provided to me by the Minister for Health’s office. At point 4, I will read it:

This Bill will assist the Government with meeting its renewable energy targets by addressing a particular risk to investor confidence in constructing wind energy facilities in Victoria. That is what the minister’s office provided me as part of the bill briefing, so I do not think it is outside of the scope of the bill. I would ask for some guidance from the Deputy President and the clerks, if you would not mind. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Crozier, we might just seek some further advice on that and come back to it. So if we could move on to another line of questioning, that would be great. Ms CROZIER: Thank you very much, Deputy President. I appreciate that. I do so because as part of the government’s consultation process, in the briefing document that I was provided, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia have written to the Minister for Planning expressing concern that Victoria’s current system that allows complaints under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act could adversely impact the ability of existing operators to provide renewable energy and deter further investment in large-scale renewable energy projects in Victoria. So again there is an element that clearly the government has an understanding of what it wants to get to those targets, so I will await that advice. But if I could go to another point: is the government planning to undertake any studies on wind turbine noise that has effects on sleep or any other aspects that may have been in the complaints process that might have come through to the health department and otherwise? Ms STITT: Thank you, Ms Crozier, for your question. I am advised that there is no evidence that exposure to wind turbine noise directly affects human health when wind farms are situated and operated in accordance with the New Zealand standard. The noise limits in the New Zealand standard are generally accepted as being appropriate for the protection of sleep, health and amenity for the majority of people. I am happy to seek some further advice for you in relation to your question around whether there will be further research done in this area, but that is the advice that I have at this time. Just give me 1 minute, and I will check. I am advised that, no, there is not and that the New Zealand standard is the accepted standard in relation to these matters. Ms CROZIER: Could I just get some clarification. I know the New Zealand standard is applied here. Is that applied across the country in Australia, or is it just Victoria? Ms STITT: Thanks, Ms Crozier, for that question. I can indicate that the New Zealand standard is also used in South Australia, New South Wales and Queensland, and it is also the standard that, as you are probably aware, is the standard used for existing planning permits in Victoria. BILLS 60 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

Mr LIMBRICK: The government commissioned Deloitte Access Economics to conduct a regulatory impact statement on noise around wind energy facilities. This report was published in December last year and specifically addresses the government’s intention to remove the nuisance provisions from the Public Health and Wellbeing Act. They provided some guidance on how updated EPA regulations might address some of these concerns about the nuisance provisions being removed. However, my team has had a look at the current EPA draft regulations, and they do not appear to incorporate recommendations from the Deloitte report. Does the minister have any comments on whether they intend to incorporate those recommendations from the Deloitte report, or what is the status of that? Ms STITT: Thank you, Mr Limbrick. I will just seek some advice from the box about that issue for you and come back. Mr Limbrick, I am advised that there is public consultation going on in relation to the recommendations that you raise, and they are available on the Engage Victoria website until the end of February. So there is every avenue there for further consultation around these issues. Mr LIMBRICK: I thank the minister for her answer. With the draft regulations that are out there at the moment and the proposed regulations, how will they better address specifically noise complaints from nearby residents? Ms STITT: Sorry, can I just get you to repeat the last bit of that question, Mr Limbrick? Mr LIMBRICK: Yes. How will the new regulations better address noise complaints—I am saying specifically noise complaints—from nearby residents? Ms STITT: If what you are referring to, Mr Limbrick, is the different way in which complaints will be handled under the proposal before us today, which is to move them out of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act and move them into the Environment Protection Act, I can take you through the steps of that process. So the first step for anyone with a concern about wind farm noise is to speak with the wind farm operator to see if it can be resolved, and that is the same process as is in place currently under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act. If the resident believes that they are still affected by noise pollution, they are encouraged to report that to the EPA under the proposed new complaint-handling process. The EPA receives pollution reports and where necessary allocates them to a regional office for a timely and risk-based response. Then a preliminary risk assessment is conducted, and that may include contacting pollution reporters, wind farm operators, local council and the wind farm commissioner to gather data and any history of complaints. If the EPA confirms the need for further investigation, the EPA may undertake site visits or take other action in line with the compliance and enforcement policy. The EPA standard practice includes informing all pollution reporters of the outcome of their report when requested to do so, and if the reporter is unsatisfied with the outcome of the report, they can escalate it within the EPA in line with the internal customer service processes within that agency. If the resident is unsatisfied with the handling of their report, they can contact the Ombudsman. So that I hope gives you a bit more detail about what the difference would be under the EPA complaint-handling process should this bill pass through the house. Mr LIMBRICK: I thank the minister for her answer. One of the reasons I specified noise is that one of the things that was brought up in the Deloitte report is the two different approaches to managing complaints. One would be on assessing whether there is noise; the other one would be on assessing whether the wind farm is compliant with, for example, the New Zealand standard, as in this case. So this complaints process that you just outlined, would that look at noise or would it only allow for testing whether the wind farm is compliant with the standards or not? The thing that has been put to me is that just because it is compliant with the standard does not mean that it is not a nuisance. It can cause noise and flicker and these other things that may not be captured by the standard. It has also been put to me that some of the things in the New Zealand standard are a bit out of date because the size of the wind turbines is different and the structures of houses might be different—these sorts of BILLS Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 61 things that might affect whether there is a real nuisance. My core question is: will they investigate the noise or are they just investigating compliance with the standard? Ms STITT: I will just get clarification on this matter. But I do note that the draft regulations have recently been released to set out the requirements that a wind farm operator must meet in order to be deemed to be compliant with the general environmental duty, and that will apply upon commencement of the Environment Protection Act 2017. Just bear with me for one second, Mr Limbrick. In terms of the general environmental duty, you must reduce the risk of harm from your activities to human health and the environment from pollution or waste, so it is broader than what we have been talking about in relation to noise. The wind farm draft regulations will outline the steps that wind farm operators need to meet to satisfy the general environmental duty, and through this it is proposed that a wind farm operator must have a noise management plan in place that includes details on how they will address complaints as they arise. The draft regulations also canvass appropriate testing regimes, and these regulations are being developed in consultation with the industry and the community, as I referred to earlier. Regardless of this, suspected noise pollution may be reported to the EPA at any time via the process that I outlined earlier, and the EPA would then review the complaint and respond in accordance with its compliance and enforcement policy. So I hope I have addressed the issue that you have raised. Mr LIMBRICK: I thank the minister for her answer. It sort of addressed it. It sounds like that process is checking whether the wind farm operator is compliant with the regulations, but it is not testing for whether there is noise outside of that. The point I am getting to is that a wind farm operator can be compliant with the regulations and still cause a nuisance, which is the problem with moving this nuisance provision in the Public Health and Wellbeing Act. Just being compliant with the regulations does not mean that there is no nuisance, so it sounds from your answer that it will be testing for compliance rather than noise. One of the recommendations in the Deloitte report talks about the noise management plan that you are referring to and that there should be a complaints management process incorporated into that. Is it the government’s intention to incorporate a complaints process into the noise management plan? Ms STITT: Complaints can be made on any aspect of risk to human health and the environment covered by the Environment Protection Act, and the regulations are not limited to the New Zealand standard. So essentially the process that I outlined earlier was in relation to noise complaints being handled under the Environment Protection Act, as opposed to the Public Health and Wellbeing Act, but there are obviously broader parameters for issues around pollution, and noise pollution can be raised through that legislation as well. Mr LIMBRICK: I thank the minister for her answer. In your answer before to Ms Crozier you talked about no known health effects from noise. I wonder whether you or your advisers are familiar with the recent Flinders University study, which was released, that did not draw that conclusion. They drew the conclusion that there was some disturbance in sleeping patterns, so more time in light sleep rather than deep sleep. Is the government aware of this Flinders University study that was released recently? Ms STITT: Thank you for your patience, Mr Limbrick. Look, the position of the government, as I am advised, is there is really no evidence that the exposure to wind turbine noise directly affects human health. The AMA agree with this proposition—that there are no health impacts. In terms of the guidance provided by the New Zealand standard, we are satisfied that those standards ensure that there is no harm to human health when those standards are being met. Mr LIMBRICK: I thank the minister for her answer. Once these regulations go through the consultation process and are finalised, when would they next be reviewed? Ms STITT: I am not sure that this will satisfy your specific question, Mr Limbrick, but as I indicated earlier, the regulations are out for public consultation now, and the legislation would not be BILLS 62 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021 expected to commence until 1 July 2021. So I cannot give you any clarity around any future review of those regulations. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Crozier, just in response to your first question, if the minister claims that something is outside the scope of the bill, I have no power to ask her to answer that question. But it does concern me that it would be in a briefing note from the minister’s office that it is one of the intentions of the bill or one of the outcomes of the bill and it would still be deemed to be outside the scope. If there is an outcome the government hope to get from the bill, you would think it would be in scope, but the minister can choose to answer what she wishes to. Ms CROZIER: Deputy President, thank you for that guidance. I think it is incredibly disappointing, and I think it is incredibly devious of the government to not be able to provide that, specifically when it is pointed out in the bill briefing. It is spoken about in the house—the government’s renewable targets—and yet they cannot provide an answer as to how many wind turbine facilities are going to be in place in Victoria by 2025 to get to their targets. I think that is unbelievably disingenuous. I think the government knows what it is, and I find it completely unacceptable that the government refuses to provide Victorians with that answer. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thanks, Ms Crozier. If we can just move on, thank you. Ms CROZIER: I was just about to move on, Deputy President. I just wanted to make that point, because this is the place where we need to get the answers. I want to move on from Mr Limbrick’s question that he asked in relation to the review, because in the fact sheet that is being put out by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP)— Ms Stitt: On a point of order, Deputy President—I am sorry, Ms Crozier, to interrupt your flow— there is no ability to give the answer that she is seeking in relation to that question. It is not about not providing information; it is about the fact that that is not in the scope of the bill that is before us today. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is actually not a point of order; that is a point of clarification, I would think. But thank you. Ms STITT: Well, Ms Crozier is suggesting that it is some devious strategy. I can assure you it is not in the scope. Ms CROZIER: I am not going to labour the point, but the bill is about removing the complaints process from the Public Health and Wellbeing Act. In the bill briefing, Minister, it says—and I will repeat it again— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Crozier, is this on a different point? Ms CROZIER: No, it is on the point of order, just to give that confirmation. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, I have already said it was not a point of order; it was a point of clarification by the minister. If we can just move on, please. Ms CROZIER: Again, I think it is incredibly disappointing and devious of the government and disingenuous. I want to go, if I could, to the review. In the fact sheet that has been provided about the proposed changes there were three alternative approaches to wind farm noise regulation that have been identified and assessed in the regulatory impact statement. You have mentioned some of those issues. The three components are the no additional regulation, the direct regulation and the permissions, and I think you have spoken about a couple of those things in terms of Mr Limbrick’s questions to you. But specifically around the management and the process and the complaints management plan, which I will come back to, one of the points in that is saying that the requirements for wind farm operators are proposed under both the direct regulation and the permissions options, which include that complaints management plan that you spoke of but also undertaking noise assessments every five years. So is that it? Is that the answer to the question of Mr Limbrick—that there will be a review of what will be done in terms of the overall noise assessments every five years for facilities? BILLS Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 63

Ms STITT: I will just take some advice on that. I can clarify that the complaints management plan requires a noise assessment every five years to be compliant, and my understanding of Mr Limbrick’s question was that his was more in relation to the regulations that are out for consultation at the moment. I hope that answers your question. Ms CROZIER: Thank you, Minister. Yes, it does. Thanks very much for that clarification. The new Environment Protection Act commences on 1 July this year and will introduce a general environmental duty. Could you explain to the house what that will entail? Ms STITT: The general environmental duty requires operators to reduce the risk of harm from activities to human health and to the environment from pollution or waste, so it is quite a broad requirement. The wind farm draft regulations will outline the steps that wind farm operators need to meet to satisfy that quite broad general environmental duty. Ms CROZIER: Thank you, Minister. Okay, I read from the information that I have from DELWP that that will include the unreasonable noise provisions that are being developed through that regulation process. Is that correct, Minister? Ms STITT: I will just clarify that for you. Wind farm operators would need to demonstrate that they have a plan in place to ensure that they are meeting the new requirements of the act, specifically around wind farm noise. That will be in the Environment Protection Act. Ms CROZIER: Minister, could you inform the house how many councils have wind farm facilities currently operating, planned and being constructed? Ms STITT: I will just see if I can get that information for you, Ms Crozier. I am advised that the current projects are available online on the DELWP website. That is for current projects. It would be difficult—and we do not have any information available here—to predict what future projects might be in the pipeline, but the current projects are all online and available. I am happy to get that if you have not already got it. Ms CROZIER: Thank you, I have got that. The reason I ask that question is it is my understanding that it is Moyne shire, Moorabool shire, Ararat shire, South Gippsland shire, and there are probably a couple of others. So out of the 89 or so councils, or however many there are in Victoria—somebody correct me. Mr Finn: Seventy-nine. Ms CROZIER: Out of 79 councils—thank you, I knew I was wrong—we have got a number that have got issues around this complaints process. It is not every council that is having these issues, because obviously not every council is going to have wind turbine facilities—in the middle of the Melbourne CBD. Nevertheless, my point is that there is not a huge number of councils that are dealing with these complaints processes. As you have outlined to Mr Limbrick—and correct me if I am wrong, Minister, please—I think the complaints process is that if a community member does want to make a complaint, they have to ring the EPA via the 24/7 pollution report hotline and then the EPA will respond in line with its compliance and enforcement policy. Initially, I beg your pardon, they go to the wind farm operator, as they do now currently. Then they go to the EPA hotline, and should they still not be satisfied then they go to the Ombudsman. Are those the steps in the process for complaints? Ms STITT: Perhaps I can just touch on the first part of your question. I am advised Moyne council, Corangamite council, Moorabool council and Glenelg council have all written to the government asking for the changes that are before us today, and so has the Municipal Association of Victoria as one of the peaks, as have wind farms. In terms of the question around the complaints-handling procedure, you are correct: the first step is no different to the current process, which is raising it in the first instance with the wind farm. Then the resident who believes they are still being affected by the noise, if they are not satisfied with the BILLS 64 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021 response from the individual wind farm, is encouraged to report it to the EPA, and yes, this is via the 24/7 pollution report hotline. Then there are a number of other steps. If somebody was still unsatisfied, they would go to the Ombudsman. I did go through those with Mr Limbrick, but I am happy to go back to them if you wish—but there is quite a bit of specialised investigation that would go on and also looking into the history of any complaints from the same wind farm. Ms CROZIER: Thank you for that clarification, Minister. I think the point I was trying to make was: yes, there are councils that are concerned they do not have the ability to undertake some of the extensive acoustic requirements or the monitoring that is required. And it is expensive—I understand that one council has said, ‘Well, it is $80 000’. So my question to you is: did the government at all consider providing direct assistance to those councils that are affected by wind farm facilities? Because it is not across every single council but only a few out of the 79. Did the government consider providing that specialist assistance to those councils rather than changing it out of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act into the EPA act? Ms STITT: Part of the answer to that question is that those particular councils with wind farms have already asked for this change, so they have actively sought that the government make this change because of a number of factors, including the drain on their resources for such complex investigations. They have asked for the EPA to be the regulator in this space, and I guess I come back to the key purpose of the bill from the government’s perspective, which is to make sure that the complaints process is fit for purpose. That is why the government has come to the view that it is more appropriate that these noise complaint matters are dealt with through the EPA rather than the Public Health and Wellbeing Act, because of the complexities involved in such investigations around noise. The EPA is the state’s environmental regulator, and it is best placed to investigate noise complaints across the industry. Ms CROZIER: Minister, I appreciate that, and I appreciate there is expensive, complex monitoring that needs to be undertaken for these people that do make a complaint, but what I think is that the government, from your answer, did not offer directly to the councils that you would assist in that process, seeing that you are the ones that are responsible to get these facilities, through the various departments, operating. Therefore the councils obviously have got nowhere to go, because as they rightly point out it is a drain on their ratepayers’ resources but the government has not done anything to assist them in enabling their local constituency to be able to be satisfied. We will see this complaints process that is very drawn out. It does not give an ability for a complaint to be satisfied if you are going to the operator or the hotline and then a few other things before the Ombudsman. I just make those points in conclusion. My question really was not answered in terms of the government’s consideration about offering councils direct support. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Did you wish to make any comments, Minister? Ms STITT: Only insofar as, I guess, restating the point that the government is keen to ensure that there is statewide consistency in what is a pretty critical and growing industry, and we are responding in part to the request of a number of councils and one of the major peak bodies for councils for us to make this change. Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 6 agreed to. Reported to house without amendment. Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (17:32): I move:

That the report be now adopted. Motion agreed to. Report adopted. ADJOURNMENT Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 65

Third reading Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (17:32): I move:

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

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

Ayes, 24 Barton, Mr Leane, Mr Stitt, Ms Cumming, Dr Maxwell, Ms Symes, Ms Elasmar, Mr Meddick, Mr Tarlamis, Mr Erdogan, Mr Melhem, Mr Taylor, Ms Garrett, Ms Patten, Ms Terpstra, Ms Grimley, Mr Pulford, Ms Tierney, Ms Hayes, Mr Ratnam, Dr Vaghela, Ms Kieu, Dr Shing, Ms Watt, Ms Noes, 13 Atkinson, Mr Davis, Mr O’Donohue, Mr Bach, Dr Finn, Mr Ondarchie, Mr Bath, Ms Limbrick, Mr Quilty, Mr Bourman, Mr Lovell, Ms Rich-Phillips, Mr Crozier, Ms Question agreed to. Read third time. The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment. Adjournment Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (17:39): I move:

That the house do now adjourn. FRUIT TREE NETTING SUBSIDY Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (17:39): My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Agriculture, and it concerns funding for Victorian horticulturists to install netting to protect their valuable produce. The action that I seek from the minister is to explain why the Andrews Labor government has failed to allocate a single grant for netting, despite being provided with $4 million by the federal government for such a scheme in November 2019, and for the minister to provide a date for when that funding will be made available to growers. The Goulburn-Murray Valley region in my electorate is a major contributor to the $8.1 billion Victorian horticulture industry, as our area is the largest producer of fruit in Victoria, and horticulture is a major economic driver for the Goulburn-Murray region, supporting more than 5000 jobs. For many years Victorian producers have sought government assistance to install netting to protect their valuable produce, and I last raised this issue on their behalf in August 2019. The then minister responded to my contribution in October 2019, saying that the Victorian government did not support introducing a netting subsidy at that time. However, just one month later, in November 2019, the federal government came to the rescue and announced funding of $4 million for the Andrews Labor government to implement a horticultural netting grant program. The scheme, which was to be ADJOURNMENT 66 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021 administered by the state, was to be a dollar-for-dollar arrangement with a maximum of $300 000 for each individual recipient. Some 14 months later the Andrews Labor government has failed to implement the program, disadvantaging Victorian growers already suffering from a devastating harvest labour shortage, made worse by more Labor inaction. This is in stark contrast to the South Australian government, which has distributed more than 80 per cent of its allocated funding to growers since the federal government announcement, giving the South Australian horticulture industry an advantage over the Victorian horticulture industry. Our horticultural producers deserve better than a government that sits on its hands after receiving federal funding to help protect our valuable crops. The action that I seek from the minister is for the minister to explain why the Andrews Labor government has failed to allocate a single grant for netting, despite being provided with $4 million by the federal government for such a scheme in November 2019, and for the minister to provide a date for when that funding will be made available to growers. WESTERN METROPOLITAN REGION SCHOOLS Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (17:42): My adjournment matter is directed to the Honourable James Merlino, Deputy Premier, Minister for Education and Minister for Mental Health. As our state emerges from the global pandemic, we are making sure that all Victorians have the support they need in every aspect of their life. With the beginning of the new education year, the Victorian government is making additional investments in education and training to support our students, boost the economy, create jobs and ensure Victorians have the skills they need to secure a stable job. Victorian students will be supported to achieve their best, regardless of their circumstances and background, as the Victorian government invests an additional $3 billion in new schools and school infrastructure through the Victorian budget 2020–21. Families in Victoria’s fastest growing areas are a step closer to getting the state-of-the-art schools they deserve, and the state budget invests a record $3 billion to roll out the next phase of Victoria’s school building and modernisation boom. Right across the state we are building new schools so every child has the chance to get a great education no matter where they live: 14 new schools opened this year, with all the builders appointed for the 14 new schools to open in 2022. I am excited to see these schools take shape. In the Western Metropolitan Region several new schools have opened their doors recently. These include Davis Creek Primary School in Tarneit, Homestead Senior Secondary College in Point Cook and Riverwalk Primary School in Werribee. The Andrews Labor government is making sure that every child has a great start in life through a great local school. The action I seek from the minister is to provide me with an update about how many new schools will be built and how many existing schools will be getting upgraded under the $3 billion school building boom in the Victorian budget 2020–21 in my constituency of Western Metropolitan Region. ANIMAL WELFARE Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (17:44): My adjournment matter this evening is for the Minister for Agriculture. The action I seek is for her to make shade and shelter a legal requirement for animals used in farming systems in Victoria. Our state’s animal protection laws require our companion animals such as cats and dogs to be given reprieve from extreme weather conditions with shelter and shade, yet farmed animals are not afforded the same protections. For them, shade and shelter are nothing more than a suggestion, meaning that many, perhaps the majority, go without. It often leaves them to battle the elements when freezing wind and rain strike or without a cool place to take a reprieve during sweltering extreme heat conditions. Many farmers refuse to provide shade or shelter for animals simply because it is not economical for them. When animals are viewed as a commodity, they continue to suffer. It costs more to provide conditions for their basic welfare than to let millions die a slow and agonising death from exposure, heat stroke or dehydration. ADJOURNMENT Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 67

The need for mandatory shade and shelter is told by the story of one particular sheep named Lemon, who is now under the care of Strong Hearts Farm Sanctuary. Lemon has cancer on her ear and under her eye caused by ultraviolet sunlight, after years of nowhere to turn for comfort. Images of her sent to my office show her with a large bandage over her head, recovering from a surgery in which she was required to lose an ear. For Lemon and the thousands of other animals suffering because of completely inadequate animal protection laws for farm animals, I hope the Minister for Agriculture will consider mandatory shade and shelter as part of Victoria’s new animal welfare act. LATROBE VALLEY BATTERY RECYCLING PLANT Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (17:45): I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Planning, and it concerns his curious decision to call in the lead battery plant proposed for the Latrobe Valley in my electorate. This project has quite some history to it. The Treasurer, Tim Pallas, met with the Chinese company concerned in Nanjing, China, in 2019, and that took place shortly before Daniel Andrews signed up to the Belt and Road Initiative in October 2019. The local community have been very concerned about this facility, the environmental concern and the risk of toxins and lead and other contaminants in the environment. Richard Wynne seems to be hell-bent on making this project go ahead no matter what the cost to the environment or the local community. He has ensured that a full environment effects statement process is not required, allowing the company to undertake a self- assessment process. When the Latrobe City Council rejected the permit application, the communities in Hazelwood North and more broadly that were concerned about this lead smelter trusted in the process. They were told by the government to trust the process. The matter was appealed to VCAT by the company, and then, lo and behold, Richard Wynne stepped in and approved it. Now, he has given very little commentary as to why it has been approved and what factors he took into account in granting the permit, and the local community is absolutely perplexed and outraged. I want to quote from a Latrobe Valley Express article of 11 January:

Hazelwood North Action Group spokesperson Andy Tegart said he had “no idea” the application was before Planning Minister Richard Wynne, when it was approved in the new year. … “All along the government asked the community to have trust in the processes, but at the 11th hour these processes were totally over-ridden, including a VCAT hearing at foot … Wendy Farmer from Voices of the Valley, who is well known to many members of this place, is quoted in the same article saying:

This is not a shovel-ready project. The community do not want this. There will be a continued fight to ensure this project doesn’t happen … She goes on to say:

The government thinks this is the end of the matter, they are fooled. This is not the end of the matter, this is the beginning of the matter again. As I say, with the overlay of the Belt and Road Initiative and the lack of transparency from Richard Wynne, the community has a legitimate and rightful expectation to know why this was called in, why the environment effects statement was not needed and why the minister granted this permit, and I ask him for a full, detailed explanation. BANYULE BIODIVERSITY Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (17:49): My adjournment tonight is for the Minister for Local Government. I just want to comment on and commend Banyule council for its approach to working on preserving local biodiversity. Recently I had cause to contact them regarding the large amount of blue-tongue lizards that seem to be around at the moment. It seems to be a credit to our local biodiversity and the health of our local environment. Council is using a process whereby to ADJOURNMENT 68 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021 protect and preserve our local biodiversity environment they use an app which encourages local citizens to become what are called citizen scientists. People are encouraged when they see local fauna or flora, whatever it is, to take a photograph and upload it to the app and then it pinpoints where that particular flora or fauna is. That means the council can then develop a plan for how it might protect and preserve and document our local biodiversity and work on protecting it. I think that is a fantastic initiative by Banyule council. The action that I seek is that the minister write to other councils and advise them of the approach of Banyule council in protecting and preserving this environment and let them know that this is available to them so that other councils can also look at participating in the same way, which then helps us all to protect and preserve our local biodiversity and environment. FAST-TRACK REMAND COURT Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (17:50): My matter is for the Attorney-General. It is about the fast-track remand court, or FTRC for short, that operates as part of the Children’s Court of Victoria. Since the FTRC’s establishment in 2017 its central aims have been to deal in a timely way with the criminal charges of children held on remand and, where necessary, to help organise their engagement in education and other rehabilitation programs. However, it has generally assumed a very low profile publicly ever since then. I stress that as not a criticism in itself, because it is certainly not always a bad thing for something in the justice system to be operating without there being much contention or fanfare attached to it. Moreover, that can sometimes be reflective of the fact that it is actually working well. I have to say, though, that it is not very clear whether that is the case in relation to the FTRC or not. There is just very little information on the public record about its work, let alone the kinds of detailed independent evaluations or assessments that I think should probably have been completed by now about exactly how well it is or is not serving its objectives. There has been no mention of it, for instance, in any of the department of justice’s annual reports from 2017–18 onwards. Similarly, a search of Hansard for the exact phrase ‘fast-track remand court’ yields just one result for all the years since 2017, and even that was merely a very brief reference to its establishment. It has, likewise, only very rarely been mentioned in the media, and a general Google search does not elicit much detailed information about its activities at all either. Given the wording on page 36 of its most recent annual report, it appears that the Children’s Court itself, like me, also reached the view a while ago that a formal evaluation of the FTRC should be undertaken. However, it remains very difficult to ascertain whether this work did actually proceed as planned in 2019–20. Accordingly, I seek the Attorney’s advice about the role the FTRC is playing and how successful or otherwise it is proving, including an indication of the reasons and KPIs on which the government has been basing its decision to continue to allocate the FTRC its significant annual funding through the budget. As a very informative part of that advice I ask if she could also clarify if any formal evaluations of its work have been completed, and if so, what these concluded and recommended. STUDENT DEVICES Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (17:53): My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Education in the other place. Many parents in Melbourne’s north are finding it tough to pay for their children’s education. 2020 has been a very hard year for them, and the cost of living has gone up. Power prices and other utilities are up, and families in Melbourne’s north are feeling that they just cannot get ahead. A few parents of The Lakes South Morang College in Melbourne’s north that are struggling with the cost-of-living pressures have contacted my office about their displeasure with having to buy a laptop from the school’s preferred provider for the newly commenced school year. They have sought help from the school regarding the costs but have been told they are given no choice and have to buy the ADJOURNMENT Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 69 approved laptop from the school’s supplier, costing between $1000 and $1700 each, during this difficult time. These parents have told me that their children already have laptops and are seeking to be part of a BYO laptop provision that some of the adjoining schools have. They have already had to purchase a tablet device in the past, and buying a second laptop when they already have one is proving a difficult strain on these families’ finances and even their future. I am advised that the neighbouring school colleges have what they call a BYOD system, a bring-your- own-device system, and it is working quite well using exactly the same laptops that The Lakes South Morang College are using. This is tough for families. Keeping up with technology is always difficult, and providing for children and their school education is becoming a very costly exercise. These parents are telling me that if they add in the cost of this new laptop, plus uniform plus textbooks—plus everything that a child needs for their year 11 and 12 VCE—they could be up for over $3000 for publicly funded education, and it is tough. I have spoken to some of these parents on the phone, and they are teary about it, they are nervous about it. They are trying to work out what to do, particularly those of them who lost their jobs during the COVID period. It is tough for them. So my call for action for the minister is to instruct the department to review this decision around laptops at schools such as The Lakes college in South Morang and others and allow these families to bring their own technology for their students, rather than having to pay for a second laptop. WATER SAFETY Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (17:55): My adjournment matter is to the Minister for Education, and the action that I seek is for the government to urgently address the need for water safety for all Victorians. The 2019/20 Life Saving Victoria Drowning Report cites that in the last financial year 34 people in Victoria lost their lives to drowning. While this is a 23 per cent decrease on drowning rates compared to the 10-year average, this could partly be because of the poor air quality, bushfires and global pandemic restricting people’s access to water. But tragically since 1 July last year we have had 43 people die as a result of drowning, and over a quarter of those were in the last month. Males were four times more likely to drown than females. In fact males aged between 25 and 44 were a quarter of all deaths, and men aged 65 years and above had the highest age-specific fatal drowning rate. Half of all drowning deaths were a result of unintentional slips, trips and falls, which highlights the importance of learning survival swimming and water safety skills. Residents of metropolitan Melbourne were over-represented in the statistics compared to those in regional Victoria, which is actually a reversal of recent trends. Over the past decade over a third of those who drowned were from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and people from CALD communities were almost twice as likely to drown. While 22 000 culturally and linguistically diverse participants took part in a Life Saving Victoria program in 2019–20, the organisation still sees this as a priority area and its goals state that urgent work is needed. Fatal drownings of people who were rock fishing were almost six times the average. In September 2019 I called on the government to take urgent action on this and to subsidise pool entry and swimming lessons, which are unaffordable for a number of my constituents. Unfortunately the response from the minister was all about swimming lessons just for children. Now, we need programs that are aimed at men and CALD communities, and we also need community members to be able to afford entry into pools and swimming lessons. The government identifies water safety as a priority for all ages, genders and cultures, but I have not seen a focus on learning or revision of survival skills for men and for our CALD communities. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Cumming, you initially addressed that to the Minister for Education, but your contribution tended to go to other members of the community. Can you just clarify for me: are you only asking for swimming lessons in schools or do you want to address this to another minister? ADJOURNMENT 70 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

Dr CUMMING: Good question, Deputy President. It is about water safety, correct? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: As a suggestion, would you like this to go to the Premier? Dr CUMMING: Yes, to the Premier. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So I clarify that Dr Cumming’s contribution was for the Premier. FITNESS INDUSTRY SUPPORT Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (17:59): My adjournment matter this evening is to the Minister for Industry Support and Recovery, and it is in relation to the lacklustre support for the fitness industry, which has been suffering tremendously throughout not only the first wave and the second wave but this entire COVID pandemic. I would like to acknowledge the strong economic stewardship displayed by the federal government under the leadership of the federal Treasurer, the Honourable Josh Frydenberg, who has really assisted so many businesses with JobKeeper and JobSeeker in terms of those people that are seeking and looking for work through this horrendous situation that Victoria has been put in as a result of the actions of the Andrews government through the hotel quarantine breach and the disastrous contact tracing. Those actions by the federal government have certainly avoided a larger economic fallout here in Victoria, but there is still a large degree of devastation across my area of Southern Metropolitan Region and, I know, all parts of Victoria. And regrettably, while we have seen that leadership come from the federal government, it has not been the same response from the Andrews Labor government, which has left many Victorians—many, many Victorians—behind and without adequate financial support. This week I was again contacted by somebody in the fitness industry who I have spoken to in the past, and by no fault of their own their business has come under immense financial pressure, exacerbated by the lockdown measures, as I said, from the second wave, which were enforced by the Andrews Labor government. This constituent during this time has lost staff, membership to her facilities and a huge part of their income. I know she was really struggling, she and her husband, and putting everything on the line to save their business. That was some months ago, and now we are in February of 2021, so the pressures are growing by the day for this business. While there have been grants afforded to various sectors and industries across Victoria, the fitness sector has not received an equitable amount of support. It is important that the state government recognises its failures in this area and the ongoing harm it is causing Victorian livelihoods through this neglect. So the action I seek from the minister is that he provide information as to when he is going to provide further support for the fitness sector within that business sector and for the very many gyms and other fitness businesses that have been so devastated and impacted by the ongoing neglect and mismanagement of the Andrews government and their policies that have led to the second wave and to the extensive lockdown that has decimated this business and so many others like it. SUNITAFE SMART FARM Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (18:02): My adjournment matter this evening is for Minister Tierney, and the action I seek—well, it is almost an invitation really—is for her to accompany me and my Reason coalition colleague, Ali Cupper, the member for Mildura, to SuniTAFE SMART Farm to see how the proposed $10 million investment in the facility will greatly enhance the operations. I had the pleasure of visiting SuniTAFE SMART Farm last week, and it is located just outside the Mildura CBD. It is 31 hectares, and it is an incredible collaboration between a TAFE and the industries in the area. It is really enticing for students, but there are only five small classrooms there. They are currently relocatable portables, and they have got some shedding and glass propagation houses. But this is a place that is investigating new technologies. We are seeing that one of the first farm robots will be implemented up there. They are using drones. They are doing such incredible work. What they are doing is collaborating so closely with the industry up there about what that ADJOURNMENT Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 71 industry wants, and because they are using new technologies the students are loving it. They are really enjoying it. It means that SuniTAFE has been at the forefront of a number of local research projects, which includes a collaboration with one of my pet issues, the Australian Primary Hemp company. It has been interesting to investigate how this really formidable crop can be used in different parts of Victoria. They are at the forefront of this. There are very few trials like this happening in Australia anywhere, and certainly I know from meeting with the farmers there they were looking at this crop and the different ways that they could use it as a rotational crop or even as a cover crop. They also grow almonds, olives, avocados, wine and table grapes, and citrus, and this is all done in consultation with the industry stakeholders. The action I am seeking is for the minister to visit SuniTAFE, because they do want to expand these operations. They have shown me what they would like to do, and it really would be tremendous for small business and the industry in Mildura, as well as the over 150 students that are already utilising the sustainable, manageable, accessible rural technology, which is the SMART approach. Will the minister tour the facility and meet with the staff to discuss the incredible opportunities the farm provides? SUBURBAN RAIL LOOP Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (18:05): My matter is for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure in the other place, and it concerns the government’s announcement in recent weeks about the Suburban Rail Loop, in particular the planning documents released just before Christmas. What all of these documents show very clearly is a lack of consultation with the local community. The Suburban Rail Loop, a $100 billion-plus project, maybe even $150 billion or more than that, is a project that needs stabling yards. Everyone accepts that, but the government has selected a site in Heatherton for stabling of the Suburban Rail Loop. It is in green wedge land. It is part of the longstanding chain of parks that has been planned for the City of Kingston, and it is being imposed on the City of Kingston and the community without proper engagement and without the examination of other opportunities. I am aware that the City of Kingston on 27 January carried detailed motion 12.4, motion 4/2021, on the Suburban Rail Loop. It calls for the Suburban Rail Loop and the state government:

… to conduct a proper and meaningful information and consultation process with the Cheltenham, Heatherton and Clarinda communities prior to any final decision on the site. It makes the clear point that the council should have a role. It also points to weaknesses with the environment effects statement. It calls on the state government to deliver on their $25 million 2018 election commitment on the green wedge chain of parks. Bear in mind that this area has been set aside as green wedge land as part of a chain of parks since 1994 and since Dick Hamer made this green wedge land in 1979, so it is a very long time. Now the state government is invading this land, tearing up the protections on the green wedge land, tearing up the protections and plans for the chain of parks, and the regional sporting community options are being cut down too. The importance of this is that public open space is at a premium in Melbourne, and this is a significant opportunity for open and sporting space and improvement of the green wedge land. So what I am asking for the government to do is to first properly consult with the council, to properly consult with the community in the City of Kingston and more broadly to find options for the stabling yards, and in particular to release the assessments that the government has undertaken of options for train stabling. It is not the case that there is only one option in the whole south-east of Melbourne. There are other options, and the government should release whatever options papers they have on these stabling options. I believe the government should desist in fact from its attack on the green wedge land. ADJOURNMENT 72 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

ELECTRIC VEHICLES Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (18:09): My adjournment today is for the Treasurer, Tim Pallas. I believe we need the government to set a greater precedent when it comes to reducing emissions. This begins with adopting policies that encourage the uptake of electric vehicles. It was great to see President Biden commit to a transition of the entire US federal fleet to electric vehicles. Likewise, I commend Jacinda Ardern for her adoption of electric vehicles for the New Zealand government. Despite the United Kingdom, France and Germany committing to similar policies, Victoria appears to be resistant to transition to clean energy. We need to see action sooner rather than later. Climate change is an issue that must be addressed in all aspects of policy, and we know that electric vehicles are responsible for significantly lower emissions over their lifetime than conventional vehicles. Not only will electric vehicles reap significant benefits with respect to emissions, but cleaner cars on our roads will have a remarkable impact on the quality of the air we breathe. Vehicle air pollution has been estimated to cause over 1700 deaths per year in Australia. Increasing the uptake of electric vehicles is the first step to avoiding such deaths. With this in mind it seems clear the government has a responsibility to Victorians to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles and allow us to fully realise the benefits of clean transport. Why shouldn’t Victoria get to enjoy reduced emissions and enhanced air quality? Not only has the government failed to commit to introducing electric vehicles to its own fleet, but it has proposed the introduction of another tax that would discourage the uptake of electric vehicles. This backward response to climate change has to end. Therefore the action I am asking the Treasurer to take is for the government to set a positive example by committing to replacing the Victorian government fleet with electric vehicles, transitioning from 2022. COVID-19 Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (18:10): My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Health. Victoria has now been in a state of emergency since March 2020, more than 10 months. Victorians have had to endure one curfew, 23 hours a day at home, 5-kilometre restrictions, fines, compulsory masks and two lockdowns. It was supposed to be short-term pain for long-term gain. We were promised by the Premier that, quote:

These restrictions will be in place for not one day longer than they need to be. So to hear today of a further nine-month extension is not just disappointing but disastrous. Victoria is now 27 days without a locally transmitted coronavirus case and there were just three in the previous two months, and yet the restrictions remain. The Department of Health and Human Services on Friday justified it, noting the serious public health risk from coronavirus. How much longer must we accept this? The Premier has had a year to get to grips with the virus, as have the health ministers, and yet he still wants to rely on sweeping emergency powers which put back our recovery further. Where is the targeted legislation? Where are the moves back to ordered, everyday government? It seems that the longer this government sign off on the state-of-emergency powers, the longer they want complete control over the populace. Businesses and Victorians want normality back, and a continued state of emergency undermines this. Who in their right mind would invest in a state under emergency powers? Some of us warned that the Public Health and Wellbeing Act amendment passed by this Parliament was writing the Premier a blank cheque. The shocking job loss and business closure toll now make it clear that it is Victorian businesses which are footing the bill. Messages matter, and a unilateral declaration of a further nine months of the state of emergency is a disastrous message. So I ask the minister: what will it take to make the Premier give up this current modus operandi of control and fear and move to restore the normal rule of law? ADJOURNMENT Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 73

The action I seek is for the minister to outline what steps he will take to prepare us for a post-COVID world. To rely on never-ending state-of-emergency powers cannot be acceptable to anybody with a democratic bone in their body. If new laws are required, then so be it; let them be brought into this place and discussed in full. Continuing to rely on powers crafted for wartime or disaster scenarios is the refuge of tyrants. It undermines not just business confidence but the trust which binds a free society. DUCK HUNTING Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (18:14): My adjournment matter tonight is to the Minister for Agriculture, and the action I seek is that the minister refuses to approve the duck-shooting season this year and immediately bans duck shooting in Victoria. Today is World Wetlands Day. Our wetlands, like the many beautiful examples we have in our own backyard in Victoria, play a vital role in fighting climate change and protecting our biodiversity, especially birdlife. This year we are marking the 50th anniversary of the Ramsar treaty to protect significant wetland sites, so it is disappointing that I, like many Victorians, am spending this World Wetlands Day dreading the imminent announcement of yet another duck-shooting season in our state. In 2021 it is unconscionable that this government continues to allow the legal slaughter of our native waterbirds for sport. Year after year we have seen season after season approved despite growing community opposition, worsening conditions and decreasing waterbird numbers. Last year I was dismayed but not surprised that the government approved a duck-shooting season once again. If this government was ever willing to stand up to the hunting lobby and refuse to permit a hunting season, then surely it would have done so last year, in the wake of a horrific bushfire season and in the middle of the COVID-19 restrictions, yet the season went ahead. It is clear that this government remains in thrall to the hunting lobby and unwilling to do what is right for our climate and our native ducks for fear of upsetting a small cohort of recreational shooters. But the Victorian people overwhelmingly support an end to duck shooting in Victoria, and I know many of the minister’s parliamentary colleagues are also in opposition to the continued massacre of ducks in our state. When our waterbirds are already struggling after years of drought, with game species numbers already at low levels and dropping every year, it is unacceptable that we would continue to allow our native duck numbers to be further reduced each year to appease the small number of people who enjoy shooting ducks for fun. I ask the minister: listen to the Victorian people, listen to your parliamentary colleagues, listen to the experts and refuse to approve a duck-shooting season this year and ban duck shooting in Victoria once and for all. FIRE RESCUE VICTORIA DRY-CLEANING CONTRACTS Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (18:16): My adjournment matter this evening is for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, the Honourable Lisa Neville in the other place. Just prior to Christmas—and what a terrible Christmas present it was—drycleaners in Moe, Traralgon and Morwell had their long-term contracts cancelled by Fire Rescue Victoria. A state government sanctioned directive to cancel regional drycleaners’ contracts is not frustrating, it is shameful. Citing contamination and the USA-based National Fire Protection Association in relation to personal protective clothing (PPC), the government has abandoned local businesses that have been providing exemplary services for decades in some cases. Indeed one of the Latrobe Valley drycleaners said that over two generations he and his father have been cleaning the clothes of the CFA—for 60 years. In Parliament today the minister cited personal protective clothing, and I quote:

… how you decommission it. A local drycleaner cannot meet that standard. The council contracts were for non-operational day wear uniforms—for example, slacks and shirts— not PPC-turnout uniforms. The minister has endorsed the decision to withdraw the services from all of the regional towns that had what were formerly known as integrated stations, now FRV stations— 38 regional towns. As well as Latrobe Valley, I would like to thank the Golden Square drycleaner for ADJOURNMENT 74 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021 sharing his story and frustrations. The annual loss to businesses is between $8000 and $18 000 per annum—no small sum when we consider a COVID-strained regional economic environment. Disparagingly the minister gloated that dry-cleaning would be centralised in Melbourne. The Andrews government has local procurement policies that in this case represent only lines on a page, not a commitment to rural and regional Victoria. One of the businesses contacted the FRV apparel officer to ask to tender for the process, and he said, ‘You couldn’t afford it’. Indeed my constituents know that it is a sham, this new five-year contract. It was driven by the United Firefighters Union, and indeed their 68th bulletin last year said a ‘quicker turnaround’ for dry-cleaning. That was one of key features: a ‘quicker turnaround’ for dry-cleaning. Now, local Latrobe Valley drycleaners know that they can turn the uniforms around in 4 hours. Under this new arrangement they would barely have reached the depot in Melbourne in 4 hours. So the action I seek from the minister is to repeal and reverse this appalling decision and give those local drycleaners in our rural towns the chance to tender for these contracts. KINDERGARTEN FUNDING Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (18:19): My adjournment matter tonight is for the Minister for Early Childhood, and I rise again to address the concerns that many parents and educators have brought to me regarding the government’s so-called free kinder program. Like many Labor government proposals, one could be forgiven for being enchanted by the catchy title and the bold promise of making kindergarten free for our kids. But also, like so many proposals that emanate from the Treasury benches, the title belies an ill-thought-out scheme that will leave our kids and also our early childhood educators in many instances worse off. As an educator myself before coming into this place, I have always had at least some understanding of the importance of giving our younger kids the very best possible start in life. As you are aware, Deputy President, immediately before taking my place in this chamber with you, I was the deputy principal of a large prep–12 school in my electorate, and we had an early learning centre. In that role I learned far more about not just how important early learning is for students but also the wonderful job that leadership does at so many of our early learning centres, and also about our early learning educators, who quite frankly do not receive the respect that they deserve. Nonetheless, this government’s free kinder plan will not meet that aim of ensuring that our younger students get the very best start. This was noted in an article over the break in the Age newspaper just last month. It was noted in that article by the education reporter Adam Carey that almost one in 10 kindergartens will be worse off if they sign up to this scheme. With over 2000 kindergartens in Victoria, that number is not an insignificant one. This government’s plan proposes a subsidy to be paid to kindergartens, but for many non-profit centres the subsidy falls well short of their actual costs—costs, for example, that go to ensuring they provide a high-quality kinder experience and pay their staff. Curiously the government’s plan forbids kindergartens from charging parents for the gap. Now, as noted also in the recent article in the Age newspaper, this will inevitably lead to cost-cutting measures at kindergartens that must include the scaling back of classes and programs and also the sacking of some of our educators. The action I seek from the minister is for her to take action to ensure that, as opposed to the structure of the current plan, no kinder is worse off. RESPONSES Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (18:22): The fact of the matter is that we have had 16 adjournment matters raised this evening, covering a wide range of topics to say the least. There was one that was specifically directed to me from Ms Patten, and I wish to deal with that now. I did notice in local newspaper reports that Ms Patten had visited the SuniTAFE farm in recent times with the local member, Ali Cupper, so I was not surprised to actually receive an adjournment matter in respect to the SuniTAFE farm facility. I ADJOURNMENT Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 75 have actually been there several times. It is a fantastic facility and one that is much loved by the local community. I know that this government has already allocated at least $1.9 million towards the farm in terms of technology and innovation works. This is being put to good use. I have been taken around the farm several times. I have been on the tractors and various other equipment, and it is incredibly impressive to see how one can farm using the most up-to-date technology. So I applaud those that are supporting the SuniTAFE farm. We also of course had the Victorian skills commissioner, when he was doing his regional workforce development plan, spend a lot of time with local industry—the agricultural and horticultural industry—and the SuniTAFE farm was very much part and parcel of all of that. And of course a lot of work that was done in that project has also been undertaken at the farm, and the continuing partnerships that are there are holding that region in good stead. I also wish to indicate that I know a lot of good work was done through parliamentary committees on medicinal cannabis. I know that the then Minister for Agriculture, Jac Symes, had many a conversation with Ali Cupper in respect of what may or may not happen in relation to her electorate in respect of that form of agriculture. I am sure that the new minister, Mary-Anne Thomas, will be well and truly interested and wanting to get up to see the farm at SuniTAFE and offer her support as well. I also draw the house’s attention to the fact that in the state’s December budget there was a significant allocation to agriculture for very many of the projects that are being suggested by a range of organisations, particularly in the training and skills area. In fact there is $30 million that is available, so I would encourage people to continue to put their case forward. So, again, this government is well aware of the great work that the SuniTAFE farm does. We will continue to see what we can do to ensure that that farm continues to prosper and provide a sound training and skills facility for the local people, and indeed continues to encourage young people in the local region to stay in the region and pick up the skills that they need to support the fantastic agricultural and horticultural industry that surrounds the Mildura region. I have 70 responses to adjournment matters. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The house now stands adjourned. House adjourned 6.26 pm. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES 76 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

Written adjournment responses Responses have been incorporated in the form supplied by the departments on behalf of the appropriate ministers. 11 December 2020 to 2 February 2021

WORKSAFE CLAIM In reply to Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (18 March 2020) Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood):

I am advised that: As noted in the Adjournment debate of 26 November 2020 when the Member raised the matter, I am extremely sorry to hear of Ms Humphries’ injury at work. Everyone deserves to go to work and come home safely. Where workers are injured it is of course my strong expectation that they receive their entitlements in a timely manner from WorkSafe. I would encourage Ms Humphries, if she has not already done so, to access the review mechanisms within our workers compensation system, such as the Accident Compensation Conciliation Service. This important service ensures that workers can have disputes with their insurer conciliated before an impartial third party. Ms Humphries can access WorkCover Assist or Union Assist which are services provided free of charge to injured workers to assist with the conciliation process. On the broader concerns regarding agents, the Victorian Government is committed to ensuring every worker has their claim treated fairly and has access to the correct entitlements. We have commissioned an independent review to consider whether the current model of claims management is meeting the objectives of workers’ compensation laws, and specifically ensuring appropriate and timely compensation is paid to injured workers with complex claims. I am advised WorkSafe is also implementing a number of initiatives to better support injured workers that takes into account their injury and personal circumstances to provide them with a better path to recovery and return to work. I would encourage the member to provide me with further details of Ms Humphries matter. I would be happy to request WorkSafe make further enquiries where it is appropriate to do so. FIRE SERVICES In reply to Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (4 August 2020) Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine—Minister for Water, Minister for Police and Emergency Services):

The Victorian Government greatly values the selfless contributions of Country Fire Authority (CFA) volunteers and is committed to the future of the CFA as a volunteer-based firefighting organisation. The Victorian Government has committed significant funding to support and strengthen the CFA. In May 2017, $56.2 million was committed to a CFA Support Fund as part of the Fire Services Statement to strengthen volunteer recruitment and retention, increase training options, expand brigade support and develop brigade leadership. The government also recently announced details of the CFA Capability Funding package, which will provide $126 million over the next five years to support CFA in delivering critical training, equipment, infrastructure and volunteer support. This includes funding for 16 new fire stations, 50 new replacement appliances, trialling of new respiratory protection, and new personal protective clothing. Governance and consultation mechanisms are in place to ensure that the views of CFA volunteers continue to inform reform implementation. The Fire Services Reform Volunteer Reference Group (VRG) meets monthly and comprises senior representatives from Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria (VFBV), CFA and Emergency Management Victoria. The VRG provides a forum for volunteer representatives to raise reform- related matters and serves as a mechanism for resolution. The Victorian Government’s Year One Fire Services Reform Implementation Plan also assigns specific actions to the CFA in relation to volunteer consultation. These include the requirement for the CFA to continue WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 77

consulting with volunteers and to consider any required improvements to consultative processes and escalation pathways between volunteers and the CFA, and for the CFA to consult with volunteers in relation to the delivery of the $126 million Capability Funding package. Volunteers more broadly have been kept informed about reforms through regular email updates, organisation- wide videoconferencing sessions and a dedicated intranet page. Members have also been able to raise questions and concerns via a dedicated Fire Services Reform email inbox and through District and Region line management. The CFA’s engagement with volunteers will continue and grow into the future in line with its focus as a volunteer firefighting organisation with deep community ties. AGRICULTURE VICTORIA In reply to Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (18 August 2020) Ms THOMAS (Macedon—Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional Development):

Climate change is one of the biggest threats and disruptive opportunities in agriculture. In partnership with industry, Agriculture Victoria uses big data analytics, transformative digital AgTech and cutting-edge genetics to consistently deliver innovations to meet the climate challenge. Innovations in predictive digital agriculture are moving the sector toward carbon neutrality in dairy, grains and horticulture and to an increasingly sustainable position of being able to do more with less. For example, Agriculture Victoria scientists are using gene sequencing to help farmers selectively breed animals that better adapted to changing climate conditions. These scientists have identified genes that enable selective breeding for more heat tolerant, more fertile dairy cows. In partnership with Dairy Australia and Gardiner Foundation, Agriculture Victoria’s scientists have delivered tools for farmers to select for cows that release less methane while also producing more milk for the same amount of feed. Agriculture Victoria hosts and operates the Australian Grains Genebank, the national centre for preserving and distributing grain crop genetic resources for Australia. It is a result of a nationally significant partnership of Agriculture Victoria with the Grains Research and Development Corporation for research and innovation. More than 159,000 populations of plant genetic resources, representing 300 million seeds, from over 150 countries are currently held in the Australian Grains Genebank to keep them viable for 50 years or more. At the Australian Grains Genebank Agriculture Victoria scientists also research ways to make cereals, oilseeds and pulses more disease resistant, drought tolerant, and water and nutrient use efficient. Agriculture Victoria’s research has immediate, practical impacts for farmers. The research is planned and co- owned with industry, and the results are able to be quickly and easily adapted on farm. COVID-19 In reply to Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (18 August 2020) Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health):

The $59.7m Stabilising and Reinforcing Mental Health Care Capacity funding package is supporting clinical mental health services to meet immediate surge demands resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and to urgently respond to critical recommendations from the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System (the Royal Commission) Interim Report. Funding has been provided to accelerate critical recommendations from the Royal Commission: • $4.06m to immediately commence implementation of the Hospital Outreach Post-suicidal Engagement (HOPE) program at seven additional hospitals (including Austin and Box Hill hospitals) and to enhance service delivery at two existing HOPE program sites, to achieve the Royal Commission’s recommendation of state-wide coverage for this service. • $30m to finalise designs for the capital works required to deliver 120 hospital-based adult acute mental health beds as part of government’s broader response to recommendation 2 of the Royal Commission. Between November 2020 and June 2021, public health services, including Austin Health and Eastern Health, will directly receive funding totalling $21.3m to: • Extend community mental health clinic operating hours so that more COVID-19 safe face-to-face services can be provided for consumers who find it difficult to engage with telehealth services. • Provide more outreach assessment and early intervention services to help keep people safe in the community and out of hospital. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES 78 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

• Expand specialist mental health consultation and liaison teams so that more mental health support can be provided to hospital patients in general medical and surgical wards. These teams will also support GPs and other primary health professionals to provide high-quality mental health care to people in the community. • Provide more allied health and medical services in hospital mental health inpatient units on weekends. The Department of Health and Human Services (the department) is also working closely with partner agencies to progress the following initiatives funded under the Stabilising and Reinforcing Mental Health Care Capacity funding package: • The Victorian Mental Illness Awareness Council and Tandem, the peak bodies for mental health consumers and carers respectively, received $0.9m to increase staffing for their telephone support lines. Tandem will also use this funding to boost the Mental Health Carer Support Fund. • $1m is allocated for the 15 Melbourne-based headspace centres, including Greensborough and Knox, to develop a coordinated approach for the care of young people in the community who are finding it difficult to engage with telehealth services. This coordinated approach will include partnerships with clinical mental health services and schools. • Funding of $0.5m has been used to expand the TelePROMPT pilot, which commenced on 1 November 2020. Under this pilot, mental health clinicians are seconded from Eastern Health to Ambulance Victoria to provide mental health consultation services. They assist paramedics to assess and care for people experiencing mental health issues in the community. • Phoenix Australia, the experts in trauma-related mental health and wellbeing, will receive up to $850k to work with industrial bodies and employer workforce wellbeing teams to bolster Employee Assistance Programs with specific initiatives designed to support police, paramedics and nurses through the COVID-19 pandemic. • The Nursing and Midwifery Health Program Victoria (NMHPV) has received funding of $250k to provide increased support services for nurses, midwives and nursing and midwifery students experiencing mental health issues or substance abuse concerns. The department is working with the Commonwealth Department of Health on the establishment and ongoing operation of 15 Commonwealth-funded mental health clinics, known as HeadtoHelp clinics, which are designed to further enhance the provision of essential mental health support across Victoria during the COVID-19 pandemic. One HeadtoHelp clinic is located in the Eastern Metropolitan Region, at Banyule Community Health in West Heidelberg. Work is also underway to enhance the capacity of the mental health system to provide care (with an early focus on inpatient care) through the creation of additional public private partnerships under the National Partnership on COVID-19 Response. In total, the Victorian Government has invested more than $215 million in additional mental health supports since April 2020 to help meet demand and ensure Victorians get the care they need, during and well beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. On 12 November, we also announced total funding $868.6 million in the 2020–21 Victorian State Budget for mental health. This will help to ensure Victorians have the mental health support they need while we continue the fundamental rebuild of our mental health system. The budget includes funding to implement the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System interim report, including $492 million to deliver 120 additional acute mental health beds. This is in addition to the 24 mental health Hospital in the Home beds announced in May 2020, bringing the total number of new public beds to 144. $18.9 million is provided for 35 acute treatment beds for public mental health patients in private health services and$21.4 million to complete the statewide rollout of the HOPE program is also provided. Other key budget investments include funding to: • Establish the Victorian Collaborative Centre for Mental Health and Wellbeing, which will bring together people with lived experience, researchers, and experts to provide clinical and non-clinical services, conduct research and disseminate knowledge across the state. • Establish Victoria’s first residential mental health service designed by people with lived experience of mental illness and their families and carers • Define, promote and support lived experience workforces in Victoria’s mental health system, along with establishing the pathways for growth in their size and reach. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 79

• Provide additional job training opportunities to support students and job seekers looking to pursue a career in the mental health sector. • Improve culturally appropriate support for Aboriginal Victorians. • Provide mental health and wellbeing support for asylum seekers. WEST GATE TUNNEL In reply to Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (1 September 2020) Mr WYNNE (Richmond—Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing):

The Hi-Quality site at Bulla contains an operating landfill and recycling facility. The existing landfill is licensed to accept Category C waste and other wastes, subject to the requirements of the council and Environment Protection Authority (EPA) Victoria, and other authority approvals. The West Gate Tunnel project is a state-significant infrastructure project and the disposal of spoil from the associated works must be managed appropriately. I acknowledge your concerns and appreciate that there are environmental, social and economic issues that require careful consideration in the assessment of the proposal. I have not considered or determined the request made by Hi-Quality for an amendment to the Hume Planning Scheme for the storage, testing and disposal of spoil from the West Gate Tunnel project on the site. I will consider your comments and the comments of the council and other stakeholders, along with other information, in deciding whether to amend the planning scheme to allow the proposed use and development. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES In reply to Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (16 September 2020) Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health):

I thank the Member for her question. The Andrews Labor Government is aware that the current mental health system is broken and needs fixing. That’s why we made an election commitment in 2018 to implementing a Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System. We have already gotten underway with delivering on the nine interim recommendations, and we have committed to implementing every single recommendation from the final report. The pandemic has brought additional challenges for many Victorians. Unfortunately, our young people have been hit hard by the pandemic. That’s why the Andrews Labor Government has provided additional funding during the COVID-19 pandemic to give additional resources and supports to those who need it. In April 2020, we announced a $59.4 million package to help meet demand as Victorians reach out for help with stress, isolation and uncertainty. Working in partnership with the Commonwealth Government and primary care services, we will ensure that Victorians have access to a broad range of services within their local community. This package included several mental health supports specifically for young Victorians, including: • $19 million for targeted mental health and psychosocial supports for young people • $6.7 million was provided to expand online and phone counselling services • $6 million to fast track Orygen Youth Health’s new Orygen Digital platform, which will provide online personalised therapy and peer support for young people, and • $4.9 million for 24 new Hospital in the Home beds—15 of these beds will be delivered by Melbourne Health in partnership with Orygen Youth Health for young Victorians with existing mental health issues. In August 2020, another $59.7 million was announced to strengthen the surge capacity of clinical and community mental health services across Victoria to cope with additional presentations and reduce pressure on hospital emergency departments. This package focused on funding new initiatives to expand the operating hours for community mental health services, providing assertive outreach and working closely with primary care services. In the biggest investment in mental health in the state’s history, the Victorian Budget 2020-21 provided $868.6 million to ensure Victorians have access to the mental health support they deserve, which included: • $7 million to support critical research into youth mental health and operations at the Orygen centre WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES 80 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

• $21.4 million for the further expansion of the Hospital Outreach Post-Suicidal Engagement (HOPE) services across the state. This will expand suicide prevention services and follow-up care for adults, and to support a new child and youth program • $7.7 million for specialist training roles in child and adolescent psychiatry to improve clinical skills and build career pathways for an increased number of psychiatrists to develop a specialty in child and adolescent psychiatry • $4.6 million for youth mental health psychosocial recovery supports, responding to a critical service gap for young people with a severe mental illness and psychosocial disability to be delivered through community-managed mental health providers. I acknowledge your concerns about the lack of mental health supports for business. Business Victoria provides a range of Wellbeing and Mental Health Supports for Victorian Small Businesses. In August 2020, the Minister for Small Business Jaala Pulford announced details of a $26 million program addressing the mental health needs of sole traders and small and medium business owners and their workers: Mental Health Support for Business Owners and Workers. New business specific mental health supports such as Partners in Wellbeing have been established through Business Victoria and existing services such as Beyond Blue and Lifeline have been strengthened. In relation to your concerns around the mental health system providing support for acute mental illnesses in conjunction with police, the Mental Health and Police Response (MHaPR) initiative is a joint mental health and police crisis response delivered by the Department of Health and Human Services (Department) and Victoria Police. The MHaPR involves a mental health professional working alongside police officers to undertake mental health assessments and respond to the presenting situation within the community. There are currently 24 MHaPR services in Victoria. The Department and the Victorian Police have a protocol that establishes the agreed arrangements for interactions between Victoria Police and mental health clinicians. The Department of Health and Human Services—Victoria Police protocol for mental health: A guide for clinicians and police October 2016 drives all local agreements. It states that the police are responsible for supervising a person under section 351 until the mental health staff accept the handover of that person. In early 2020 the Department conducted a review of the MHaPR programs. This review made 14 recommendations to improve the MHaPR program. This includes establishing guidelines across the state that will enhance consistency to joint mental health and police programs. I trust this information is of assistance. FAMILY VIOLENCE ANIMAL WELFARE In reply to Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (13 October 2020) Ms WILLIAMS (Dandenong—Minister for Prevention of Family Violence, Minister for Women, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs):

The Attorney-General is the Responsible Minister for the part of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) that operationalises family violence intervention orders and personal safety intervention orders. I encourage Mr Meddick to raise amending the FVPA with the Attorney General for consideration. Mr Meddick also identified change to registration for domestic animals as a mechanism to support women to leave a relationship and maintain care for pets. Mr Meddick could raise this with Agriculture Victoria and the Minister for Agriculture, who has responsibility for the Domestic Animals Act 1994 (Vic). From a family violence service response, Victoria’s Family Violence Multi Agency Risk Assessment and Management Framework and Practice Guides support professionals across the service system to recognise the threats and harm experienced by pets and animals in the context of family violence. Harm and threats to harm pets or animals is a high risk factor for family violence, with a direct link between violence to family members and likelihood of pets being abused or killed. This can be a highly controlling behaviour used to coerce, induce fear and dominate victim survivors. The MARAM also recognises non-domestic (e.g. farm) animals as subject to family violence risk behaviours from a perpetrator as part of risk assessment and management considerations. Professionals are being up-skilled in recognising and responding to this insidious behaviour through risk assessment, and are supported to provide risk management responses to animals through safety planning, including safe housing options, support in caring for pets and short-term rehoming to enable suitable long- term reunited accommodation with the victim survivor to be found. Funding is available to specialist family WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 81

violence services to provide this support through the Flexible Support Packages and crisis brokerage programs. WESTERN METROPOLITAN REGION TRAIN SERVICES In reply to Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (13 October 2020) Mr CARROLL (Niddrie—Minister for Public Transport, Minister for Roads and Road Safety):

Station upgrades will be undertaken as part of the Victorian Government’s stimulus works package at 11 stations, including Aircraft Station. The Department of Transport is working with rail operators to finalise the details for the upgrades. All works across the program are expected to be complete by December 2021. Works at Aircraft Station will include amenity and accessibility upgrades such as installing handrails and raised boarding points. There will also be upgrades to shelter and seating on the platforms. The Level Crossing Removal Project completed the removal of Aviation Road level crossing via the construction of a road over rail bridge to the east of the existing level crossing in September 2019. The construction of a Station Access Underpass at Aircraft Station and the construction of 100 new and upgraded parking spaces within the existing station carpark south of Aircraft Station is planned to commence in April 2021. The 100 new and upgraded spaces at Aircraft Station is part of the Car Parks for Commuters program and will include CCTV and lighting. Prior to the commencement of the Aviation Road project, there were 36 commuter parking spaces in the Aircraft Station Precinct. Tarneit Station is a major bus/rail interchange point for the Tarneit activity centre and the Wyndham Growth Area, including residents in the developing suburbs of Tarneit. The Department of Transport will undertake works to upgrade the bus interchange to support the two new bus routes to/from Tarneit Station. The works are planned to commence in January 2021. The works will include additional bus bays and shelters and associated lighting and civil works. The two new bus services; metropolitan Bus Route 152, Tarneit to Williams Landing, and Bus Route 182, Werribee to Tarneit, via Tarneit West, will begin operating in May 2021. These services will help people connect more easily to work, school and local services and amenities like the Werribee Town Centre. Both routes will run every 40 minutes, seven days a week, with higher frequencies in the peaks. The timetables for these services will be finalised and communicated from April 2021. VICROADS LICENCE TESTING In reply to Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (15 October 2020) Mr CARROLL (Niddrie—Minister for Public Transport, Minister for Roads and Road Safety):

Since June 2020, six additional testing sites have been set up across Melbourne to deliver as many computer- based and licence tests as possible while ensuring that testing can be carried out as safely as possible, in line with the latest medical advice. The new testing sites are in Mulgrave, Coolaroo, Ringwood, Essendon Fields, Cranbourne and South Morang. An additional computer-based testing site is also operating in Richmond. Two of the new sites are located within the Western Metropolitan Region, at Essendon Fields and Coolaroo. There is existing licence testing capability at Werribee (as a dedicated licence testing centre), Sunshine, Melton and Deer Park (as a dedicated licence testing centre). As part of the Government’s accelerated plan, a further six sites will open early in the new year, taking the total to 12 new sites across metropolitan Melbourne. Locations for the second cohort of six sites are currently being assessed with a minimum of one additional Licence Test Centre or Computer Test Centre being established within the Western Metropolitan Region. The dedicated Computer Test Centre established in Richmond will also assist in addressing test backlogs in the Western Metropolitan Region, reducing the number of centrally based Melbourne residents seeking test appointments in the West. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES 82 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

RURAL AND REGIONAL MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES In reply to Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (15 October 2020) Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health):

Thank you for raising the issue of workforce supply challenges for mental health services in regional and rural areas. There are a number of investments that will support mental health workforce attraction including upgrades to infrastructure and funding for new positions. The 2018-19 State Budget provided funding of $47m to allow area mental health services to recruit new positions including Clinical Nurse Consultants in Traralgon, Bendigo, Geelong, Ballarat, Mildura, Shepperton, Albury Wodonga and Warrnambool. These positions will provide mentorship, clinical experience and a crucial resource for inpatient unit teams. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has been working closely with mental health services around recruitment challenges and options available to address these. One strategy has been a pilot program to recruit 44 undergraduate nurses to work in mental health services as a way to provide them with experience in the sector and increase the likelihood of choosing a career in mental health after graduation. Funding of $1.9m has since been made available in the 2020–21 State budget for mental health services to recruit to nursing, allied health and medical undergraduate positions within the Recovery Workforce Package. The package provides a total of $17.6m for mental health workforce positions including child and adolescent psychiatrists; additional nurse transition positions; allied health and nurse graduate positions; and for training and employment pathways for Victorians with lived experience. DHHS are piloting a mental health worker relocation grants program that will be managed and operated by the Rural Workforce Agency Victoria (RWAV). The program aims to provide financial incentives for mental health workers to relocate and take up roles in public specialist mental health services operating in rural and/or remote areas of Victoria. As it is a pilot program the funding pool is $252K which will provide an initial understanding of the types of incentives that will support relocation. Outcomes will be reviewed at the end of the pilot period. The interim report of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System acknowledges the challenge of workforce supply, particularly in rural and regional areas. The Royal Commission’s interim report makes workforce related recommendations that are currently being implemented by Mental Health Reform Victoria. These include expansion of graduate positions; mental health rotations for all Junior Medical Officers and international recruitment. The final report from the Royal Communication is due in February 2021 and the Victorian Government is committed to implementing every recommendation. VETERANS EMPLOYMENT STRATEGY In reply to Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (16 October 2020) Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans):

I thank Dr Cumming for her question and 10 years of service in the Army Reserve as a medic and preventative medicine technician. The Public Sector Veteran Employment Strategy is on track to meet the target of 750 veterans placed in public sector jobs by 30 June 2021. Since the launch of the Strategy in 2017 to November 2020, 672 veterans were employed in a broad range of roles across the Victorian public sector. This includes 352 sworn in as recruits for Victoria Police, 70 employed in Corrections and 250 employed across a government departments and agencies. In the 2020–21 Victorian Budget, we committed $594,000 over two years to continue to deliver the Public Sector Veteran Employment Strategy and related employment initiatives, including: extension of the Veteran Mentor Program and Veteran Employee Network; delivery of veteran employment information sessions and workshops; and to support the work of the Veteran Employment Advocate, Major General David McLachlan AO AO (Mil) (Retd). The Government recognises the barriers that many veterans face in transitioning to civilian life and employment. This is why I was pleased to host the first Victorian Veterans Employment and Skills Accreditation Roundtable in December 2020. The Roundtables will provide an opportunity for the Victorian Government to work with experts in their fields and to address barriers that ex-service men and women face in transitioning to civilian life and employment. Further roundtables will be held in 2021. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 83

Part of the work of the Roundtable and the Veterans portfolio includes engaging with industry, the education and training sector and local government to ensure we’re supporting transitioning veterans into meaningful employment or training. ROSS STREET, TATURA In reply to Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (27 October 2020) Mr CARROLL (Niddrie—Minister for Public Transport, Minister for Roads and Road Safety):

Ross Street, Tatura (Tatura-Undera Road) between Edgar Street and William Street, north of the railway line, has been identified for pavement rehabilitation repair by Regional Roads Victoria in the 2021–22 financial year. The repair will involve a full-width, asphalt pavement treatment which will improve the amenity of the road for Tatura residents and provide a significant safety improvement for all road users. COVID-19 In reply to Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (28 October 2020) Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business):

The Victorian Government understands the unprecedented impacts the pandemic has had on many small businesses in Victoria, including home-cleaning service providers. The Victorian Government’s reopening plans are based on health advice to slow the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19) across the state until a widely distributable vaccine is available. Industry representatives, peak bodies and businesses offer feedback and recommendations on the reopening plans through industry roundtables and direct consultations. The Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions has met regularly with industry associations to hear their concerns on behalf of members and businesses. On 26 October 2020, the Premier announced easing of restrictions across how we work. Since 28 October 2020, home-cleaning service providers have been able to operate with a COVIDSafe Plan. On 6 December 2020, the Premier announced Victoria’s move into the new COVIDSafe Summer which saw further easing of restrictions in how we live and work. Home-cleaning service providers will be able to continue to operate with a COVIDSafe Plan, which should still consider the maximum amount of time a cleaner spends in a home and physical distancing from residents at all times. The complete list of industry specific requirements is available on the Victorian Government’s COVID-19 website: coronavirus.vic.gov.au/industry-restriction-levels-victoria Businesses are encouraged to contact the Business Victoria hotline on 13 22 15 for information on restrictions and support to help plan and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 In reply to Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (29 October 2020) Ms HENNESSY (Altona—Attorney-General):

Thank you for your question, Mr Limbrick. The decision to waive fines for failure to wear a mask sits with the issuing agency, in most cases Victoria Police, and is not a matter for the Attorney General. ROTHWELL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, TARNEIT In reply to Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (29 October 2020) Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans):

Wyndham City Council has advised that the developer, Dacland, is working to deliver three reserves in the Rothwell Estate in Tarneit as a matter of priority. Construction of the three reserves commenced in mid- October 2020. It is anticipated that two of the reserves will be completed and available for use before Christmas. The third reserve may be partially available for use before Christmas and is scheduled to be completed by April 2021, WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES 84 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

when playground equipment is scheduled to arrive. The council is working closely with the developer to facilitate completion. I am pleased to note the progress of this important initiative which will support the health and wellbeing of the Rothwell Estate residents and the wider Wyndham community. COVID-19 In reply to Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (30 October 2020) Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier):

The Board of Inquiry into the COVID-19 Hotel Quarantine Program (Inquiry) was independent of the Executive branch of government, both procedurally and substantively, and has operated in an independent and transparent manner throughout. As stated by the chair of the Board of Inquiry, the Honourable Jennifer Coate AO, the Inquiry was, by definition, “above politics”. The five Counsel Assisting the Inquiry are all independent members of the Victorian Bar. On 25 September 2020, I gave evidence to the Inquiry and throughout the Inquiry I cooperated with requests for information and material to enable the Inquiry to do its task. I thank the Honourable Jennifer Coate AO and her team for the significant amount of work that went into both the interim and final reports. COVID-19 In reply to Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (30 October 2020) Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business):

If the Member actually cared about small businesses as much as he cares about playing political games he would bother to follow up with contact details for the individuals and organisations with whom he has asked that I meet in Question Time. With respect to Victorian Government assistance to enable businesses to use QR code technology to assist with contact tracing, we are absolutely doing this. Minister Pearson is, as the Member well knows, the responsible Minister for the development of the Government QR code system. To enable effective contact tracing, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) requires that certain types of Victorian businesses, workplaces and premises, record the name and phone number of each person who attends the premises for more than 15 minutes. These records must be kept for 28 days. The types of businesses and entities to whom this requirement applies are listed on the DHHS website, and include places such as hospitality venues, community facilities, recreation facilities, hair and beauty services, auction houses, religious venues, galleries and more. Other businesses and places where people visit are also encouraged but not mandated to keep such records. The Victorian Government has developed an accessible solution that enables businesses and entities to conveniently capture and store the required details for the required period. Businesses and entities can access a website, where they may register one or more spaces or premises. Following registration, an email is sent to the business or entity containing a PDF document with one or more printable Quick Response (QR) codes, which can be put up in noticeable locations at their premises. For example, a restaurant with indoor and outdoor space may register one QR code to put up in their indoor space, and another to put up in their outdoor space. Another example is a business owner with multiple sites, who may register a QR code to put up in each of their sites. When a visitor comes to the premises, they simply need to scan the QR code with their phone’s camera, or use one of many QR code reading apps available. If the customer does not have a smart phone or cannot scan a QR code, the organisation may do it on their behalf, using a business or personal smartphone or tablet. Alternatively, if this is not possible, paper records may still be kept. This new QR code solution is free for all Victorian businesses wishing to register. But it is not mandatory. Businesses may continue to use their existing record keeping method, which could be an alternative QR code platform. In addition to developing a free QR code solution for businesses, the Victorian Government is developing an Application Programming Interface (API) solution which will enable QR platforms already being used by WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 85

businesses to communicate directly and securely with DHHS contact tracing systems in the event a positive case is identified and the data is requested. This means that businesses using the Victorian Government’s free QR code solution, as well as those using an existing, market-led QR code solution, will have visitation data rapidly transferred to DHHS if they need to trace the contacts of a confirmed coronavirus (COVID-19) case. This approach will increase the efficiency of contact tracing, compared to the traditional pen and paper method. In working on these solutions, government continues to prioritise the privacy and security of all Victorians’ data. Data entered into the Victorian Government’s free QR code solution is only collected for contact tracing purposes. Personal information will be stored in a secure database for DHHS to access if needed, and deleted after 28 days if not needed. The Government’s Small Business Digital Adaptation program does include a QR code provider—the Member may wish to familiarise himself with this program. This forms part of nearly $7 billion dollars in support for businesses during this challenging year. The Victorian Government is committed to continuing to support businesses through the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. CHILD PROTECTION In reply to Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (10 November 2020) Mr DONNELLAN (Narre Warren North—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers):

The Victorian Government understands that the coronavirus pandemic has meant some parents have faced barriers in making progress towards reunification. DHHS continues to deliver child protection services. Child Protection continues to plan for children, assist parents, and monitor court orders with face-to-face contact continuing according to risk, need and public health requirements. The reunification of children and their parents where it is safe to do so remains a key priority for the Victorian government. It is incorrect to state that a substantial amount of child protection staff were moved away from their vital roles. There are more than 2000 child protection staff and only 29 in total assisted in the pandemic response for short periods of time, with processes in place to cover their child protection work. The COVID-19 Omnibus (Emergency Measures) and Other Acts Amendment Act 2020 included an amendment to the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 that enables the Children’s Court of Victoria to grant additional time under a family reunification order beyond the legislated 24-month maximum, in specific circumstances, up to 30 months. The Court is now able to allow up to an additional six months in total to a Family Reunification Order. It may grant this time at the beginning, part way through or at the end of the order, or in increments at different stages. Allowing an extra six months prevents families who are striving for reunification during the COVID-19 pandemic being disadvantaged while also preventing ongoing delays and uncertainty for children in care. This commenced Wednesday 21 October 2020. Parents working towards reunification may be accessing a range of other services including family violence services, drug and alcohol services, and mental health services. These services have been adjusting their service delivery methods to align with public health directions and industry restrictions. Through the 2020–21 State Budget, the government is investing a further $340.1 million over four years to support earlier intervention in the children and families system to improve outcomes for Victorian children. This includes funding to expand the delivery of the new intensive family preservation and reunification model. CONTAINER DEPOSIT SCHEME In reply to Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (10 November 2020) Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes):

A container deposit scheme (CDS) is part of ambitious reforms to transform Victoria’s recycling system under our $380 million Recycling Victoria policy. This will help us to make sure we minimise waste and recycle and reuse as much of it as possible. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES 86 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

Victoria’s CDS will increase recycling of empty beverage containers into new products, reduce litter, enable a product stewardship model that fosters a shared responsibility between producers, retailers and consumers of beverage containers. We will make sure it provides easy access to collection points for all Victorians and provide opportunities for a range of organisations to manage collection points including community groups, charities, sporting groups and small to medium enterprises. This will create positive social outcomes by encouraging new local jobs throughout Victoria and enabling community-based organisations and small businesses to participate in the scheme and share the financial benefits. The public consultation on a proposed design for Victoria’s CDS commenced in November and closed in December 2020. We are asking beverage consumers, businesses and organisations, communities and local governments to share their views so that our scheme suits Victoria’s needs. We received 2,764 contributions from the public, including 185 written submissions. Eight information sessions and workshops were held, generating conversations with 284 participants. The government is now reviewing the information received to better understand how a CDS can be designed to be the best fit scheme for Victoria. A summary of the feedback received and next steps to implement Victoria’s CDS will be available in early 2021. There will be more opportunities for Victorians to have their say as we continue to implement the CDS. COVID-19 In reply to Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (10 November 2020) Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine—Minister for Water, Minister for Police and Emergency Services):

The COVID-19 pandemic poses an unprecedented risk to the health and safety of Victorians. To slow the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, all Victorians must comply with the directions made by the Chief Health Officer under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008. Fines can be issued by enforcement agencies, including Victoria Police, for non-compliance with the public health directions. As the issuance of these fines is a matter for enforcement agencies, these fines cannot be rescinded by the Victorian Government. However, these fines may be reviewed in any of the ways available to review a fine. Under the Infringements Act 2006 a fine recipient can request an internal review by the issuing enforcement agency. There are five grounds for internal review, including that there were exceptional circumstances, the fine recipient has special circumstances or there was a case of mistaken identity. Alternatively, a person who receives an infringement notice, or who is unsuccessful on internal review, may elect to have the matter heard in court. Fines issued to young people that go unpaid may be registered for enforcement with the Children’s Court of Victoria through the Children and Young Persons Infringement Notice System (CAYPINS). The Children’s Court is a specialist court dealing with children and young people and takes into account their developmental needs in its decision-making. It is not able to be influenced by government. While fines ensure that people take responsibility for their wrongdoing, a range of measures also exist under the Infringements Act 2008 and Fines Reform Act 2014 to help disadvantaged people manage their fines. For anyone in Victoria facing hardship there are options available to help manage fines. These options include accessing payment arrangements, and social justice initiatives including the Work and Development Permit Scheme. More information can be found on the Fines Victoria website at www.fines.vic.gov.au. In addition to the above review options, Victoria Police maintains an internal review process for all COVID- 19 infringements, including those issued to under 18s. A thorough assessment of the individual circumstances for each infringement is conducted. This process is over and above the assessment process conducted for other infringements. CHINA TRADE In reply to Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (10 November 2020) Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier):

The Victorian Government recognises the economic value of engaging with China as our largest trading partner. The Victorian Government is closely monitoring the situation regarding Australian exports. We will continue to work with Victorian businesses and the Commonwealth Government to support Victoria’s export industry. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 87

Continued cooperation with China—and with all our trading partners—aligns with our focus on creating jobs, supporting Victorian businesses and boosting the state’s economy as we respond to the impacts of COVID- 19. The Victorian Budget 2020–21 includes a $32 million Export Recovery Plan to provide immediate support for the recovery of exports, while beginning work on our longer-term recovery. The funding will connect Victorian businesses to international markets through virtual trade missions and our trade and investment office network. It will help to address logistics and supply chain issues caused by the pandemic and support diversification of market opportunities and export channels. These initiatives will showcase Victorian businesses to the world, create new demand and support the thousands of livelihoods that depend on exports. COVID-19 In reply to Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (11 November 2020) Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine—Minister for Water, Minister for Police and Emergency Services):

The global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has been profound, and the steps taken to keep the community safe here in Victoria have led to significant changes to how we live. These changes have challenged us all, but the steps taken have minimised the spread and saved lives, and we are now in a position where Chief Health Officer restrictions have eased considerably. Despite restrictions easing, we are still living with COVID-19 and we need to be vigilant as a community. Victoria Police remains committed to limiting the spread of COVID-19 and will continue to work with the community during this difficult time to support the health and safety of Victorians. It is still important that we all play our role and continue to follow the Chief Health Officer directions. It is the role of Victoria Police to serve the Victorian community and uphold the law to promote a safe, secure and orderly society as outlined in the Victoria Police Act 2013 and reflected in the Victoria Police Code of Conduct. Victoria Police officers rely on a variety of statutes and the common law to fulfil this role. Victoria Police expects the highest standards from its officers and actively enforces regulations relating to officer behaviour in the Victoria Police Code of Conduct. The oath undertaken by police officers requires them to discharge their duties legally, faithfully and according to the law. Police in Victoria are also required to carry out their role regardless of culture, faith, gender or background. Police in Victoria are required to carry out their role in an impartial manner that separates their work from their own private convictions. The personal opinions of police officers do not allow them to abrogate their responsibility in carrying out their duties. HORSERACING In reply to Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (11 November 2020) Mr PAKULA (Keysborough—Minister for Industry Support and Recovery, Minister for Trade, Minister for Business Precincts, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events, Minister for Racing):

The premise of the adjournment raised, that Anthony Van Dyck was euthanised after being loaded into the horse ambulance, is incorrect. RV has advised that Anthony Van Dyck was humanely euthanised on the track after sustaining a fractured fetlock during the running of the 2020 Melbourne Cup. The horse received immediate veterinary care but unfortunately, due to the nature of the injury and the prognosis for recovery, was unable to be saved. RV refutes any suggestion that the veterinary treatment of any horse would be influenced by factors other than the immediate welfare of the horse. RV’s veterinary services team uphold the highest standards of professional integrity and the interests of the horse are always paramount. The loss of any racehorse is distressing and the Victorian Government joins Racing Victoria (RV) in extending its sincere condolences to trainer, Aidan O’Brien, and the connections of Anthony Van Dyck. RV has advised that a fatality report will be prepared by RV’s integrity department, as is standard practice in circumstances where a track death has occurred. RV has committed to releasing the findings of that report. RV has also publicly committed to undertake a thorough and broad ranging investigation into why a number of international horses in recent years have suffered catastrophic injuries in the Melbourne Cup, and why no similar pattern has emerged in the other Spring Racing Carnival races in which they compete. The Victorian Government is committed to improving equine welfare outcomes both on and off the racetrack. Since December 2014, the Government has provided $10.7 million in funding to enhance the integrity WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES 88 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

framework in Victorian thoroughbred and harness racing, including $4.4m for programs and projects specifically to improve equine welfare outcomes. This includes $2.25 million to jointly fund the ‘Equine Limb Injury Prevention Program’ which seeks to help the industry better understand and reduce equine limb injuries. The Victorian Government will continue to support RV to monitor and improve equine welfare standards throughout the industry. NILLUMBIK SMALL BUSINESS In reply to Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (12 November 2020) Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business):

The Victorian Government is committed to ensuring that small businesses impacted by restrictions have access to the support they need to prepare for COVID Normal operations. This support is flowing to small businesses in the form of cash grants, tax relief, skills programs, and mentoring and wellbeing assistance. Under the Small Business Friendly Council initiative, the Victorian Small Business Commission works in partnership with regional and metropolitan councils to help local businesses thrive. Councils that sign up to the initiative pledge to help their local businesses by streamlining approval processes, making faster payments to small businesses, supporting local business networks and helping traders better manage the impact of infrastructure projects. I can confirm that the Victorian Small Business Commissioner has been in contact with Nillumbik Council to reiterate the shared goals of the Small Business Friendly Charter to create a fair and competitive trading environment for small businesses and discuss the issues you have raised. If individual small businesses wish to raise any issues involving their local council, the Commission can investigate the matter and help resolve any complaints through its dispute resolution service. Businesses can visit vsbc.vic.gov.au for more information or email [email protected]. The Nillumbik Shire Council has also received other support from the Victorian Government in recent times, including $500,000 in funding as part of the Victorian Government’s $87.5 million Outdoor Eating and Entertainment Package to support councils and businesses to make widespread outdoor dining safe, practical and a reality this summer. The funding will assist Nillumbik streamline permit processes, support an increase in outdoor dining on public and private land, and create vibrant public spaces over summer. As part of a state-wide initiative to reduce the regulatory burden on small business and improve permit approvals times, the Nillumbik Council worked with Small Business Victoria to complete the Better Approvals Project earlier this year. The aim of this project, now completed in 73 councils, is to reduce the regulatory burden, time and money that small businesses spend in the permit application process. Improving the process and avoiding costs due to delays allows more businesses to succeed in their early stages of operations. The outcomes delivered for Nillumbik Council through the Better Approvals Project include a new Business Concierge Officer, improvements to their business webpage, a video explaining how to navigate the end-to- end process of business approvals at the Council and a permit self-assessment checklist. This improved internal process has seen all areas of the Council working more collaboratively to process permits concurrently and reduce the time for businesses to receive their permits. The 2020–21 State Budget provides for a second round of the Better Approvals project to build on the program’s success to support economic recovery through innovation and reducing the cost of doing business. WESTERN METROPOLITAN REGION INTERNET ACCESS In reply to Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (12 November 2020) Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business):

The Victorian Government acknowledges that digital affordability is an area of concern for vulnerable Victorians. This has been heightened by recent emergency events where Victorians had unprecedented demand to access the internet for work, business, essential services and to stay socially connected. The Commonwealth Government has primary responsibility for regulating telecommunications service standards and pricing. In 2018, the Universal Service Guarantee (USG) for Telecommunications was WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 89

released, guaranteeing all Australian homes and businesses access to affordable broadband and voice services, regardless of their location. The Commonwealth Government’s Statement of Expectations to NBN Co specifically requires that all Australian premises have access to very fast broadband at affordable prices. As the Member noted, despite these arrangements many individuals and households do not access fixed line internet services for a range of reasons, including affordability. Such individuals and households may rely more on mobile services and in some cases free public WiFi. Under the recently announced 2020–21 State Budget, Victoria’s Digital Future Now initiative will invest $550 million in digital infrastructure to increase business-grade broadband in suburbs and regional towns and deliver over 1,000 new mobile base stations so people can fully participate in the emerging digital economy anywhere in Victoria. This initiative builds on previous Victorian Government funding for 243 new mobile towers to improve mobile coverage and internet services across our state and establishing free public WiFi networks in Melbourne, Ballarat, Bendigo and Shepparton CBDs (and soon expanding to Geelong, Ararat and the Latrobe Valley region) to provide Victorians with one of the largest outdoor WiFi networks in Australia. In response to the surge in demand for digital connectivity during the COVID-19 pandemic, the telecommunications industry instituted short-term hardship measures to address disadvantage and affordability issues for households, businesses and students. This included Telstra providing 5,000 free SIMs and the Department of Education loaning 27,000 SIMs and 23,000 tablets and WiFi devices to support Victorian students learning from home. The Victorian Government has also allocated $24.5 million in the 2020–21 State Budget to reimburse schools so students can keep the more than 71,000 mobile devices loaned to them during the coronavirus pandemic to ensure no child is left behind. The Victorian Government will continue to advocate for Victorians on digital inclusion to the Commonwealth Government. COVID-19 In reply to Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (12 November 2020) Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier):

I know that 2020 has been a very difficult year for all Victorians, including those in our faith communities that have not been able to gather with friends and family in local churches or places of worship. The Chief Health Officer is responsible for providing public health advice to the Victorian Government to promote and protect the public health and wellbeing of Victorians under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008. As of 11:59pm on 6 December 2020, the restrictions on religious gatherings in places of worship eased to allow for religious gatherings and ceremonies to occur with no limits on the number of guests or attendees. To ensure people have enough room to keep 1.5 metres between themselves and others, a density quotient of 1 per 2 square metres applies. Record keeping continues to be an important tool for helping Victoria to stay safe and stay open. Venues that use the density quotient of 1 per 2 square metres must use electronic record keeping. For venues that do not use electronic record keeping, a density quotient of 1 per 4 square metres applies. Indoor and outdoor ceremonies can now occur at the same time. I recognise that many sacrifices have been made to get us where we are today, and I thank all Victorians for their contribution to this. As Victorians enjoy a COVIDSafe Summer, the Government will continue to engage and consult with faith leaders to support communities to congregate safely. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES In reply to Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12 November 2020) Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier):

The health response to the pandemic has been our highest priority in 2020. Throughout this year, the Victorian Government has bolstered the funding and capacity of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to respond to the pandemic. As we move into the recovery phase of the pandemic, DHHS will be separated into two new departments to allow for a dedicated focus on our health system and on the social recovery of our state moving forward. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES 90 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

The new Department of Health (DoH) and the new Department of Families, Fairness and Housing (DFFH) will commence operation from 1 February 2021 and the Government will work closely with workers and their unions over the next two months to manage the transition. The Department of Health will be responsible for the Health, Ambulance Services, Mental Health and Ageing portfolios and, importantly, continue leading the Government’s public health response to the pandemic with the Minister for Health as the Coordinating Minister. The Department of Families, Fairness and Housing will include the current DHHS portfolios of Child Protection, Prevention of Family Violence, Housing and Disability—ensuring the delivery of the significant investments from the recent Budget in Victoria’s recovery—with the Minister for Housing taking on the role of Coordinating Minister. This new department will also be responsible for the key policy areas of Multicultural Affairs, LGBTQI+ Equality, Veterans, and the offices for Women and Youth—meaning better alignment with other policy areas focusing on the recovery and growth of our diverse communities. These portfolios are currently served by the Department of Premier and Cabinet and will transfer across when the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing begins operation on 1 February 2021. CASEY PLANNING In reply to Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12 November 2020) Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier):

This Government takes the integrity of the planning system very seriously. The Municipal Monitor tabled a report with clear evidence that the Casey City Council had failed to provide good governance to the City of Casey, and recommended its dismissal. The Government moved quickly to introduce legislation into Parliament to dismiss the Casey City Council, with Councillors to be replaced by an interim administrator. Within days of this Bill being passed by Parliament, the Government appointed a panel of long-term administrators to restore high standards of integrity to the City of Casey. The IBAC investigation into the planning decisions at the City of Casey Council is ongoing, with public hearings having recommenced on Monday 9 November 2020. IBAC has the authority to investigate the Victorian Government and Parliament, including calling witnesses to public hearings. In addition, the Government passed legislation in 2016 to give IBAC the powers it needs to investigate corruption at every level. FAMILY VIOLENCE In reply to Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (12 November 2020) Ms WILLIAMS (Dandenong—Minister for Prevention of Family Violence, Minister for Women, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs):

The Victorian Government is making sure that victim survivors experiencing family violence have a safe place to go and can access support during COVID-19. Family violence services, including crisis accommodation, police and the courts are operating, and Safe Steps continues to provide a 24/7 response across the state. The Orange Door Network has continued to deliver critical services to vulnerable Victorians who are impacted by family violence, as well as those families needing support with the care and wellbeing of their children throughout the COVID-19 health emergency. This includes the Barwon Orange Door, which has its primary physical location in Geelong. Staying home was the safest thing to do while restrictions were in place, but we know for many—being at home is anything but safe. We didn’t wait to invest millions into extra support when the pandemic hit, boosting the capacity of frontline organisations and for crisis accommodation so that victim survivors could stay safe in their own homes. This included critical funding for the Greater Geelong area, and the hardworking services supporting families throughout the pandemic. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 91

We have invested $40.2 million over two years for crisis accommodation and specialist support for people experiencing family violence and sexual assault. This includes: • $20 million for short-term accommodation for victim survivors who do not feel safe isolating or recovering from coronavirus at home • $20.2 million to help Victorian family violence and sexual assault services adapt service delivery and meet increases in demand during COVID-19. In August 2020, we announced $20 million to help keep family violence victim survivors safe at home and to hold perpetrators to account while reducing risk. This funding will provide a range of support to keep perpetrators in view and provide more services to young people displaying sexually abusive behaviour or using violence in the home and will: • enable more perpetrators of family violence, or people who are at risk of using violence, to leave home and move into short or long-term accommodation • provide intervention and behaviour change programs for those who are using violence in the home • expand services for adolescents using family violence or sexually abusive behaviours and their families • increase funding for family violence services so they can adapt their services under COVID-19 restrictions to deliver support when and where it is needed. This year’s Budget include $435 million direct funding to end family violence and progress gender equality, including $87 million for flexible support packages for those leaving a violent situation. These packages provide victim survivors access to a personalised and holistic response by assisting them to access support, move out of crisis, stabilise and improve their safety, well-being and independence into recovery. WORLD ANIMAL PROTECTION BILLBOARD In reply to Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (24 November 2020) Ms HORNE (Williamstown—Minister for Ports and Freight, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Fishing and Boating):

This matter appears to be a private dispute between two private parties, and does not fall within the Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation portfolio. I regret I am unable to assist Mr Meddick with this question. FURNITURE-MAKING APPRENTICESHIPS In reply to Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (24 November 2020) Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education):

As the Member points out, and the Government acknowledges, there are challenges facing furniture manufacturers in the North Western (NW) metro region and the Department has actively engaged with Carjo Furniture along with other furniture manufacturers to understand the range of concerns and to look for solutions that meets industry needs. Discussions have also taken place with the Office of the Victorian Skills Commissioner (OVSC), the OVSC’s Manufacturing Industry Advisory Group (IAG), and the Australasian Furnishing Association. Following initial meetings, a range of proposals were formed and discussed with Mr Mimmo and other furniture manufacturers in the NW metro region, which included the need to identify the specific furniture making and finishing skills required. Where students have been unable to travel across the city to attend courses in furniture making and finishing run by either Holmesglen or Box Hill Institutes, there has been an offer to have a qualified Trainer from Holmesglen work with Melbourne Polytechnic to deliver training at a state-of-the-art premises of a leading global furniture manufacturer in the NW metro area. This is of course dependent on employers being able to identify enough students to support classes. It should be noted, Holmesglen Institute and Box Hill Institute who already deliver furniture qualifications, have the capacity to deliver to additional apprentices on campus in 2021. Attracting more young people into the industry is also important. The Department has had discussions with Learn Local Employment Networks (LLENs) to promote the industry to schools and develop pathways into the industry through Structured Workplace Learning (SWL) opportunities. Headstart Cluster Directors in the NW metro region have been engaged to consider a School Based Apprenticeship program. And the Department has also met with the Commonwealth Department of Jobs and Small Business regarding running WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES 92 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

a pre-employment program for students interested in a pathway to employment in the furniture making industry. While the Department awaits feedback from Mr Mimmo and other furniture manufacturers in the NW region to identify the specific skill needs required for apprentices to work in their industry, the Andrews Government continues its work to build new opportunities for apprenticeships and traineeships in the North West and across Victoria. The 2020–21 budget provides $19.3m over two years for an Apprenticeships Growth Strategy to continue and strengthen supports for apprentices, trainees and their employers, this includes: $8 million for an apprenticeship innovation fund to explore new approaches, including $5 million to support innovative projects that encourage more women into apprenticeships; and $9.3 million for Apprenticeship Support Officers to work with apprentices and employers to ensure more apprentices successfully complete their training. Additional funding will also support Group Training Organisations (GTOs) to deliver more apprenticeships and traineeships and increase under-represented cohorts’ participation in priority areas, including women and disadvantaged Victorians. In addition to these programs, the Victorian Government is assisting unemployed apprentices and trainees, and working to boost new commencements through range of continuing and new measures. GREATER SHEPPARTON SECONDARY COLLEGE In reply to Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (24 November 2020) Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health):

Every government school must have a local student engagement policy, developed in consultation with the school community. The student Engagement Policy includes policies and procedures that ensure that the care, safety and welfare of students is in accordance with any applicable State and Commonwealth law (including student welfare and bullying, cyberbullying and harassment). Schools respond to and manage emergencies and incidents in accordance with the Department of Education and Training’s School Incident Management System policy and guidelines. Greater Shepparton Secondary College is utilising the Department’s school wide positive behaviour support framework to bring together the school community to develop a safe and supportive learning culture so that all students understand the expectations for respectful, positive behaviour. The College has also established Learning Mentor arrangements for all students. Each student has been allocated a Learning Mentor who is the first point of contact for parents and carers to discuss any concerns, including about their child’s health and wellbeing during their time at the College. Learning Mentors guide students in goal setting and pathway planning and oversee their learning progress and wellbeing. In relation to the incident that was reported to have occurred, the Department’s assessment is that the school reacted promptly and in accordance with their engagement policy and that actions are in place to restore wellbeing for all students. WESTERN SUBURBS TREE PLANTING In reply to Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (24 November 2020) Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes):

As advised in my previous comprehensive response, the Andrews Labor Government is working to increase tree cover across Greater Melbourne in a number of ways, including through policies within Plan Melbourne 2017–2050 and Victoria’s Climate Change Adaptation Plan 2017–2050. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 93

PLASTIC BAG BAN In reply to Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (24 November 2020) Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes):

On 1 November 2019 the Andrews Labor Government banned lightweight plastic shopping bags in Victoria. Prior to the ban, Victorians were using 1 billion plastic shopping bags each year. Since the ban came into effect, 3 in 4 Victorians are now using reusable bags when shopping. The ban on lightweight plastic bags was supported by a Sustainability Victoria Better Bag Habits campaign to encourage individuals to take reusable bags when shopping, and a retailer engagement program led by the National Retail Association. A survey conducted by the National Retail Association in March 2020 found that, of the 232 retailers surveyed, 88 per cent had seen a decrease in bag consumption since the ban was introduced. Fifty-seven per cent of retailers also said that most customers were bringing their own bags or were not requiring a bag. Initiatives to reduce plastic pollution remain firmly on the Victorian Government’s agenda. Through our $380 million Recycling Victoria policy we are committed to transitioning away from a linear model of make- use-dispose towards a more circular economy. More information on the Recycling Victoria circular economy policy is available at www.vic.gov.au/recycling. MOUNT GELLIBRAND FIRE TOWER In reply to Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (24 November 2020) Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine—Minister for Water, Minister for Police and Emergency Services):

The Country Fire Authority (CFA) has oversight of three fire towers in Western Victoria—Mt Gellibrand, Mt Porndon and Mt Anakie—with each managed by an independent Committee of Management. The fire towers are staffed by paid casual employees for smoke sightings on days when predetermined readiness triggers are reached. While the CFA acknowledges the important role of fire towers, it does not rely solely on such towers for the early detection of fires. The CFA will undertake remedial works to allow the safe use of the Mount Gellibrand fire tower under limited weather conditions this fire season. Where these conditions are not met, the CFA will utilise supplementary mobile infrastructure to maintain observation from Mt Gellibrand, including manning a mobile command vehicle on site. The CFA will also continue consultation with engineers to ascertain whether there are additional remedial works that would allow for a further increase in the tower’s capacity this season. The CFA has confirmed that the Mt Anakie and Mt Porndon fire towers are fit for purpose and are able to be utilised for the 2020–21 fire season. Both will be activated when required. The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning’s (DELWP) Forest Fire Management Victoria (FFMVic) has confirmed that the fire towers at Creswick and Buninyong—Grampians Region, and Peters Hill, Mt Cowley and Lavers Hill—Barwon South West Region, are all available to be utilised when required. The days and times that fire towers are operational is based on risk. During the fire season, consideration is given to placing observers in towers when the Fire Danger rating is FDI>12. On days of elevated fire risk, FFMVic also uses aerial detection as part of the suite of fire prevention tools available. Aerial observation combined with on-ground education and compliance activity assists in preventing fire from starting or escaping. EAST GIPPSLAND ROADS In reply to Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (24 November 2020) Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes):

The 2019–20 fires significantly impacted both public and private land in East Gippsland. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES 94 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

Approximately 6,300 kilometres of roads were impacted across the shire and I am pleased to confirm that approximately 5,100 kilometres have been re-opened including the treatment of hazardous trees, emergency stabilisation and re-surfacing. Bemm River township, including the roads and tracks, was surrounded by and impacted by the 2019–20 bushfires. Pearl Point Track is managed by Parks Victoria and I am advised that the public section of the track is maintained as a narrow, gravelled secondary or minor road, intended for all weather use, as set out in the Cape Conran Coastal Park Management Plan. It is regularly inspected by rangers and graded when needed. It was last graded in December 2020, in advance of the summer visitor season. Coast Road is a Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning managed road and has had significant vegetation management and surface work completed. Planning processes for continued upgrading and high-level maintenance are underway for Coast Road as part of the extensive recovery process underway in East Gippsland. ROUTE 86 TRAM In reply to Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (25 November 2020) Mr CARROLL (Niddrie—Minister for Public Transport, Minister for Roads and Road Safety):

A feasibility study found extending the line from the existing terminus 4.3 kilometres to South Morang station was not economically viable at this time based on forecast patronage. The analysis found none of the options for extending the line would be viable for at least the next 30 years because of forecast low patronage. The study found patronage would be affected by low dwelling and population density along the route compared to other tram corridors in Melbourne. The study recommended protecting the tram corridor along Plenty Road for an extension in the longer term. It also said other opportunities to enhance public transport in the region should be prioritised, including improving interchanges and stops, pedestrian access and bus services, which we are looking at closely. The Suburban Rail Loop will change how La Trobe University and its surrounding area grows, and the assumptions that underpinned the feasibility study may need to be reconsidered as the Suburban Rail Loop is further developed and we realise its positive impacts. Going forward, connecting local public transport will be considered as part of the Suburban Rail Loop project. WESTERN METROPOLITAN REGION COMMUNITY SPORT In reply to Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (25 November 2020) Ms SPENCE (Yuroke—Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Community Sport, Minister for Youth):

Firstly, I would like to thank the Member for Western Metropolitan Region for her question. Sport is indeed vital to the social capital of our local communities. We cannot underestimate the role of community sport and active recreation in supporting mental health, social cohesion, inclusion and general wellbeing. I understand that the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic continues to have a significant impact on the sector. The Andrews Labor Government has implemented a range of initiatives to support businesses, including sports organisations and their staff, through these challenging times. This includes the $150 million Experience Economy Survival Package, with $40 million being allocated to the Community Sport Sector COVID-19 Short-term Survival Package. This package has supported community sport and recreation bodies, including leagues and clubs. Through this Package, we have supported 6,664 grassroots organisations with more than $10.7 million, including funding to 423 local leagues and associations. The Western Region Football League received $11,000, while 29 clubs in the Western Region Football League have received a total of $42,500 in support. Additionally, the Victorian Government recently announced a $6 million boost for the next round of the Sporting Club Grants Program. This program will provide assistance to clubs, leagues and associations to assist in returning to play and ensuring they are COVIDSafe. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 95

POLICE CONDUCT In reply to Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (25 November 2020) Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine—Minister for Water, Minister for Police and Emergency Services):

At the time of the protest, metropolitan Melbourne was in the second stage of eased restrictions with public gatherings being able to consist of no more than ten individuals, as per the Chief Health Officer’s directions. This protest was in breach of these directions and therefore presented a significant health and safety risk to protesters and the wider public. It is the role of Victoria Police to ensure that the Chief Health Officer’s directions, in response to the COVID- 19 pandemic, are complied with and in doing so play an essential role in reducing the impact and severity of COVID-19 on our community. I support Victoria Police’s judgement when it comes to how best to use their powers and when they need to intervene. I do not have the power to direct police operations or arrests. I am advised that Victoria Police handed out cups of water to arrested persons, as previously provided bottled water was being thrown at police and others. Effective policing requires the careful exercise of judgement and the application of appropriate discretion, with any force used by a member adhering to the legal requirements and principles of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). If you believe that this power has been exceeded and wish to provide further feedback through formal channels, you can lodge an online complaint at www.police.vic.gov.au/compliments-and-complaints or, alternatively you can contact Victoria Police Professional Standards Command by telephone on 1300 363 101. VICTORIA POLICE In reply to Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (25 November 2020) Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine—Minister for Water, Minister for Police and Emergency Services):

Victoria Police serves an important role in ensuring community safety. To fulfil this role, police rely on various information systems, including the Law Enforcement Assistance Program (LEAP). I can assure you that Victoria Police expects the highest standards from its officers when using law enforcement data and official information. Victoria Police has an active monitoring program in place that assists in identifying any misuse of Victoria Police information and their information systems. When misuse of information or information systems is suspected and/or identified by the active monitoring team, a referral to Victoria Police’s Professional Standards Command (PSC) is made. In addition to the active monitoring team, Victoria Police has a reactive monitoring program that assists in gathering data for audits requested by internal and external bodies, including the PSC, the Independent Broad- based Anti-corruption Commission, the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner and other regulatory bodies. The active and reactive monitoring of the use of Victoria Police information and information systems is staffed by specialist teams that consist of Cyber/IT security subject matter experts and sworn members, providing a blend of specialised IT security and operational policing skills. The auditing functionality of LEAP is robust and includes a screen-by-screen trail. There is a strong framework in place for recordkeeping of the audit data in line with the Public Records Office of Victoria Retention and Disposal Authorities. CREATIVE INDUSTRIES SECTOR In reply to Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (25 November 2020) Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business):

From Monday 30 November, Victorian business owners have been able to access a free QR Code Service, which is helping businesses and venues to keep records of visitors to help us stay safe and stay open. It’s as simple as registering your business, downloading and printing a poster with the Victorian Government QR Code and displaying it prominently in your business. Businesses or venues with multiple outlets or spaces can register for multiple QR codes. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES 96 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

Visitors simply need to scan the QR code using their smartphone camera. For those with up-to-date smartphone software, a pop-up will appear asking for a first name and contact number. For other users, they will be directed to download the Service Victoria mobile App from the Apple or Google Play app stores to complete the check-in. A unique six letter code entered on a web site will be on each QR code poster, for visitors to check-in also. All data collected through the Victorian Government QR code is securely stored, protecting customers from on selling of contact details. Data will be deleted after 28 days unless it is specifically requested by the Department of Health and Human Services for contact tracing purposes. For businesses or venues that are currently using an existing market led QR code solution, the Government is working with the sector to develop an Application Programming Interface to allow these systems to link directly into DHHS Contact Tracing systems when check-in data is required. Victorian businesses and venues can now go to www.coronavirus.vic.gov.au/qrcode to register and be sent their unique QR code to display for visitors to scan and check-in. VICTIMS OF CRIME In reply to Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (25 November 2020) Ms HUTCHINS (Sydenham—Minister for Crime Prevention, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice, Minister for Victim Support):

Thank you for your question about taxation of interest on funds in court held for victims of crime. The Department of Justice and Community Safety (DJCS) is investigating this question and I would be pleased to share what I learn when those investigations are completed. This Government made an election commitment to improve financial assistance to victims of crime. As you know, in 2016 and 2017, initially in response to a recommendation of the Royal Commission into Family Violence, the Victorian Government asked the Victorian Law Reform Commission (the Commission) to review the operation and effectiveness of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 (the Act) and the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal (VOCAT). It accepted in principle all of the Commission’s recommendations. The central recommendation was that the government create a new administrative scheme to focus on assisting victims in their recovery in place of the current judicial scheme or VOCAT which is based in the Magistrates’ Court. The proposed new scheme will deliver financial assistance that is timely, fair, sensitive, trauma informed and responsive to victims’ needs. The 2019–20 State Budget provided $3.297 million over three years to significantly progress the recommendations of the Commission. The funding provides a dedicated team within DJCS to progress these reforms and work is well underway. The government has introduced new laws to assist in addressing the current backlog of pending cases at the VOCAT and has consulted extensively on the design of the new scheme. I am committed to seeing this significant reform through and look forward to the support of this Council for new legislation to enable, support and manage the transition from VOCAT to the new scheme. Thank you for your acknowledgement of the Government’s decision to allow victims to access to payments made through the Prisoner Compensation Quarantine Fund. These are important steps and can make a significant difference to the lives of victims of crime as they seek to rebuild their lives. PLENTY ROAD, BUNDOORA In reply to Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (26 November 2020) Mr CARROLL (Niddrie—Minister for Public Transport, Minister for Roads and Road Safety):

The Department of Transport regularly reviews the sequencing of traffic lights to optimise the efficient movement of people across the network. The next review of this section of Plenty Road is already scheduled for the first half of 2021. As you will also be aware, Stage 1 of the Plenty Road Upgrade project was completed by Major Road Projects Victoria in mid–2019, adding a new lane in each direction between McKimmies Road and Bush Boulevard. The project also upgraded five intersections, including Childs Road and Centenary Drive, with new signals installed at Rivergum and Mayfield Drives. We are building the Plenty Road Upgrade in two stages, with WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 97

Stage 2 from Bush Boulevard to Bridge Inn Road due for completion in mid-2021. The $178.6 million upgrade will help Victorians get home safer and sooner. In 2019, the Department of Transport worked with the local community to identify ways that it could improve safety for everyone along Plenty Road in Bundoora. Signs were updated at all left turn slip lanes to remind drivers of the importance of stopping at red lights and at all pedestrian crossings across tram lines to remind pedestrians of the importance of giving way to trams. DoT also adjusted the operation of traffic lights to improve safety at the pedestrian crossing outside St Damian’s Primary School on Settlement Road, as well as at the intersection of Plenty Road and Settlement Road. We are continuing to look at ways to make Plenty Road safer. It is important to remind everyone that road safety is a responsibility that we share with the community—everyone has a role to play. We’re continuing to make sure our road infrastructure is safe, and we call on drivers to play their part by avoiding distraction and keeping safe distances. GRAMPIANS NATIONAL PARK In reply to Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (26 November 2020) Ms THOMAS (Macedon—Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional Development):

I thank the Member for her question about the Greater Gariwerd Landscape Draft Management Plan. The question is more appropriately directed to the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, as this draft plan falls within her portfolio. As Minister for Agriculture, I recognise that the damage caused by wild dogs is confronting for farmers and can significantly affect their wellbeing, and that of their local community. That’s why the Labor Government increased funding for wild dog control; allowing aerial baiting of wild dogs to run twice yearly in spring and autumn—double the frequency compared to the previous Coalition Government—and introduced a bigger bounty of $120 on wild dogs. More recently, the Government secured the required environmental approvals from the Commonwealth to continue aerial baiting at least until December 2023. BUSHFIRE RECOVERY INITIATIVES In reply to Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (26 November 2020) Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine—Minister for Water, Minister for Police and Emergency Services):

Emergency Management Victoria (EMV), conducted extensive early consultation with councils and relevant government departments to understand the recovery needs for people and communities affected by the South East Victorian Fires of February 2019. Victoria has invested an estimated $10.7 million to support those impacted by the South East Fires. This includes support for individuals, small business and primary producers, including emergency financial assistance and case management. This also supports the continued clean-up process, and repair or reinstatement of damaged essential public assets. The longer-term recovery needs of people and communities are now being supported through a $2.5 million Community Recovery Fund (CRF), provided under the joint Commonwealth and Victorian Government Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements (DRFA) and administered by EMV. The DRFA includes criteria for each of the activities funded under these standing arrangements. Through the CRF, Baw Baw Shire Council has been funded $491,000. On 26 November 2020, Baw Baw Shire Council formally requested a variation to the activities previously approved for funding under the CRF. The proposed activities have been specifically designed to respond to the changing recovery needs of impacted people and communities. This request is currently being assessed to ensure it meets the eligibility criteria under the standing arrangements. The Victorian Government will continue to work closely with council and communities to support their long-term recovery needs. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES 98 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

GRAMPIANS PEAK TRAIL In reply to Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (26 November 2020) Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes):

The Andrews Labor Government has invested $20.2 million into the Grampians Peak Trail election commitment and Parks Victoria are required to report regularly on the status of the project. The project is governed by a Project Control Group that includes representatives from local councils and procurement processes undertaken by Parks Victoria are in accordance with Ministerial Directions for public construction procurement. Parks Victoria have reported some delays due to impacts of coronavirus (COVID-19). These delays are being mitigated with the project on track to deliver four day-walk sections in summer 2020–21, with the full trail to be completed in autumn 2021. NORTHERN METROPOLITAN PARTNERSHIP In reply to Ms WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (8 December 2020) Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans):

I would like to thank Ms Watt for the question. In 2020, the Northern Metropolitan Partnership has delivered a comprehensive program of work, transitioning to online delivery of its Engagement Program and strategic projects. Through the 2020 Engagement Program, our government has heard about the experience of living locally during the COVID 19 pandemic and sought community feedback through two targeted events and online activities focussed on transport and youth. The Northern Metropolitan Partnership hosted a Recovery Roundtable in response to COVID-19. The Recovery Roundtable was attended by Partnership members, which include the relevant local council CEOs, and leaders from a range of community, health, education and business sectors. The discussion helped me understand the impacts of COVID 19 and priorities for recovery in our suburban communities. I was also pleased to be part of the virtual launch of the updated Northern Horizons 2020 report. This report is the culmination of significant consultation with key stakeholders across the northern metropolitan region, and outlines major priorities for infrastructure, jobs, health, environment and transport. In 2020, the Metropolitan Partnerships Development Fund supported the Northern Metropolitan Partnership to develop an integrated transport strategy. Transport connectivity, and ways to help people get to jobs and services has been a common theme raised by the community. This important piece of work will identify the Northern Metropolitan region’s transport priorities and the steps required to meet these. The Northern Metropolitan Partnership has also used their networks to support the delivery of my portfolio programs that are making a difference to local communities in need and responding to COVID-19. These include the Let’s Stay Connected Fund, Neighbourhood Activity Centre Fund, Museum in my Neighbourhood initiative, and revitalisation projects in Broadmeadows, Reservoir, Thomastown and Lalor. I look forward to continuing to support the work of the Northern Metropolitan Partnership and their role in helping the Victorian Government respond to northern metropolitan regional priorities. WILD HORSE CONTROL In reply to Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (8 December 2020) Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes):

Since the Protection of the Alpine National Park—Feral Horse Strategic Action Plan 2018–21 was released in June 2018, significant changes have occurred to the context of the action plan. In particular, rapidly- increasing feral horse numbers over the past five years, prolonged legal challenges to Parks Victoria’s management actions, limited interest or capacity for rehoming captured horses, and the major impacts of the severe 2019–20 summer bushfires on threatened native species and ecosystems. In combination, these have WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 99

required reconsideration of all feral horse management options, including questioning the feasibility of rehoming large numbers of feral horses and the addition of ground shooting as a control option. Parks Victoria suspended most of its alpine horse management operations over the past 18 months due to a Federal Court injunction. Since the judgement on 8 May 2020, this limitation has been lifted. The 2019 Australian Alps feral horse aerial survey results found that horse numbers in the Victorian section of the Australian Alps had doubled in the five-year period from 2014 to 2019. The survey analysis and results were independently reviewed and validated by the CSIRO and St Andrews University in Scotland—the global leading authority on animal population estimation methods. The bushfires over the 2019–20 summer greatly impacted large areas of the Victorian Alps, resulting in significant loss of threatened native wildlife and unique habitats. Following the fires, large numbers of feral horses (up to 80 at a time) have been observed and photographed on severely grazed treeless plains and congregated in very narrow strips of unburnt habitat along sensitive high-altitude waterways, where suitable feed for feral horses remained available. Remaining unburnt areas also provide the only areas of habitat for threatened native species such as alpine plants, alpine tree frogs, alpine spiny crayfish and native ground mammals, and these areas are being severely overgrazed and damaged by introduced pest animals such as horses, deer, and pigs. The objective of the Strategic Action Plan: Protection of floodplain marshes in Barmah National Park and Barmah Forest Ramsar site (2019–2023) is to restore the health of the floodplain marshes in Barmah National Park. The plan outlines a four-year program to address major threats to the Barmah wetlands, including feral horses and other invasive species. Most of Barmah National Park is listed as a wetland of international significance under the Ramsar Convention and has extensive aquatic grasslands, known as Moira grass plains. Moira grass is a keystone species of the grassy floodplain marshes, providing food and habitat for many of the native wetland mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and frogs and other aquatic organisms. Aerial surveys in Barmah National Park in 2018 and 2019 consistently showed high numbers of feral horses in the park using two different survey techniques. The removal of horses is necessary to protect these fragile Barmah floodplains and encourage regrowth of the critical Moira grasslands. Parks Victoria is currently considering a repeat of impact assessment surveys across the feral horse occupied area. The Victorian Government has a legal obligation to protect native species that are at risk of extinction from the impacts of all species of pest animals. Removal of feral horses will continue to ensure that our precious natural ecosystems and native animals and plants can be protected from the damage feral horses cause. The removal methods are designed to be the most humane and environmentally-sensitive ways to remove small mobs of feral horses in priority locations. BELLARINE RAILWAY RESERVE VEGETATION REMOVAL In reply to Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (8 December 2020) Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes):

I am advised that in January 2020, the Geelong Steam Preservation Society sought and received written agreement on behalf of the Secretary to the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) to rely on the Railways exemption within the City of Greater Geelong’s (COGG) planning schemes. Written agreement was provided on condition that native vegetation removal was in accordance with the Procedure to rely on the railways exemption within local planning schemes. This procedure requires that native vegetation removal is to the minimum extent necessary. After concerns raised by community members, a DELWP investigation determined that the society did not meet this requirement or consider impacts to values listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1987. To address the breaches, varied written agreement was provided to the society in August 2020, which enables the society to continue to rely on the exemption, provided: • all native vegetation removal was discussed with the regional DELWP office prior to removal; and • site remediation requirements were developed in agreement with VicTrack, DELWP and the COGG. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES 100 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

A meeting was held with representatives of the society to discuss this action with DELWP and the Greater City of Geelong and an offer was made to the society’s president in October 2020 to discuss this further. VICTORIA POLICE DATABASE In reply to Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (8 December 2020) Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine—Minister for Water, Minister for Police and Emergency Services):

The Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the Act) provides an avenue to members of the public who wish to access information held by government departments and agencies. Victoria Police supports this right by making information about Victoria Police operations available to the public and facilitating a general right of access to documents held by Victoria Police. This access is limited only by the proper application of exceptions and exemptions provided for under the Act. The application fee for Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to police is $29.60, however, members of the public can request that the fee to be reduced or waived on the basis that payment of the fee would cause financial hardship. For the benefit of Victorian citizens, Victoria Police releases a large amount of information through online and print publishing as well as person-to-person service provision. BUSHFIRE PREPAREDNESS In reply to Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (8 December 2020) Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes):

The Gresswell Hill Reserve is managed by Parks Victoria, and as a part of these responsibilities all parks and reserves are assessed for their fire risk potential. Areas at risk are nominated to be treated by planned burning or mechanical fuel modification on the Joint Fuel Management Program (JFMP). The JFMP is developed in consultation with the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Country Fire Authority, municipalities and members of the community, subject to a planning and approvals process. The JFMP—which can be accessed via https://www.ffm.vic.gov.au/bushfire-fuel-and-risk-management/ joint-fuel-management-program—includes the Gresswell Forest–Centre Track burn. Stage 1 of this burn was conducted with Wurundjeri Traditional Owners in May 2020, with Stage 2 due for completion in Autumn 2021, pending conditions being right. There is also a network of fuel beaks which are treated and maintained annually through slashing. The purpose of these fuel breaks is to reduce the potential impacts of bushfire and to allow for firefighting suppression activities, and include the areas near Gresswell Road, Lookout Rise, Crestwood Avenue and Bella Vista Close. In 2020–21, removal of hazardous trees and widening the breaks back out to five metres has been completed on approximately 6.7km of the identified breaks, with the remaining ten kilometres due for completion in early 2021. HUME CITY COUNCIL In reply to Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (8 December 2020) Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans):

I thank the Member for Western Metropolitan Region for his question concerning the cost of the recent reception held at Hume City Council following the council’s elections. As a separate tier of government, the management of such events is a matter for the council. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 101

BRIMBANK INFRASTRUCTURE STRATEGY In reply to Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (8 December 2020) Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans):

I thank the Member for her advocacy on behalf of local communities and affirm my support for local government and community partners in the Western Region. Brimbank Council’s 2050 Leading with Vision draft strategy aligns closely with work currently being undertaken by the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions in collaboration with State Government partners. The draft strategy aligns with the priorities of the Western Metropolitan Partnership, including an inclusive and integrated transport system, improving health and community services, the creation of employment and education clusters and celebrating the West’s cultural diversity. The Partnership includes representatives from the six western local government areas. The Victorian Government has identified Sunshine as a Priority Precinct. Sunshine is well positioned to contribute to Victoria’s economic recovery by connecting our city, activating growth and creating and supporting local jobs. MONT ALBERT AND SURREY HILLS TRAIN STATIONS In reply to Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (8 December 2020) Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop):

I thank the Member for Eastern Metropolitan Region for his question. The Victorian Liberal Opposition went to the last election committing to withdraw Union Road, Surrey Hills and Mont Albert Road, Mont Albert from the Level Crossing Removal Program as a cost savings measure. It is acknowledged that the Member is a staunch defender of the Liberal Party policy to keep these level crossings in place. In contrast, the Andrews Labor Government is delivering on our commitment to remove both level crossings that have recently been the scene of a tragic double fatality. The Government has bought forward our commitment with the crossings due to be removed two years early. Detailed engineering assessments determined that rebuilding both stations was not technically feasible. With more trains stopping at the new station, residents of both Mont Albert and Surrey Hills will have reduced journey times. The claim from the Member that the level crossing removal at Blackburn was botched needs to be considered alongside the overwhelming endorsement of that project by Blackburn residents in 2018. At the 2019 Federal Election, the Commonwealth Government promised extra car parks at Surrey Hills Station but has not yet provided them. The Victorian Government has offered to assist the Commonwealth Government deliver their commitment however will not agree to the destruction of homes or businesses to achieve it. QANTAS WORKFORCE In reply to Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (8 December 2020) Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations):

Coronavirus (COVID-19) has had a severe effect on the Victorian and Australian economies and on the lives of Australians. The decision by Qantas to outsource ground support services is a commercial decision made in response to coronavirus (COVID-19), which has had a devastating impact on the aviation industry world-wide. Qantas has already awarded contracts to Swissport. The contracts are for services in Sydney, Melbourne, and Canberra. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES 102 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

On that basis, I am not in a position to call on Qantas to halt what has already taken place. However, the Victorian Budget 2020–21 provides a comprehensive plan to rebuild our economy and create secure and decent jobs. The budget includes unprecedented investment in infrastructure and will provide new employment opportunities for Victorian workers and put the state on the path to recovery. Central to the 2020–21 Budget is the Jobs Plan. This targeted, complementary set of initiatives will help protect and create new jobs and make the Victorian economy stronger and more resilient. The Plan sets an ambitious goal: creating 400,000 jobs by 2025—half of them by 2022. The Plan includes a new $619 million Jobs for Victoria initiative, that will help provide targeted and tailored support for Victorians most affected during this pandemic. These positions will be made available to Victorians hardest hit financially during this pandemic, including women, young people, retrenched workers and people who have been long-term unemployed. VICTORIA’S INDIA STRATEGY In reply to Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (8 December 2020) Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier):

Victoria’s India Strategy: Our Shared Future (the Strategy) reflects our close and enduring ties with India across areas of common interest including sport, education, health, tourism and the creative industries. Victoria is home to Australia’s largest Indian population, with 169,802 Victorians born in India and 209,257 having Indian ancestry. The Strategy was developed in close consultation with community stakeholders and is delivering meaningful outcomes for Victoria’s Indian community. The Strategy is important to Victoria’s economy, particularly as we recover from the economic impacts of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. In 2019, Victoria and India shared $1.6 billion in two-way trade, with the Strategy also driving strong growth in tourism expenditure. Through the Strategy, the Victorian Government Trade and Investment offices in Bengaluru and Mumbai are facilitating stronger economic ties between Victorian and Indian businesses, supporting trade missions and providing critical in-market resources. The Victorian Government highly values its relationship with India and the Indian community in the State. We will continue to engage with community stakeholders to ensure the Strategy remains an appropriate, effective and beneficial tool for engagement between India and Victoria. NORTHERN VICTORIA REGION FLOOD MITIGATION In reply to Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (9 December 2020) Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine—Minister for Water, Minister for Police and Emergency Services):

The Victorian Government understands the benefits of well managed levees and has clear policy in place to remove all uncertainties around their maintenance. The Victorian Floodplain Management Strategy 2016 assigns the responsibility for maintaining levees to those who benefit from the levee. The Murray River levees provide primarily private benefits by protecting individual agricultural enterprises. Landowners who benefit from the Murray River levees but may have traditionally been prevented from undertaking levee maintenance activities on public land now have the option to apply to their catchment management authority for a permit to carry out this work. Local councils, in consultation with their communities, are responsible for deciding which levees in their municipality should be brought into formal management arrangements. These arrangements determine who is responsible for maintaining and inspecting levees. Determining who benefits from a levee, and how cost effective it is to maintain, is not always straightforward. To support local councils and their communities with these decisions, regional floodplain management strategies have been developed and are being implemented across the nine rural catchment management authority regions. These strategies have aligned the efforts of all agencies and individuals in documenting priorities for reducing flood risks at the local level. The Victorian Government is clear that local councils are not required to maintain an existing levee or implement new works that communities have decided they do not want. Recent examples of this can be seen at Rochester and Seymour. Each of these communities have invested significant effort in investigating options for reducing their flood risks. Both have determined a flood levee is not their preferred solution. Instead WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 103

residents will work with their local councils on developing non- structural measures such as new and upgraded flood warning systems and updating land use planning controls. Other communities across northern Victoria have elected to proceed with implementing levees and other flood mitigation works with co-funding from the Victorian Government. Implementation of flood mitigation plans including design or construction of levees, floodways and associated drainage is underway or complete for Charlton with Victorian Government funding of $723,000, Castlemaine ($417,000) Carisbrook ($2,026,000), Dunolly ($100,000) Donald ($471,000), Wodonga ($119,000) and Wangaratta ($590,000). Since 2016 the Victorian Government has also partnered with local councils and floodplain management agencies to invest in flood studies for the Murray River including at Echuca, Swan Hill and Mildura and the communities between these larger settlements. Detailed flood studies are also underway or completed for Koondrook, Kyabram, St Arnaud, Woodend, and the Kiewa River floodplain. We are also installing new and improved flood monitoring infrastructure to support upgraded flood warning and data collection services at Numurkah, Charlton, Donald, Warracknabeal and Bendigo, as well as for fire affected communities in the North East and East Gippsland areas. With regional floodplain management strategies in place, we have greater certainty in local priorities for building Victoria’s flood resilience. The Victorian Budget 2020–21 provides funding of $26.7 million over four years for investment in enhanced flood planning and forecasting, mitigation measures and emergency response. The work achieved through floodplain management strategies leaves Victoria’s communities well positioned to leverage any Commonwealth funds towards building their flood risk resilience at the local level. For example, the Victorian Government endorsed the National Partnership Agreement on disaster risk reduction in March 2020, securing Victoria’s access to $16.7 million of Commonwealth investment in reducing the risk and impacts of natural disasters, including flooding. Funding under this agreement, with co-funding from the Victorian Government will be distributed through a competitive grants process in 2021. KEALBA LANDFILL In reply to Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (9 December 2020) Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes):

The Victorian Government takes the management of waste and resource recovery facilities very seriously. The Kealba landfill operator continues to prioritise the extinguishing and remediation of hotspots at the landfill and has recently announced from close of business on 23 December it will temporarily suspend the acceptance of any incoming waste until further notice. The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) continues to regulate the site through both its ongoing licence and regulatory notices requiring works to extinguish the hotspots in the landfill, undertake air quality monitoring, and engage with local community. Air quality monitoring by both the EPA and the landfill operator has found no issues of concern with respect to human health to date. The EPA requires the company to continue its air monitoring at the site. MELTON RAIL SERVICES In reply to Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (9 December 2020) Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop):

I thank the member for Western Metropolitan Region for her question regarding the Western Rail Plan and transport in the City of Melton. The Western Rail Plan will set out the future investments Victoria needs for a fast, high-capacity rail network servicing our growing suburbs and growing regional cities. The Victorian Government is committed to the delivery of the Western Rail Plan and unlocking more network capacity in Melbourne’s growing west, including to the regional hubs of Ballarat and Geelong. Transforming Victoria’s rail network requires investment staged across the medium and long-term, to maximise benefits to passengers and minimise disruption to the network. This Victorian Government has made significant progress in announcing the route for Melbourne Airport Rail from Sunshine to the CBD, and the best way to deliver faster services for Geelong, but there’s still more work to do and we’ll continue with our detailed planning. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES 104 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

The Victorian and Australian Governments have each committed $2 billion to the Geelong Fast Rail Project. The first stage of the project will deliver passengers faster journeys between Geelong and Melbourne, via the Werribee corridor. Running faster Geelong services along the Werribee corridor frees up space for extra services for Melton and Wyndham Vale via the Regional Rail Link tracks. Alongside stage one of Geelong Fast Rail and Melbourne Airport Rail, the Ballarat Line Upgrade has already delivered transport improvements. This includes a new Cobblebank station, a rebuilt Rockbank station and 18 kilometres of track duplication between Melton and Deer Park West. Melton passengers will benefit from an extra 140 services each week once the Ballarat Line Upgrade is complete on 31 January 2021. SCHOOLS FUNDING In reply to Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (9 December 2020) Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health):

The Andrews Labor Government is committed to ensuring that schools have the best teachers in classrooms, sharing their experience and working with other teachers so that every student gets a great education. Teaching and learning is a complex process, and class sizes, teacher preparation and high quality content, correction and assessment are key factors leading to good practice. Each principal has the flexibility to consider class sizes in the context of teaching methodology and curriculum programs, subject to satisfying government policy and industrial requirements. The Department of Education and Training will consider a variety of international and national literature and evidence to identify best practice in school system funding and implement changes which strengthen the Victorian education system. COOPER STREET, EPPING In reply to Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (9 December 2020) Mr CARROLL (Niddrie—Minister for Public Transport, Minister for Roads and Road Safety):

The Department of Transport regularly monitors the network and adjusts the operation of traffic lights to help people move efficiently as movement demands change. The nearby O’Herns Road upgrade project being delivered by Major Road Projects Victoria will improve traffic flow and access to the Hume Freeway, providing safer and more reliable journeys for motorists in Melbourne’s north. This project will duplicate O’Herns Road between Hume Freeway and Redding Rise, provide three new intersections with traffic lights, and deliver a new interchange at Hume Freeway. When this project is completed, it is expected to also deliver benefits to the operation and safety of Cooper Street and nearby Miller Street and High Street. In the meantime, the Department of Transport will continue to monitor Cooper Street to identify any changes to improve safety and efficiency. AUTISM EDUCATION In reply to Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (10 December 2020) Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health):

Western Autistic School is a government-funded special school, which offers an Early Years program for 400 young children with Autism Spectrum Disorder in years Prep to Grade 3. Expert teachers and therapists work with each student to build each student’s functional communication, social emotional and language skills as well as their literacy and numeracy and to support each student to reach their potential. The Wattle Program has been a transition intervention program for secondary aged students with autism and mental health concerns. As the school is an early years setting, it has signalled that it is no longer running the Wattle program. The school is currently meeting with all students and their families to ensure that students transition to a suitable mainstream school or other appropriate educational pathway that ensures their ongoing wellbeing and access to high quality educational opportunities. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 105

The School and the Department have and will continue to work with families, (including the parent that has contacted your office) and school leadership and staff to discuss and develop a transition plan for each student to ensure that each student has a suitable educational program and setting for the commencement of 2021. VICTORIA POLICE DATABASE In reply to Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (10 December 2020) Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine—Minister for Water, Minister for Police and Emergency Services):

Victoria Police’s Licensing and Registration System (LARS) is the key database that holds all firearms licensing and registration information for Victoria. Victoria Police has advised that the Law Enforcement Assistance Program (LEAP) can access data stored on the LARS, similarly to the way in which LEAP accesses Victorian Drivers Licence data stored on the VicRoads database. Given that ‘read only’ access is provided to police, data stored on LARS is unable to be amended or updated via LEAP with only Divisional Firearms Officers and Regulatory Services Division employees having authorised access to amend data stored on the LARS. Every firearm applicant signs a ‘Privacy Statement’ on their application that confirms their consent to any detail that they supply on their application being disclosed to employers, approved bodies and other statutory authorities for the purposes of law enforcement and the administration of justice. The Victoria Police LEAP also underwent an independent review in 2019 and I can confirm that current LEAP processes and timeframes remain in line with recommendations from the review. BUDGET 2020–21 In reply to Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (10 December 2020) Mr PEARSON (Essendon—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Regulatory Reform, Minister for Government Services, Minister for Creative Industries):

I refer to the issue of government spending that you raised in the adjournment debate on 10 December 2020. The coronavirus pandemic has severely affected economies around the world. In Australia, governments, both at state level and the Commonwealth, have provided critical support to their economies at a time when there has been a sharp contraction in private sector activity and employment. Government support has never been more crucial for the economy— and the community—than during this once-in-a-century crisis. The Victorian Government has committed more than $13 billion to help businesses and workers get through to the other side of this crisis, fund our health response, and support the economic recovery. This includes significant support for Victorian businesses, investment in our health system, and tax and fee relief. The 2020–21 Budget builds on that support by delivering an unprecedented investment to rebuild our state. At the heart of that effort is getting Victorians back into work. The Victorian Government’s Budget funds up to $49 billion in the things that matter to Victorians—and our economic recovery. Central to this investment is our Jobs Plan, which sets an ambitious goal: creating 400,000 jobs by 2025—half of them by 2022. Further, government investment is supporting those in the community that have been most affected by the economic crisis, including women and younger people. With interest rates already at historically low levels before the pandemic, fiscal policy has had to take centre stage in responding to the economic crisis. The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) has itself encouraged significant fiscal stimulus. The RBA has said the economy would be “significantly weaker and debt levels even higher” in the absence of fiscal stimulus. Other institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund, have echoed this backing for increased government support. Victoria’s sound public finances heading into the pandemic have allowed the Government to support the community’s economic wellbeing when and where it is most needed. UPFIELD RAIL LINE DUPLICATION In reply to Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (10 December 2020) Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop):

I thank the Member for Northern Metropolitan Region for his question and continued interest in the Andrews Labor Government’s transport infrastructure agenda across Melbourne’s north. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES 106 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

It is very interesting the Member is calling for our Government to focus on infrastructure projects in Melbourne’s north when we have so many projects on the go right now. Additionally, we have ensured our Big Build infrastructure agenda continued right through a very difficult 2020—protecting more than 15,000 construction jobs when Victorians needed it most. It’s worth clarifying just how much work we are doing across the Northern Metropolitan Region’s four rail lines. On the Craigieburn Line, early work is underway to remove the dangerous and congested Glenroy Road level crossing and build a brand-new Glenroy Station. On the Mernda Line, early work is underway on the Bell to Preston level crossing removal project that will see four crossings removed by elevated rail, two new stations at Bell and Preston, and 2.5 kilometres of much needed open space. On the Hurstbridge Line, work is underway on Stage 2 of the Hurstbridge Duplication Project that will see a new, modern Greensborough Station, a major upgrade to Montmorency Station, and 4.5 kilometres of duplicated track that will provide more trains, more often up and down the line. And, on the Upfield Line, there’s the Bell to Moreland level crossing removal project where we have just removed another four dangerous and congested level crossings, opened new Coburg and Moreland stations, and will now work to create more than two MCGs worth of open space. It also is worth mentioning that following our level crossing removals, trains can’t turn back at Coburg so no one can possibly be annoyed by that. Planning work is currently underway looking at additional future track, signalling and other infrastructure upgrades for the Upfield Line. The Metro Tunnel will also enable a more than 70 per cent passenger increase on the Upfield Line in the peak and pave the way for the future duplication of the line. BIRRALEE PRIMARY SCHOOL In reply to Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (10 December 2020) Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health):

The Andrews Labor Government has invested more than $9 billion over the past five years to build new schools and modernise existing educational facilities across Victoria. Our ongoing challenge is to responsibly balance and prioritise the needs of 1,540 government schools, all in varying condition. The Department of Education and Training’s Relocatable Building Program allocates facilities to those schools experiencing the greatest enrolment pressures. Relocatable buildings are provided to ensure that students have access to appropriate facilities to address their learning needs. The Department undertakes in-depth analysis annually to understand enrolment trends and forecast local demand across Victoria. Where demand is predicted to exceed capacity in the existing school network, the Department considers whether additional infrastructure may be required at a government school to support future enrolments. I am aware that enrolment growth pressures are being felt in a number of communities, including in Manningham. I have asked the Department to work closely with the school to monitor future enrolment growth and resolve any accommodation issues as they arise. In the meantime, the Department’s Placement Policy will continue to ensure that all students have access to their designated neighbourhood government school as well as the freedom to choose other schools (subject to their capacity). I am aware that the school has capital requirements. I can assure you that the needs of all schools, including Birralee Primary School, will be considered when determining future priorities for the capital works program. We will continue to use all available data when allocating funding in future State Budgets. I trust this information is of assistance. SEAFORD COMMUNITY SAFETY In reply to Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (10 December 2020) Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine—Minister for Water, Minister for Police and Emergency Services):

The death of Cameron Smith is a tragic loss for his family, partner, and friends and I know that the Seaford community has been impacted by his tragic passing on 25 November 2020. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 107

Acknowledging the need to maintain a relentless focus on high harm offending—to both prevent it from occurring, but also to respond swiftly to perpetrators when crimes are committed—the Victorian Government continues to give Victoria Police the resources it needs to keep all Victorians safe. I can advise you that in addition to plans to install additional CCTV at the Seaford foreshore, Victoria Police’s strategy to provide a safe environment in and around the Seaford area also includes an increased enforcement focus as well as early engagement around the foreshore and liquor outlets. Seaford residents and traders in the area can be assured that Victoria Police continues to allocate a significant number of police resources to Operation Summersafe, which is tasked with maintaining public order around foreshore precincts. Further to this, Carrum Downs Police Station deploys regular foot patrols to the Seaford retail precinct, pier and foreshore. The Highway Patrol and Operation Sentinel units also provides an additional layer of support when required. The deployment of all-terrain vehicle to the Frankston Local Area Commander will also ensure an increased visible police presence on beaches, bike paths and walking tracks. In addition, the government continues to hold young offenders to account for their actions and driving down offending though a case management approach. We have provided Victoria Police with funding for additional resources, including 3,135 new police and 42 youth specialists, new powers, equipment and additional measures they need to target youth-related criminal activity. The government is also working to address the underlying causes of crime, including youth crime, to prevent incidents from happening in the first place. POLICE RESOURCES In reply to Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (10 December 2020) Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine—Minister for Water, Minister for Police and Emergency Services):

General duties police officers across the state have a range of tactical tools, including a baton, capsicum spray and a firearm. Victoria Police constantly reviews its use of all tactical equipment and the future needs of its officers to ensure they have the training and equipment they need to respond to the variety of situations they face on the job. The Community Safety Statement 2019–20 commits Victoria Police to examine the further rollout of CEDs to all frontline metropolitan police. The Victorian Government are working with Victoria Police regarding the potential roll-out of tasers to all front-line officers. At this stage training and safety implications are being considered. TEACHER EDUCATION In reply to Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (10 December 2020) Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health):

The Andrews Labor Government is committed to supporting every school to provide a positive and nurturing environment for children to develop confidence, social skills and healthy life habits. We know the importance of mental health, which is why the Andrews Labor Government has established the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System to look at all aspects of the system, including the needs of children and young people. The Premier has committed to implementing all of its recommendations. In 2018, the Government announced the Mental Health Practitioners initiative to expand support to Victorian students. This $51.2 million investment over four years will allow secondary schools across the state to employ over 190 qualified mental health professionals such as social workers, psychologists, occupational therapists and mental health nurses. This means every government secondary school student will be able to access mental health support at school, with the initiative to provide at least 385,000 hours of additional support in schools over four years. The mental health practitioners will provide direct counselling support and other early intervention and health promotion services for students that need it, as well as coordinating support for students with complex needs. By the end of 2021, every government secondary school will receive dedicated support from a mental health professional. Schools also have access to expert advice through an online mental health toolkit to support school-based health and wellbeing teams to deliver mental health plans and support to students and receive advice on how schools can connect with allied and community health services. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES 108 Legislative Council Tuesday, 2 February 2021

In response to the coronavirus (COVID019) pandemic, the Andrews Labor Government announced a two- year, $28.5 million package on 7 August 2020 to support students’ mental health and engagement, with a focus on the needs of some of our most vulnerable students, including: • boosting response capacity of the Navigator Program and building the mental health capacity of Navigator providers • expanding LOOKOUT to increase support for the educational needs of students in Out of Home Care • extending Mental Health Practitioners to Specialist Schools • continuing the Mental Health in Primary Schools Pilot and expanding to 25 schools in 2021 • expanding the headspace mental health training programs for staff to support all students through SAFEMinds and Suicide Risk Continuum Training • creating Local Wellbeing Networks (Department of Health and Human Services led) bringing together mental health services, government and non-government school sectors, Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations, local governments and community sport. Victorian secondary school students are also able to access counselling through the headspace counselling partnership or through their school’s Mental Health Practitioner. On 24 January 2020, the Government announced a $13.45 million package to support communities most impacted by bushfires. The package included $7.8 million for psychosocial supports, comprising: • $4 million to boost mental health support for government and non-government schools, including additional psychologists and social workers • $3.8 million to establish a Trauma Recovery Team to provide the trauma response support to affected schools and early childhood settings. In Term 1 2021, a range of trauma-informed resources designed in partnership with Monash University will be piloted in bushfire impacted school communities: • Factsheets on High Impact Teaching Strategies (HITS) suitable for classrooms in bushfire impacted schools. Each factsheet contains information about the HITS and its application for teaching and learning, trauma-informed practice notes and a list of resources to implement the strategy. • Four masterclasses (two for primary schools and two for secondary schools) to be delivered by Monash University to schools in bushfire impacted areas. These masterclasses support the content of the factsheets and assist teachers in influencing classroom culture positively. • Online professional learning resources available to all teachers, published by Term 2, 2021. The online resources will contain the HITS factsheets, masterclass recordings, presentations and supplementary material. The pilot will inform the development of trauma-informed practice policy, guidance material and resources for state-wide implementation during 2021. The Department has also developed mental health and wellbeing resources for students, including videos on resilience, managing stress, and staying active. Resources for teachers and parents/carers to support the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people in their care include activities and conversation starters to promote positive wellbeing. These resources are available through the ‘Mental Health Toolkit’ which can be accessed on the Department’s website at: www.education.vic.gov.au (search: mental health toolkit). The Department has also developed a trauma-specific resource for schools: ‘Managing Trauma: A guide to managing trauma following an incident to support students, staff and communities following an incident’. The guide is scalable to plan for and support recovery from large-scale incidents to those that involve only a few members of the school community. The Department is currently developing policy and guidance on trauma-informed practice to be published by 30 June 2021. EDINBURGH GARDENS In reply to Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (10 December 2020) Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans):

I would like to thank the Member for Northern Metropolitan Region for her strong advocacy for investment to support community infrastructure and its benefits for her constituents. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES Tuesday, 2 February 2021 Legislative Council 109

I understand that Yarra City Council have in place a ban on alcohol consumption in Edinburgh Gardens between 9pm and 9am and recently considered a proposal to extend this ban due to concerns raised by some residents concerning safety in and around the park. The council voted against this proposal and will undergo further work to determine if additional toilets, bins and cleaning is required. The council has also committed to establishing an Edinburgh Gardens Working Group of regular park users, local residents and a representative of Fitzroy North Primary School, to inform future management of the gardens in peak periods over summer and public holidays. High quality, well-maintained suburban parks are important spaces for local communities and councils are encouraged to continuously maintain and improve their community infrastructure, including parklands. The Victorian Government has demonstrated its commitment and investment to maintaining and improving open spaces and parklands in regional and metropolitan areas. Councils will be aware of investment and funding opportunities that the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning has previously provided, including the Suburban Parks Program, the Local Parks Program and the Parks Revitalisation Grants Program.