PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

(HANSARD)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

FIFTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT

FIRST SESSION

THURSDAY, 21 MARCH 2019

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

By authority of the Victorian Government Printer

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

The ministry

Premier ...... The Hon. DM Andrews, MP

Deputy Premier and Minister for Education ...... The Hon. JA Merlino, MP

Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development and Minister for Industrial Relations ...... The Hon. TH Pallas, MP

Minister for Transport Infrastructure ...... The Hon. JM Allan, MP

Minister for Crime Prevention, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice and Minister for Victim Support ...... 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 Mental Health, Minister for Equality and Minister for Creative Industries ...... The Hon. MP Foley, MP

Attorney-General and Minister for Workplace Safety ...... The Hon. J Hennessy, MP

Minister for Public Transport and Minister for Ports and Freight ...... The Hon. MM Horne, MP

Special Minister of State, Minister for Priority Precincts and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs ...... The Hon. GW Jennings, MLC

Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, and Minister for Suburban Development ...... The Hon. M Kairouz, MP

Minister for Health and Minister for Ambulance Services ...... The Hon. J Mikakos, MLC

Minister for Water and Minister for Police and Emergency Services .... The Hon. LM Neville, MP

Minister for Jobs, Innovation and Trade, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events, and Minister for Racing ...... The Hon. MP Pakula, MP

Minister for Roads, Minister for Road Safety and the TAC, and Minister for Fishing and Boating ...... The Hon. JL Pulford, MLC

Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Veterans ...... The Hon. RD Scott, MP

Minister for Local Government and Minister for Small Business The Hon. A Somyurek, MLC

Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture and Minister for Resources The Hon. J Symes, MLC

Minister for Training and Skills, and Minister for Higher Education .... The Hon. GA Tierney, MLC

Minister for Prevention of Family Violence, Minister for Women and Minister for Youth The Hon. G Williams, MP

Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Minister for Multicultural Affairs ...... The Hon. RW Wynne, MP

Cabinet Secretary ...... Ms M Thomas, MP

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

Speaker The Hon. CW BROOKS Deputy Speaker Ms JM EDWARDS

Acting Speakers Ms Blandthorn, Mr J Bull, Mr Carbines, Ms Couzens, Mr Dimopoulos, Mr Edbrooke, Ms Kilkenny, Mr McGuire, Mr Richardson, Ms Spence, Ms Suleyman and Ms Ward

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

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

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

Deputy Leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party The Hon. LG McLEISH

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

Leader of the House Ms JM ALLAN

Manager of Opposition Business Mr KA WELLS

Heads of parliamentary departments Assembly: Clerk of the Legislative Assembly: Ms B Noonan Council: Clerk of the Parliaments and Clerk of the Legislative Council: Mr A Young Parliamentary Services: Secretary: Mr P Lochert

MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FIFTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT—FIRST SESSION

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

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

Legislative Assembly committees

Economy and Infrastructure Standing Committee Ms Addison, Mr Blackwood, Ms Connolly, Mr Eren, Mr Rowswell, Ms Ryan and Ms Theophanous.

Environment and Planning Standing Committee Mr Cheeseman, Mr Fowles, Ms Green, Mr Hamer, Mr McCurdy, Mr Morris and Mr T Smith.

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

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

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

Joint committees

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

Electoral Matters Committee Assembly: Ms Blandthorn, Ms Hall, Dr Read and Ms Spence. Council: Mr Atkinson, Mrs McArthur, Mr Meddick, Mr Melhem, Ms Lovell and Mr Quilty.

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS

BILLS Public Holidays Amendment Bill 2019 ...... 1141 Introduction and first reading ...... 1141 PETITIONS Hawthorn–Box Hill Shared Path ...... 1141 Foster Primary School ...... 1142 Korumburra Secondary College ...... 1142 South and Central Gippsland electricity supply ...... 1142 Wire rope barriers ...... 1142 Princes Highway east ...... 1142 Ovens Valley flood damage ...... 1143 DOCUMENTS Documents ...... 1143 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Adjournment ...... 1143 MEMBERS STATEMENTS NRL Victoria Harmony Festival ...... 1143 North-east rail services ...... 1144 Premier’s gala dinner ...... 1144 Gary Roy Manning ...... 1145 Extremism ...... 1145 Boort Trotting Club ...... 1145 West Gate Tunnel ...... 1145 Knoxfield Ladies Probus Club ...... 1146 Boronia RSL ...... 1146 Road Trauma Families Victoria ...... 1146 Duck hunting season ...... 1146 Essendon Keilor College, Niddrie campus ...... 1147 Sandringham Hospital ...... 1147 Queens Park Bridge, Geelong ...... 1147 Shepparton district arts and cultural events ...... 1148 Christchurch mosques terrorist attack ...... 1148 Land tax ...... 1149 Richmond Football Club...... 1149 Victorian Honour Roll of Women ...... 1149 International Women’s Day ...... 1149 Bentleigh electorate schools ...... 1150 Surrey Hills Primary School ...... 1150 Chatham Primary School ...... 1151 Box Hill transport interchange ...... 1151 Jack Brownlee and Charlie Howkins ...... 1151 Bakhtar Cultural Association ...... 1151 Australian Tamil Literary and Arts Society ...... 1152 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Notices of motion ...... 1152 BILLS Sale of Land Amendment Bill 2019 ...... 1152 Statement of compatibility ...... 1152 Second reading ...... 1157 ADDRESS TO PARLIAMENT Governor’s speech ...... 1161 Address-in-reply ...... 1161 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Member conduct ...... 1170 Ministers statements: public holidays ...... 1172 Member conduct ...... 1172 Ministers statements: This Girl Can Week ...... 1174 Member conduct ...... 1174 Ministers statements: Victorian bushfires ...... 1176 Birchip and Wycheproof infrastructure ...... 1176 Ministers statements: national disability insurance scheme ...... 1177 Member conduct ...... 1177 Ministers statements: major events ...... 1178

CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Warrandyte electorate ...... 1179 Pascoe Vale electorate ...... 1179 Croydon electorate...... 1180 Ivanhoe electorate ...... 1180 Evelyn electorate ...... 1180 Box Hill electorate ...... 1180 Melbourne electorate ...... 1181 Sydenham electorate ...... 1181 Hastings electorate ...... 1181 Mount Waverley electorate ...... 1181 ADDRESS TO PARLIAMENT Governor’s speech ...... 1182 Address-in-reply ...... 1182 BILLS Major Transport Projects Facilitation Amendment Bill 2019...... 1187 Second reading ...... 1187 Audit Amendment Bill 2018 ...... 1214 Second reading ...... 1214 COMMITTEES Parliamentary committees ...... 1229 Membership ...... 1229 BILLS Audit Amendment Bill 2018 ...... 1229 Second reading ...... 1229 Third reading ...... 1230 Open Courts and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2019 ...... 1230 Second reading ...... 1230 Third reading ...... 1230 Essential Services Commission Amendment (Governance, Procedural and Administrative Improvements) Bill 2019 ...... 1231 Second reading ...... 1231 Third reading ...... 1231 Major Transport Projects Facilitation Amendment Bill 2019...... 1231 Second reading ...... 1231 Third reading ...... 1231 ADJOURNMENT Mansfield Secondary College sports stadium...... 1231 Suburban Rail Loop ...... 1232 High Street Road–Fonteyn Drive, Wantirna South ...... 1233 Macedon electorate schools ...... 1233 Waste and recycling management ...... 1234 Strathaird Family and Community Centre ...... 1234 Gippsland Community Leadership Programs ...... 1235 Bayswater electorate roads ...... 1235 Bus route 788 ...... 1236 Mercy College, Coburg ...... 1236 Responses ...... 1237

BILLS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1141

Thursday, 21 March 2019

The SPEAKER (Hon. Colin Brooks) took the chair at 9.32 a.m. and read the prayer. Bills PUBLIC HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT BILL 2019 Introduction and first reading Mr PAKULA (Keysborough—Minister for Jobs, Innovation and Trade, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events, Minister for Racing) (09:33): On behalf of the Minister for Small Business in the other place, I move:

That I have leave to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Public Holidays Act 1993 and for other purposes. Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (09:34): I ask the minister to provide a brief explanation of the bill. Mr PAKULA: I indicate to the Leader of the Opposition that the bill makes a number of amendments to the Public Holidays Act 1993. It amends the act to implement certain public holidays, including the Friday before the AFL Grand Final, Easter Sunday and an additional Christmas Day holiday when Christmas Day falls on a weekend. Previously those public holidays were the subject of gazettal; this bill will deal with them via legislation. Motion agreed to. Read first time. Ordered to be read a second time tomorrow. Petitions Following petitions presented to house by Clerk: HAWTHORN–BOX HILL SHARED PATH To the Legislative Assembly of Victoria The Petition of residents of Victoria draws to the attention of the House: There is no safe east/west route for bicycle riders connecting the existing Yarra Trail, Anniversary Trail and Box Hill to Ringwood Trail, a distance of 10 km. Riders currently use heavily trafficked roads including Burwood Rd Hawthorn where there are high levels of crash incidents involving bikes. A strategic route is included in VicRoads’ Principal Bicycle Network (PBN) and VicRoads Strategic Cycling Corridors (SCC). The route will provide vital links for the communities of Hawthorn, Camberwell, Box Hill and surrounds, including access to parkland, transport hubs, businesses and local community services. There are also over twenty schools and other educational institutions in this area that are not currently serviced by a cycle path. The shared path will reduce traffic congestion, while providing amenity for cyclists of all ages and enhancing Melbourne’s reputation as one of the world’s most liveable cities. The petitioners therefore request the Legislative Assembly of Victoria that: 1) A shared cycle/pedestrian path be constructed from the Yarra River at Hawthorn connecting to Box Hill, following the route of the railway line to Box Hill, utilising where possible available land in the rail corridor, to meet current and future demand for walking and cycling. 2) The Surrey Hills/Mont Albert level crossing removals on the route provide a level of service for walking and cycling active transport modes equal to that provided for motorised vehicles. By Mr HAMER (Box Hill) (1844 signatures).

PETITIONS 1142 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019

FOSTER PRIMARY SCHOOL To the Legislative Assembly of Victoria The Petition of residents of Foster and district draws to the attention of the House the need for funding to rebuild the Foster Primary School. The current Foster Primary School, which was built in 1965, is in a poor state of repair and is no longer conducive to good educational outcomes for our children. The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Assembly of Victoria calls on Premier Daniel Andrews to fund the rebuild of the Foster Primary School as a matter of priority. By Mr D O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (35 signatures). KORUMBURRA SECONDARY COLLEGE To the Legislative Assembly of Victoria: The petition of certain citizens of the state of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Assembly the need for additional funding to complete a rebuild of Korumburra Secondary College. The former Liberal-National government provided $5.6 million for the first stage of works at the school, which is now complete. Stage 2 will allow the school to be fully rebuilt to deliver our students and teachers the facilities they need for a modern education. The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Assembly urge the Labor government to fund the completion of the Korumburra Secondary College rebuild project as a matter of priority. By Mr D O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (40 signatures). SOUTH AND CENTRAL GIPPSLAND ELECTRICITY SUPPLY To the legislative Assembly of Victoria The petition of: Residents of South and Central Gippsland, Victoria draws to the attention of the House the poor electricity supply to communities of Carrajung Lower, Carrajung, Blackwarry, Callignee and Callignee South in the State of Victoria who suffered a 15 hour power outage on Melbourne Cup weekend, and an 11.5 hour outage on Monday 3/12/18 and who continue to experience regular unplanned outages of lesser duration. Despite the inconvenience of many scheduled outages (which we hoped would be for maintenance and upgrades), the service appears to be getting worse with the number of unplanned outages increasing. The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Assembly of Victoria refer this matter to the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, the Honourable Ms Lily D’Ambrosio to advise her of our plight and to ask Ausnet Services how and when they intend to improve service in this area. By Mr D O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (58 signatures). WIRE ROPE BARRIERS To the Legislative Assembly of Victoria This Petition of residents from across Gippsland draws to the attention of the House the concerns of road users, farmers and emergency service workers about the rollout of 2000km of wire rope barriers across Victorian roads. The petitioners therefore request that the Andrews Labor Government immediately halt its rollout of wire rope barrier until these safety concerns have been addressed and a more strategic approach for barrier placement is adopted. By Mr D O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (264 signatures). PRINCES HIGHWAY EAST To the Legislative Assembly of Victoria This Petition of residents from across Gippsland draws to the attention of the House the concerns of road users across Gippsland that the final stages of the Princes Highway Duplication Project have not been funded. The petitioners therefore request that the Andrews Labor Government immediately fund its share of the final two stages of this project which will put an end to the road works and provide a safer road for all travellers. By Mr D O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (426 signatures).

DOCUMENTS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1143

OVENS VALLEY FLOOD DAMAGE To the Legislative Assembly of Victoria The Petition of certain residents of Victoria draws to the attention of the House the need for the provision of assistance for landholders affected by the damaging weather event of 13 December 2018 that saw torrential rain, wild wind and flash flooding in North East Victoria. The event particularly affected communities of the Ovens Valley including Londrigan, Byawatha, Eldorado, Tarrawingee, Everton, Everton Upper, Markwood and Peechelba. The petitioners therefore request that the legislative Assembly of Victoria through the Minister for Agriculture, commits to funding fencing materials up to $10,000 per farm for affected farmers. By Mr McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (67 signatures). Tabled. Ordered that petitions lodged by member for Gippsland South be considered next day on motion of Mr D O’BRIEN (Gippsland South). Ordered that petition lodged by member for Ovens Valley be considered next day on motion of Mr McCURDY (Ovens Valley). Documents DOCUMENTS Tabled by Clerk: Auditor-General—Access to Mental Health Services—Ordered to be published Criminal Organisations Control Act 2012—Report 2017–18 under s 133 Family Violence Reform Implementation Monitor—Report 1 November 2018—Ordered to be published Safe Drinking Water Act 2003—Drinking Water Quality in Victoria Report 2017–18 Subordinate Legislation Act 1994: Documents under s 15 in relation to Statutory Rule 15 Documents under s 16B in relation to: Gambling Regulation Act 2003—Determination of Gaming Machine Entitlement Allocation and Transfer Rules National Electricity (Victoria) Act 2005—Ministerial Order. Business of the house ADJOURNMENT Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure) (09:38): I move: That the house, at its rising, adjourns until Tuesday, 30 April 2019. Motion agreed to. Members statements NRL VICTORIA HARMONY FESTIVAL Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (09:38): I rise to acknowledge to the house the success of the Harmony Festival, which was held at Chirnside Park in my electorate of Werribee on the weekend. I was honoured to be a part of the official opening of the festival organised by the Wyndham City Council and the National Rugby League. It was fabulous to be with the community to celebrate rugby league in Victoria and the importance of inclusion and diversity in our community.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS 1144 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019

Melbourne’s west is truly one of the great places to live in the state, and the Harmony Festival demonstrates how strong our diversity makes us all. I had a good chat with Emily, who is originally from Christchurch and whose home town has gone through so much recently. Emily expressed her appreciation of the acceptance of the multiculturalism we enjoy in Melbourne and Australia more broadly. We all share the responsibility of creating harmony in our community by respecting and accepting each other’s differences. Victoria is the place of the fair go, where the hard work of residents is recognised and appreciated regardless of background, social status or gender. It is also the centre of Australian sport. What better reason to bring people together than a festival of footy? Our diversity is our strength, and the Andrews Labor government will continue supporting all Victorians to celebrate and share their culture and traditions with pride. Thank you to the National Rugby League and Wyndham City Council for putting on the Harmony Festival. It was a fantastic event. NORTH-EAST RAIL SERVICES Ms RYAN (Euroa) (09:40): Under standing order 49 I present a petition to the Legislative Assembly bearing 139 signatures in the following terms: This petition of residents of Victoria draws to the attention of the house the urgent need for new trains on the north east, Seymour and Shepparton lines. The petitioners request that the Andrews Labor government recognise the concerns of passengers and order new trains immediately in order to reduce travel time and improve punctuality and reliability on the lines. This petition is in addition to the work by the Seymour Train-line Action Group, who collected 946 signatures to request that the government deliver new trains for the Seymour line this year. They also requested a maintenance yard in Seymour be reinstated, a fairer pricing system for travellers to the city between Kilmore and Seymour, and the commencement of works to upgrade signals and improve sections of the track. Unfortunately the member for Yan Yean was absent from the chamber and moved the group’s petition last sitting week, so I moved it in my name to ensure that it would be formally listed on the Parliament’s notice paper, but the government regrettably has refused to bring that petition on for debate. Just yesterday I was contacted by a passenger on the 6.13 a.m. service from Kilmore to Southern Cross who told me: The service is packed as usual. Only two carriages today. Approximately 30 people without a seat in my carriage. I suspect that the front carriage is the same. With more than 1000 signatures between these two petitions now, I really hope that the Premier and the Minister for Public Transport take these concerns seriously and that they pull their heads out of the sand and actually deliver new trains for the people of Euroa and Yan Yean. PREMIER’S GALA DINNER Mr WYNNE (Richmond—Minister for Housing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Planning) (09:41): Last Saturday I was delighted to attend the much-anticipated event on the multicultural calendar, the Premier’s gala dinner, along with the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow minister for multicultural affairs and many others. It was a cracker night. Approximately 1400 people attended the celebration for a spectacular night of live dance and musical performance. One cannot help but be inspired by the enormous dedication and passion displayed by Victorians who strive to support and promote our cultural diversity. The dinner also marked the launch of Cultural Diversity Week. Cultural Diversity Week is Victoria’s largest multicultural celebration, featuring a week-long program of events from 16–24 March that invites Victorians to embrace our cultural diversity. The celebration is held annually to coincide with the United Nations International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which coincidentally falls on today. Fittingly the theme for Cultural Diversity Week 2019 is ‘Proud to

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1145

Belong—Your Generation, Your Stories’, which invites Victorians to think about how sharing stories of our heritage breaks down barriers and encourages all to play an active role in becoming a welcoming society for all. Though we may have different cultures and backgrounds, when we share stories with one another we find our common humanity. GARY ROY MANNING Mr BATTIN (Gembrook) (09:43): Gary Roy Manning, 3797470, sapper 21, Vietnam 1970–71, president and committee member of Noble Park Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia; husband of 35 years to Jacqui, father to David and Matthew and survived by his brothers Noel and Kevin. Gary was just a great bloke who did so much for so many in the communities in which he was involved. Gary was a great clubman and life member of Beaconsfield Football Club. He was passionate and known to the committee, players, coaches and even the oppositions who all respected him and loved seeing his face at the ground. Today I wear this poppy as a way to remember Gary and his work with Jacqui in selling poppies to honour the fallen and raise money for the families of veterans. Gary and Jacqui would sit outside Beaconsfield Woolworths and sell poppies every year. They were dedicated beyond belief and this 2014 article in the Berwick-Pakenham Gazette said it all: Their free coffees, biscuit tins and collection of chocolates are proof enough of how much the Beaconsfield communities value Gary and Jacqui Manning’s dedication. Rain, hail or shine the couple have sat outside the local Woolworths for the past five years in the lead-up to both Anzac Day and Remembrance Day and collected for the Berwick RSL. Gary, we will miss you—the club, the RSLs, your mates, your family—but we will never forget you and your commitment. Jacqui, David and Matthew, we send our thoughts and prayers. Rest in peace, Shakey. EXTREMISM Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Equality, Minister for Creative Industries) (09:44): I rise in light of the terrible events in Christchurch to just reflect on the issues regarding extremism in our community and particularly my own local community. I want to take this opportunity to make sure that the kinds of events that we saw over the Christmas period, where unrepresentative extremists sought to use St Kilda beach—the most democratic place in Melbourne with the most visited beach, with over 2 million people coming every year to St Kilda beach—as a place for extremist hate speech do not happen again. I want to thank Victoria Police for the outstanding leadership and efforts they put in in making sure that those fringe elements on both sides of the debate, but particularly the neo-Nazis and white supremacists, were unable to disrupt the peaceful surrounds of the tolerant and diverse community that is the seat of Albert Park and the area of St Kilda, and of course Victoria as a whole. BOORT TROTTING CLUB Mr FOLEY: Could I also use this opportunity to highlight the wonderful Boort harness racing club, which is not actually in my electorate; it is in the honourable member for Murray Plains’ electorate. I note that the 40th anniversary of the DW (Bill) Foley Memorial Pace at the Boort harness racing club went off without a hitch, and I acknowledge the great efforts of John Campbell and all the efforts of the Boort harness racing club. WEST GATE TUNNEL Mr WAKELING (Ferntree Gully) (09:46): The Knox community would be appalled to learn of the revelations of the fact that under this government CityLink commuters are going to be paying an additional $87 060 for the construction of this new tunnel in the western suburbs. Under this new arrangement CityLink is going to reap an additional $37.3 billion in tolls, of which $26.5 billion will come exclusively from commuters from the City of Knox who use CityLink. It is an absolutely appalling situation, and I call on the government to change this terrible practice and ensure that residents in Knox are not going to be saddled with having to pay this significant amount of money over the life of the extension of the toll deed just to build a road in the western suburbs of Melbourne.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS 1146 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019

KNOXFIELD LADIES PROBUS CLUB Mr WAKELING: Recently I had the pleasure to attend the Knoxfield Ladies Probus Club’s 30th anniversary celebrations. It was a great event and I congratulate all those involved. They provide great support for the Knox community. BORONIA RSL Mr WAKELING: I would also like to place on record my congratulations to Rod Canobie and the committee of the Boronia RSL, who recently held their AGM. I would also like to congratulate Carl Sorenson, who recently stood down as club secretary. ROAD TRAUMA FAMILIES VICTORIA Mr McGHIE (Melton) (09:47): I rise to inform the house that during the past weekend the inaugural Road Trauma Families Victoria Raw 2 Roar Trauma Teens Beach Camp was run in Anglesea. The purpose of this camp was to support teens affected by road trauma across our state. It is the brainchild of Margaret Markovic and funded by Wheelton Philanthropy. With ongoing support from Reverend Jim Pilmer and 10 hand-picked volunteers, together with the generosity of local businesses, the trauma-specific camp provided a free, fun and interactive camp for 12 to 17-year-old teens dealing with trauma, grief and loss. Four foster children from my electorate attended the camp. The activities that they were engaged in included canoeing, high ropes courses, snorkelling and a range of teambuilding activities which culminated on Saturday evening with the symbolic release of water lanterns on the Anglesea River estuary. From all reports it was a huge success. Margaret, the team and the teens who attended would like to see the camp continue. Participants could become mentors for other teens in future camps. The empowerment would be life changing and long lasting. An email sent on Monday, 18 March, to Margaret from a parent endorsing the camp reads as follows:

Hi Margaret, I just wanted to thank you for having [my son] and also for organising the camp. I have not seen [my son] this happy for a long time. I can’t remember when actually. He has spoken very highly of everyone and I’m hoping it has given him some much-needed peace. I would like to thank Margaret for organising it, the volunteers—Julie, Denise, Amanda, Lisa, Bruce, Margaret, James and Brianna—for their time; the bus driver, Dave Novotney, for volunteering his time; and Tim Porter from Porter Plant for donating the bus. It is a shining example of how we can work together to achieve an amazing outcome. DUCK HUNTING SEASON Ms SANDELL (Melbourne) (09:49): Last Saturday the Andrews Labor government opened the 2019 duck shooting season despite the drought and drastic decline in duck populations. This season simply should not have gone ahead. Duck shooting is a cruel so-called ‘sport’ that has already been banned in Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia. But even putting the cruelty aspect aside, there is just no way this particular season should have gone ahead. The last year has been exceptionally hot and exceptionally dry. Ducks are already struggling to survive. The most comprehensive survey of Australian waterbirds, the Eastern Australian Waterbird Survey, taken annually, showed no breeding activity at all for duck game species in 2018—not normal breeding, not reduced breeding, but no breeding whatsoever. There are currently fewer birds than when the duck season was cancelled in 2007 and 2008. This week the state of the environment report showed waterbird numbers are actually diminishing in Victoria. Recent polls showed the majority of Victorian Labor voters would support a ban on duck shooting, yet this government continues to support it against all the evidence as to how detrimental it is for native

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1147 species—to appease a very small minority. Duck shooting is an appalling abuse of animals and our natural environment. The government must end duck shooting in Victoria before there are no ducks left to shoot. ESSENDON KEILOR COLLEGE, NIDDRIE CAMPUS Mr CARROLL (Niddrie—Minister for Crime Prevention, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice, Minister for Victim Support) (09:50): Of all my local endeavours and achievements I am most proud of building the Education State in the Niddrie electorate. Last Friday, 15 March, I was very pleased to be able to open up the brand-new STEM building at Essendon Keilor College’s Niddrie campus, a $10 million investment from the Andrews Labor government’s very first budget. It has been a long journey to get here. In fact, if you go back, we promised this funding at the 2010 election. However, the result was not what we intended. We then sought, through my advocacy, to build the Education State right throughout the community. I am most proud that this STEM learning centre will build jobs for the future, empowering local students for the 21st century and giving them every opportunity. It was a wonderful day to be out at Essendon Keilor College’s Niddrie campus last Friday. Indeed I grew up near this school community. My uncle taught at the former Niddrie High School with the current campus principal, Heather Hawkins. I place on record the advocacy of both David Adamson, the current principal, and Heather Hawkins, the campus principal. Their advocacy, their strong support of me as a local member and their writing of letters to the education department have helped achieve a magnificent facility that is really the beacon of what education can be out in the north-west. It would not have happened without the $10 million investment from the Andrews Labor government—from the Premier and the Deputy Premier, the Minister for Education. Both the Premier and Deputy Premier have been to visit the school and have seen firsthand the wonderful facilities. SANDRINGHAM HOSPITAL Mr ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (09:52): It will be my great pleasure next Thursday, 28 March, to attend the Sandringham Hospital’s annual Lunch by the Bay, hosted at the Sandringham Yacht Club. Over the past three years this now annual event has raised almost $70 000. It is hoped that funds raised through this event and events such as the biennial 24-hour charity bike ride will enable the Sandringham Hospital to purchase specialised surgical equipment required for the treatment of cataracts. I would therefore like to thank the many people who have worked to help make these initiatives possible, especially Judy Reeves, the Sandringham Hospital’s director of nursing, and Cathy Howard, her personal assistant; Kerry Stratford, the hospital fundraising officer; volunteers Jan Spooner, Phillipa Quigley and Joan Van Den Dungen; and Alistair Murray, convenor of the aforementioned 24- hour charity bike ride. In this spirit I would also like to thank Graham Ludecke, branch manager Matthew Gallop and the team at the Sandringham Community Bank for their efforts in helping to fund the recent construction of the appropriately titled Sandringham Community Bank Day Procedure Centre. Graham has recently served with distinction as chair of the Sandringham Community Bank, but also, and for decades prior, serves with the Black Rock Sports Auxiliary. I note that the auxiliary’s annual golf tournament has chipped in the great majority of funds raised for the development and maintenance of the hospital since the first golf day was held some 66 years ago in 1953. QUEENS PARK BRIDGE, GEELONG Mr CHEESEMAN (South Barwon) (09:53): I rise today to speak on the Queens Park Bridge on the border of the electorates of South Barwon and Geelong districts. This single-lane bridge spans the Barwon River and is one of a very few number of crossings across the Barwon River from my side of Geelong to the CBD. This much-loved bridge, which is heritage listed, suffered some damage when a

MEMBERS STATEMENTS 1148 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019 truck hit it a number of weeks ago. It has been closed to traffic whilst VicRoads and the regional roads authority have undertaken urgent works to ensure that that bridge can continue to carry traffic. This bridge is much loved. It is heritage listed. It is a single-lane bridge providing people with the opportunity to cross from the suburb of Highton through to Newtown. As a consequence of this bridge being closed significant traffic congestion has been created as people have to seek alternative routes. I just want to put on record my particular thanks to VicRoads for their work over the last few weeks to ensure the safety of that bridge. I look forward to seeing more vehicles travelling on it over the years to come. SHEPPARTON DISTRICT ARTS AND CULTURAL EVENTS Ms SHEED (Shepparton) (09:55): The Shepparton district is home to a strong program of grassroots arts offerings, and there are currently a number of excellent events happening across the region. On Friday night it was a great pleasure to attend the Rotary Club of Numurkah art and craft exhibition. This show has been continually growing in the number of exhibits on display, and it attracts artists from across the state to enter the competition. The Growing Rural Arts in Nathalia (G.R.A.I.N.) Store in Nathalia is another wonderful example of the contribution of our smaller towns to the cultural make-up of our broader community. The current Four Picture Makers exhibition is a showcase of the work of four emerging artists from Victoria’s northern country. Until this weekend the G.R.A.I.N. Store is also showing an impressive printmaking exhibition of nine Indigenous artists, inspired by last year’s NAIDOC theme, ‘Because of her, we can!’. Our fabulous Shepparton Festival is also underway until the end of the month and is celebrating its 23rd year by capturing and telling stories from Greater Shepparton’s past and present and forecasting the future of what the region may look like. The arts have an intrinsic value that contributes to the cultural depth and diversity of life of all Victorians, but too often regional areas are seen as behind the times when it comes to creative industries. I certainly do not believe you can say that about the Shepparton district. Congratulations to all of those involved in these events. The work you do truly enriches the community we live in. CHRISTCHURCH MOSQUES TERRORIST ATTACK Mr EREN (Lara) (09:56): As I was unable to be in the house on Tuesday for the condolence motion, I would like to make a contribution today in relation to the horrific events that occurred in Christchurch on 15 March. I would like to acknowledge the hurt and pain that has resonated not only in New Zealand and Australia but also worldwide, and the wonderful tributes and well wishes that followed from Muslim communities right across the globe. I can only imagine the terror that victims, who were as young as three and four, with the eldest in their 70s, were confronted with—not to mention what the immediate families and friends of the victims and those injured are going through as a result of this. My heart goes out to all involved, including the first responders, who dealt with some horrendous scenes. I agree with Jacinda Ardern, who stated: He may have sought notoriety, but we in New Zealand will give him nothing, not even his name. He is a terrorist. He is a criminal. He is an extremist. But he will, when I speak, be nameless. That is how we should treat this coward and other coward extremists in the future. This evil act will not divide the good people. It will give us a stronger resolve to make sure that we overcome this evil act that was perpetrated on all of our communities. It is now up to us how we proceed. As a society we need to find a way to leave a better place for our future generations, a place where people of faith can go to their place of worship and pray in peace, a place where people can go about their day and not worry about the safety of themselves and their families. This is an atrocious act that was perpetrated against all of us, but particularly against those people in New Zealand. I am thinking about them, and best wishes for the future.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1149

LAND TAX Mr HODGETT (Croydon) (09:58): My statement condemns this greedy, reckless, heartless Labor government for slugging hardworking, decent Victorians with massive increases in land tax this year. People are receiving their 2019 land tax assessments and are alarmed, shocked and distressed when they open their bill and see the huge number they have to pay. My office has been inundated with complaints and inquiries, with people in disbelief seeking clarification and information on why their land tax bill has escalated to such an extraordinary amount. Let me be clear: the people I am seeing understand that they have to pay land tax. They have paid it in the past. They budget for it. They generally understand it as a cost to them, even though they might not like it as a tax. However, when amounts double, triple or more, they are shocked, upset, distraught and worried about how on earth they are going to be able to pay such massive increases. Furthermore, they are genuinely troubled by the inflexible payment methods and time line dictated to them for payment. In some cases there is a more than 400 per cent increase in the bill and, as mentioned, there are only two options to pay: in a lump sum by the due date or AutoPay. People are forced to provide the State Revenue Office (SRO) with their bank account details to allow automatic deductions. Why can’t you allow people to manage their own financial affairs when paying their bills? One person that took exception to this new collection method was told that the SRO would not guarantee that privacy regarding their bank account details would be safeguarded. I understand that the current land tax rates have not been updated since 2009, yet the growth in the property market has skyrocketed over the past 10 years and seen property values more than double in a lot of cases. This needs to be reviewed and fixed. RICHMOND FOOTBALL CLUB Mr HODGETT: On another matter, I wish the mighty Tigers all the best for the opening of the AFL season this evening. VICTORIAN HONOUR ROLL OF WOMEN Ms SPENCE (Yuroke) (09:55): Recently I had the pleasure of attending the induction of 21 remarkable women to the Victorian Honour Roll of Women, including my friend and Craigieburn- based community leader, Casey Nunn. Casey is a dedicated volunteer, from her work with the Craigieburn community emergency response team (CERT) to the 3064 Salvation Army Advisory Board. Casey, at 35, has volunteered with Ambulance Victoria for over 17 years and the CFA for 11 years, and is an honorary member of the Craigieburn SES. Casey has received an Emergency Services Foundation Scholarship, has been awarded the Ambulance Service Medal for her extensive role with CERT and has a national emergency service bushfires 2007 clasp for providing emergency relief during the Black Saturday bushfires. It was terrific to once again see her hard work acknowledged. It was also fitting that the Minister for Women announced the 2019 honour roll inductees on International Women’s Day, a day when we celebrate women’s achievements, raise awareness against bias and take action for equality. To that end I would also like to acknowledge some of the other terrific female leaders in my community: the unit controller of the Craigieburn SES, Nicole Ashworth; our local mayor, Cr Carly Moore; the team leader of Craigieburn CERT, Julie Eales; the Craigieburn fire brigade secretary, Dianne English; the Craigieburn Residents Association president, Debra Phippen; the Greenvale Residents Association president, Kathryn McKenzie; and Hume City Council citizen of the year, Val Price. We also have a number of terrific women leading at our local schools: Angelika Ireland, Jane Donaldson— (Time expired) INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY Ms WARD (Eltham) (10:01): International Women’s Day was celebrated in my community with my annual Pauline Toner IWD breakfast. I thank our fabulous guest speaker, my friend and award- winning children’s author and illustrator, Judith Rossell, who told us of her journey to professional

MEMBERS STATEMENTS 1150 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019 success from her early work as a scientist with the CSIRO in a male-dominated environment to pursuing her passion to write and illustrate books. She spoke about the importance of persistence and determination even in the face of setbacks, and noted some of the challenges that women, in particular, still face in the workplace. At this breakfast I awarded the fifth annual Pauline Toner Prize. I created this prize in 2015 in order to celebrate young women in our local community, as well as honour an inspirational Victorian, Pauline Toner. A Labor woman, Pauline was the first female to be a cabinet minister in this state. She was a passionate advocate for many social and environmental causes. This prize is awarded to a local young woman who demonstrates commitment to social justice, the environment and/or gender equality. I thank the panel who decide the recipient, women who all knew Pauline and well understand her values, including Pauline’s daughter Madeline Toner, along with Sue Dyet and Sandra MacNeil. Congratulations to Paige Mihaljevic of Eltham High School who was this year’s recipient. Among a very strong field of candidates Paige distinguished herself through her leadership as a student ambassador at the Banyule Nillumbik Tech School, helping to shape the curriculum and identifying a range of factors which would enable better access for girls in STEM, for her participation in the Young Endeavour youth development program and the way she has brought this leadership back to Eltham High School. The panel particularly noted the innovation she displayed in her approach to achieving equitable access for girls in STEM, and her willingness to go outside of existing structures, where they fell short, in order to achieve these aims. I congratulate Paige and commend the other candidates for the prize: Nicola Tsiolis, Imogen Prictor, Isabelle Cummane, Tammy Wong, Murphy Billings, Maia von Eerkel-Bromley, Andeli Zuzic, Sarah Treadwell and Emer Rafferty— (Time expired) BENTLEIGH ELECTORATE SCHOOLS Mr STAIKOS (Bentleigh) (10:02): It was a pleasure recently to join the Minister for Education to officially open the fantastic new building at Berendale School. This building is a modern, comfortable space for Berendale's dedicated teachers to do what they do best: educate our next generation and get them ready for work or further study. The new building includes a trade kitchen for students pursuing a career in hospitality, a home economics room, four classrooms and a communal learning space. I know this new facility will serve our students well for many, many years to come. I also recently toured the construction site at Bayside Special Developmental School, which is being totally rebuilt by the Andrews Labor government. Construction is also nearing completion and design is well underway on the first stage of the Southern Autistic School upgrade. Nothing has given me more satisfaction as a local member than working with the three special schools in my electorate to ensure that they get the investment they deserve. What has struck me every time we have announced upgrades to special schools, not just in my electorate but across the state, is how many parents say that it makes them feel that their children are just as valued as children in mainstream schools. For those of us on this side of the house, that goes without saying. Special education is no longer forgotten by the government of Victoria, because the Andrews Labor government values children in special schools and will continue investing in them. SURREY HILLS PRIMARY SCHOOL Mr HAMER (Box Hill) (10:04): Earlier this month I had the privilege of visiting the historic Surrey Hills Primary School and recognising their new leaders. I would like to congratulate the new year 6 school captains, Megan Ferreira-Hughes and Riley Yeo, along with other school leaders Leni Paten, Lucas Weeks, Madeline McGregor, Shen Rong, Crystal Lu, Jonah Guorgi and Jack Abel. The students have some great ideas for the school in the year ahead, and I wish them all the very best. While I was visiting Surrey Hills Primary School I had an opportunity to step into a class of years 3 and 4 students, who are just starting to learn about government and our political system. It was terrific to hold a question and answer session with these future leaders of the school.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1151

CHATHAM PRIMARY SCHOOL Mr HAMER: On 8 March it was wonderful to visit Chatham Primary School, another historic school in the Box Hill district. I would like to congratulate their new school leaders, Oliver Crittenden, Mollie Helmot, Ben Ross and Bella Murchie, and congratulate all the year 6 captains and their families. The school will be well-served by the new leadership team. I wish them, along with all of the other captains, all the best on their continued journey at school and in leadership. BOX HILL TRANSPORT INTERCHANGE Mr HAMER: Finally, I wish to thank the Minister for Public Transport for accompanying me on a recent visit to the Box Hill transport interchange. The Box Hill transport interchange is one of Melbourne’s busiest transport hubs, with tens of thousands of bus and rail passengers every day. The current interchange was built in the early 1980s, and since that time Box Hill has experienced substantial residential and jobs growth. It was terrific that the minister was able to see firsthand the state of the current facilities. JACK BROWNLEE AND CHARLIE HOWKINS Ms ADDISON (Wendouree) (10:05): Today marks one year since the devastating Delacombe trench collapse. Jack Brownlee was 21 and Charlie Howkins was 34 on that Wednesday morning when the disaster occurred. Charlie was buried by tonnes of loose earth and was killed instantly. Emergency services fought for several hours to free Jack. He was airlifted to the Royal Melbourne Hospital and died the following day. It is a year since these two families’ hearts were broken, their lives changed forever, when Charlie and Jack did not come home from work. Charlie’s wife, Lana, kissed him goodbye at breakfast and he was gone by lunchtime. The love of her life had been killed and their two very young children had had their dad taken away forever. I want to send my love to Dave, Janine and Mitch and their family on the loss of their beloved Jackie Boy, a young man that brought such joy to his close-knit family, taken too soon. Because of Charlie and Jack, and the many other workplace deaths, we will introduce new workplace manslaughter laws. I admire the strength, courage and determination of Lana and Janine and Dave and thank them for their advocacy. And whilst these laws will not bring back Charlie and Jack, other families will be saved from the pain you live with. We will not let you down. BAKHTAR CULTURAL ASSOCIATION Ms RICHARDS (Cranbourne) (10:07): I would like to acknowledge several events that I have had the joy to attend this year to celebrate International Women’s Day. In particular I would like to acknowledge two. On Friday, 8 March, together with the member for Narre Warren South and the federal member for Bruce, I experienced the hospitality and warmth of the Bakhtar Cultural Association. I would like to take the opportunity to commend Bassir Qadir and his team for organising this insightful evening of music, poetry and sparkling conversation. The event was organised by Dr Amir Ansari, and we were fortunate to hear from guest speakers. With the attendance of the local police command, local community police members and staff from Casey council, the Bakhtar Cultural Association can be assured of widespread support for the important work that is undertaken. While this was an opportunity to discuss strategies to improve gender equality, it was also a chance to hear about the optimism of the local Afghani community. The Bakhtar Cultural Association is committed to helping the Afghani community build social cohesion and community harmony through preventative initiatives that address the root causes of social disharmony, violence and ethnic and religious intolerance. I was honoured to meet this year’s Afghani Woman of the Year, the talented Ms Tahmina Arsalan.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 1152 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019

AUSTRALIAN TAMIL LITERARY AND ARTS SOCIETY Ms RICHARDS: I was also delighted to represent the Attorney-General at a gala evening to celebrate International Women’s Day organised by the Australian Tamil Literary and Arts Society. It has been an inspiring year to celebrate local women. Business of the house NOTICES OF MOTION Mr PAKULA (Keysborough—Minister for Jobs, Innovation and Trade, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events, Minister for Racing) (10:08): I advise that the government does not wish to proceed with the notice of motion today, government business, and requests that it remain on the notice paper. Bills SALE OF LAND AMENDMENT BILL 2019 Statement of compatibility Ms KAIROUZ (Kororoit—Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Suburban Development) (10:10): In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I table a statement of compatibility with respect to the Sale of Land Amendment Bill 2019. In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this Statement. Overview The Bill makes a number of amendments to the Sale of Land Act 1962 (the Act), as well as amending the ANZAC Day Act 1958 (AD Act) and the Estate Agents Act 1980. Relevant to this Statement of Compatibility, the Bill amends the Act to: provide for restrictions on the use of sunset clauses in certain off-the-plan contracts; prohibit the use of certain terms contracts and rent-to-buy arrangements; regulate moneys paid in respect of options to purchase land under land banking schemes; and provide for related matters. The Bill amends the AD Act to restrict the conduct of public auctions on ANZAC Day. Human Rights Issues Several aspects of the Bill raise human rights issues, which I address in this Statement as follows. Right to property Section 20 of the Charter provides that a person must not be deprived of their property other than in accordance with law. The right requires that powers which authorise the deprivation of property are conferred by legislation or common law, are confined and structured rather than unclear, are accessible to the public, and are formulated precisely. Prohibition on terms contracts Terms contracts are presently regulated by the Act. A terms contract for the sale of land includes (broadly) a contract under which the purchaser is obliged to make two or more payments (other than a deposit or final payment) to the vendor after the execution of the contract and before the purchaser is entitled to a conveyance or transfer of the land, or under which the purchaser is entitled to possession of the land or receipt of rents and profits before the purchaser becomes entitled to a conveyance or transfer of the land. The right to property may be relevant to certain provisions of the Bill which amend the existing regulation of terms contracts under the Act. Clause 20 of the Bill creates new offences with respect to terms contracts. New section 29EA prohibits a person from knowingly selling residential land (other than residential land that is agricultural land) under a terms contract where the sale price of the land is less than the monetary amount to be prescribed in the regulations. New section 29EB prohibits a person from knowingly arranging or brokering such a sale, or knowingly inducing a person to enter into such a sale. The Bill creates penalties for contraventions of sections 29EA and 29EB. New section 55(2), as inserted by clause 28, provides that these provisions do not apply to a contract entered before the commencement of section 20 of the Sale of Land Amendment Act 2019.

BILLS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1153

In addition, through the operation of current section 29F of the Act, a terms contract entered into in contravention of the Act entitles a purchaser to avoid the contract at any time before completion of the contract, unless certain circumstances apply. These provisions may be relevant to property rights under section 20 of the Charter, as they restrict a person’s capacity to dispose of property under a terms contract in certain circumstances. However, in my opinion, any restrictions are in accordance with law and therefore do not limit the right. The situations in which the disposal of property is restricted are clearly formulated and confined to specific circumstances. They also serve the important purpose of protecting consumers, where terms contracts for lower-value residential property sales are typically brokered between financially stressed vendors and purchasers, and where the arrangements are typically unaffordable and can lead to significant financial detriment. Prohibition on rent-to-buy arrangements The Bill amends the Act to prohibit certain types of rent-to-buy arrangements and to make related amendments regarding rent-to-buy arrangements. A rent-to-buy arrangement is defined as an arrangement that involves a person entering into one or more contracts that provide for a right of, or obligation on, that person to purchase residential land and for payment of rent or any other amount by that person in respect of a period of occupation of the residential land for more than 6 months before the right to purchase that land may be exercised or the purchase of the land is completed. The amendments contained in the Bill do not apply to a rent-to-buy arrangement that involves a contract entered into by the Director of Housing, a registered housing association (as defined), a prescribed person or class of persons, or a rent-to-buy arrangement that complies with certain prescribed requirements. Clause 22 of the Bill creates new sections 29WC and 29WD. New section 29WC prohibits a person from knowingly selling residential land under a prohibited rent-to-buy arrangement. New section 29WD prohibits a person from knowingly arranging or brokering such a sale, or knowingly inducing a person to enter into such a sale. The Bill creates penalties for contraventions of sections 29WC and 29WD. In addition, new section 29WF provides that a purchaser of residential land under a prohibited rent-to-buy arrangement may avoid any contract that is part of the rent-to-buy arrangement by giving written notice to the vendor, at any time before completion of the contract. If a prohibited rent-to-buy arrangement involves two or more contracts and a purchaser avoids a contract that is part of the arrangement, all of the contracts that are part of the arrangement are void. These provisions may be relevant to property rights under section 20 of the Charter, as they prevent a person from disposing of property under a prohibited rent-to-buy arrangement. In my opinion, the provisions do not limit the right. The situations in which the disposal of property is restricted are clearly formulated and confined to specific circumstances. New section 56(2) provides that these provisions do not apply to arrangements entered before the commencement of section 22 of the Sale of Land Amendment Act 2019. Further, the provisions serve the important purpose of protecting consumers. Rent-to-buy arrangements are typically brokered between vulnerable parties, and purchasers under these contracts are often unable to afford the high ongoing rental and options payments, with the result that they are forced to move out of the property or are evicted, and forfeit their payments towards the property. New section 29WG provides that a purchaser who avoids any contract can recover any money paid under that arrangement (other than a sum which represents fair market rent for any period for which the purchaser occupied the land). This is relevant to the right to property, as it can require property (money paid to the vendor) to be forfeited in certain circumstances. However, I do not consider that these amendments limit the right to property. The situations in which money paid is to be returned to the purchaser are clearly formulated and confined to specific circumstances. As noted, new section 56(2) provides that these provisions do not apply to an arrangement entered before the commencement of section 22 of the Sale of Land Amendment Act 2019. Terms contract—removal of restriction on avoidance of contract Section 29F(1) of the Act currently provides that where a terms contract is entered into in contravention of the Act, the purchaser may avoid the contract at any time before completion of the contract. Section 29F(2) currently restricts this termination right by providing that the contract cannot be avoided if a court is satisfied that certain conditions are established. Clause 21 creates new section 29F(2A) which limits the application of the restriction on termination in section 29F(2), so that section 29F(2) does not restrict a purchaser from avoiding a terms contract, where the contract was for the sale of residential land (other than residential land that is agricultural land) under the prescribed threshold. This may be relevant to property rights under section 20 of the Charter, as it restricts a person’s capacity to dispose of property under a terms contract, as a purchaser is able to avoid the contract in certain circumstances,

BILLS 1154 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019

without exception. However, in my opinion, the amendments do not limit the right. The situations in which the disposal of property is restricted are clearly formulated and confined to specific circumstances. The purpose of the provision is to prevent a person from circumventing the proposed prohibition on entering into a terms contract for the sale of residential land (other than agricultural land) under the prescribed amount, which serves the important purpose of protecting consumers. New section 55(2) provides that new section 29F(2A) will not apply to a contract entered into before the commencement of section 21 of the Sale of Land Amendment Act 2019. Applications to terminate terms contracts and rent-to-buy arrangements Clause 28 also inserts new sections 55(3) and 56(3) into the Act, which allow a purchaser under a residential terms contract or a rent-to-buy arrangement entered before the commencement of sections 20 and 22 of the Sale of Land Amendment Act 2019 (and which would have been a contract to which section 29EA to section 29EC apply, or an arrangement to which Division 5 of Part 1 applies) to apply to a court or to VCAT to terminate the terms contract or a contract under the rent-to-buy arrangement. New sections 55(4) and 56(4) empower the court or VCAT to terminate such a contract. These amendments may be relevant to property rights under section 20 of the Charter, as they restrict a person’s capacity to dispose of property under a terms contract and rent-to-buy arrangement, as a purchaser is able to terminate the contract or arrangement in certain circumstances. In my opinion, these amendments do not limit the right. The situations in which the disposal of property is restricted are clearly formulated and confined to specific circumstances. The court or VCAT’s power to terminate the contract is clearly circumscribed by new sections 55(5) and 56(5) as the order cannot be made unless, at the time the contract was entered into, there was a reasonable prospect that the purchaser would not be able to make or continue to make payments required or to obtain, on reasonable terms, the finance needed to complete the contract, or the purchaser no longer occupies the land purchased under the contract because they could not afford payments required, and it is just and equitable for the contract to be terminated. It is appropriate to allow for the termination of the contract where payments cannot be made and where it is just and equitable for the contract to be terminated, having regard to the fact that rent-to-buy arrangements, and residential terms contracts can carry significant risks, particularly for purchasers. New sections 55(7) and 56(7) also empower the court or VCAT, in an application for termination of a contract under new sections 55 or 56, to make an order providing that the purchaser is relieved of any liability under the contract (including for breach of any condition or contractual term) and that the vendor must repay to the purchaser all or any specified payments made by the purchaser under the contract, except for a sum that represents fair market rent for any period which the purchaser was in actual possession of the land (in the case of residential terms contracts and rent-to-buy arrangements) or entitled to the receipts of rents and profits of the land (in the case of rent-to-buy arrangements). New sections 55(7) and 56(7) may be relevant to property rights under section 20 of the Charter, as they can require property (money paid to the vendor) to be forfeited in certain circumstances. However, I do not consider that these amendments limit the right to property. The situations in which money paid is to be returned to the purchaser are clearly formulated and confined to specific circumstances. The court or VCAT’s power to make the orders is clearly circumscribed by the threshold requirements imposed by new sections 55(8) and 56(8). These sections provide that the order cannot be made if it would result in undue financial hardship for the vendor or it would otherwise not be just and equitable taking into account all the circumstances and the nature and extent of any other person’s interest in the land. Options to purchase under land banking schemes The Bill inserts new sections 29WH and 29WI into the Act, which regulate the circumstances in which a vendor may sell an option to purchase land under certain land banking schemes (as defined). These sections may be relevant to the right to property as discussed below. New section 29WH(1) provides that a vendor must not sell to a purchaser an option to purchase land under a land banking scheme except as provided for in section 29WH. New section 29WH(3) requires that any money paid by the purchaser for the option must be held on trust by the vendor’s lawyer, conveyancer, or licensed estate agent, until a plan of subdivision is registered in respect of the land or lot or the expiry date for the exercise of the option (whichever occurs earlier). Section 29WH(4) requires an agreement for an option to purchase land under a land banking scheme to provide for the money paid for the option to be held on trust in accordance with section 29WH(3). New section 29WH(5) provides that the purchaser may rescind an agreement if the requirements of section 29WH(3) and (4) are not satisfied. Relevantly, new section 29WI creates an offence and penalties for a vendor who fails to comply with the section 29WH(3) obligation relating to money paid by a purchaser for an option under an agreement.

BILLS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1155

The treatment of money under new sections 29WH and 29WI may be relevant to the right to property, as the requirement that the money must be held in trust restricts the use of property (the money). However, I do not consider that these amendments limit the right to property. The situations in which moneys are to be paid and held on trust are clearly formulated and confined to specific circumstances. In addition, options to purchase agreements can carry significant financial risks for purchasers, and it is appropriate that money paid under the agreement be held on trust until a plan of subdivision is registered or the date by which the option must be exercised has expired. New section 29WH(7) provides that, despite anything to the contrary in the agreement in respect of the option to purchase, the agreement will automatically expire if the event triggering the purchaser’s right to exercise the option does not occur within 5 years of the entering into of the agreement. Further, as noted, new section 29WH(5) provides that the purchaser may rescind an agreement if the requirements of section 29WH(3) or 29WH(4) are not satisfied. This may be relevant to the right to property, as it restricts a vendor’s ability to dispose of their property in certain circumstances. However, I do not consider that these amendments limit the right to property. The situations in which the automatic expiration occurs or rescission is permitted are clearly formulated and confined to specific circumstances. Further, limiting the duration of an option agreement is intended to provide greater clarity over the risk profile of the investment for both parties to the agreement, which is appropriate. New section 29WH(8) provides that the purchaser is entitled to the immediate return of moneys paid under the agreement between the vendor and purchaser on the occurrence of specified events, these being that the purchaser has rescinded the agreement under section 29WH(5) or otherwise, or the agreement for the option has expired under section 29WH(7) or otherwise, or the event triggering the purchaser’s right to exercise the option does not otherwise occur. This may be relevant to the right to property, as it can require property (money paid by the purchaser to be held on trust by the vendor’s lawyer or agent) to be returned to the purchaser. However, in my opinion, these amendments do not limit the right to property. The situations in which money paid is to be returned to the purchaser are clearly formulated and confined to specific circumstances. In addition, the provisions serve an important purpose of protecting investors with respect to certain land banking schemes, which are forms of speculative real estate investment that carry risks for investors. The provisions seek to ensure that property developers in certain types of schemes bear the financial risk of their land banking schemes, and that investors’ money is returned if the scheme does not proceed. The provision also provides increased protection for purchasers by preventing their money from being tied up for lengthy periods of time. Sunset clauses New sections 10A–10F of the Act regulate the manner in which a residential off-the-plan contract can be rescinded by a vendor under a sunset clause. It is noted that most vendors affected by the amendments are likely to be corporations and therefore do not enjoy human rights, as the Charter only protects individuals. A sunset clause is defined as a provision of a residential off-the-plan contract that provides for the contract to be rescinded if the relevant plan of subdivision has not been registered by the specified sunset date or if an occupancy permit under the Building Act 1993 has not been issued by the sunset date. New section 10A makes the rescission of a contract under a sunset clause (that purports to automatically rescind the contract on the part of the vendor) subject to Division 1 of Part 1 of the Act, which includes new sections 10A to 10F. New section 10B provides that a vendor must not rescind a residential off-the-plan contract under a sunset clause unless the vendor gives written notice to each purchaser (containing information prescribed by the section) and each purchaser consents in writing to the rescission. Alternatively, section 10E provides that a vendor may apply to the Supreme Court for an order permitting the rescission pursuant to the sunset clause. New section 10C provides that a provision of a residential off-the-plan contract has no effect to the extent that it is inconsistent with sections 10A and 10B. New section 10D provides that the purported rescission of a residential off-the-plan contract in contravention of Division 1 of Part 1 of the Act is taken to be a breach of that contract. New section 10F(1) provides that a sunset clause in a residential off-the-plan contract must include a statement specifying (in summary) that the vendor is required to give notice of a proposed rescission of the residential off the plan contract, the purchaser has the right (but is not obliged) to give written consent to the proposed rescission of the contract and the vendor has the right to apply to the Supreme Court for an order permitting rescission by the vendor. Penalties are created for contravention of section 10F(1). New section 54(1) (inserted by clause 26) and clause 2(2) provide that new sections 10A–10D are taken to have come into operation on 23 August 2018 and will apply to residential off-the-plan contracts entered into, and in force immediately before 23 August 2018. However, new section 54(2) provides that the amendments will not apply to any proceeding concerning the effect or operation of a sunset clause in a residential off-the- plan contract commenced before 23 August 2018. New section 54(3) (inserted by clause 27) and clause 2(3) provide that new section 10E will commence on the day after the Bill receives Royal Assent and will apply

BILLS 1156 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019

to residential off-the-plan contracts entered into, and in force immediately before, that date. However, new section 54(3) provides that new section 10E will not apply to any proceeding concerning the effect or operation of a sunset clause in a residential off-the-plan contract commenced before the day after the Bill receives Royal Assent. New section 10F(2) provides that section 10F(1) does not apply to a residential contract entered into before the date on which this section comes into operation. These amendments may restrict a vendor’s right to property and ability to deal with their property, by restricting the vendor’s ability to rescind an off-the-plan sale of land under a sunset clause. However, in my view the right is not limited, as the situations in which the ability to deal with property is limited are clearly formulated and confined to specific circumstances. The requirements to be included in the vendor’s written notice under new section 10B, and the requirement that a purchaser’s consent be written, are clearly set out in the provisions. The power of the Supreme Court to permit rescission is clearly set out in new section 10E, and new section 10E clearly sets out the test to be applied by the Court and the factors the Court must consider in making its order. The purpose of these amendments is to protect purchasers. New sections 10A-10F of the Act seek to regulate and prevent the misuse of sunset clauses, in response to evidence that suggests that some developers are delaying progress of their developments and rescinding off-the-plan contracts under such clauses, in order to capitalise on increased property values since the contracts were signed, to the detriment of purchasers under those contracts. These issues were identified in the course of a public review of the operation of the Act undertaken between 2016 and 2017, and the amendments are based on a similar New South Wales legislative reform contained in section 66ZL of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW). To the extent that the amendments are taken to come into operation on 23 August 2018 and apply to contracts in force immediately before that date, they have potential to affect the rights which may have accrued under those contracts and therefore have a retrospective operation. An accrued right may in some cases be considered a property right in and of itself. Any deprivation of a property right effected by the retrospective operation has been done according to law, and while there was no legislation in force from 23 August 2018, vendors were on notice of the Government’s intention. A similar Bill to the present Bill was introduced into the previous Parliament, which included provisions equivalent to new sections 10A-10C and 10E. That Bill was read for a second time in the Legislative Assembly on 22 August 2018. The retrospective operation is designed to ensure that vendors taken to be on notice of the proposal cannot take advantage of relevant sunset clauses in the period between the original Second Reading speech and the date when this Bill comes into operation. To the extent that the retrospective operation might be considered to limit property rights, in my view it is justified because the provisions operate to protect purchasers, in circumstances where vendors may misuse sunset clauses and have done so in the past. Further, as noted, most vendors are likely to be corporations and therefore do not enjoy human rights. New section 10D was not included in the original Bill; however, I also consider its retrospective commencement and application to be appropriate. The retrospective application of new section 10D provides potential contractual remedies for purchasers where vendors have sought to take advantage of relevant sunset clauses to rescind an existing contract before the passage of the other amendments. In my view, any limitations on the property right of vendors are reasonable and justified in the circumstances for the reasons noted above. Freedom of expression Section 15(2) of the Charter provides that every person has the right to freedom of expression which includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds. This is qualified by section 15(3) of the Charter, which provides that special duties and responsibilities are attached to the right of freedom of expression and that the right may be subject to lawful restrictions reasonably necessary to respect the rights and reputation of other persons, or for the protection of national security, public order, public health or public morality. Advertising sales under terms contracts and rent-to-buy arrangements New section 29EC (as created by clause 20 of the Bill) prohibits a person from knowingly advertising the sale of residential land (other than agricultural land) under a terms contract where the sale price is less than the prescribed monetary amount. The Bill creates penalties for contravention of section 29EC. Clause 22 inserts new section 29WE into the Act, which prohibits a person from knowingly advertising the sale of a residential land under a prohibited rent-to-buy arrangement. The Bill creates penalties for contravention of section 29WE. These provisions do not apply retrospectively. The prohibitions relate to advertising the sale of land under contracts and arrangements that are unlawful. In my view, the right in section 15(2) of the Charter either does not extend to protecting expression that is unlawful or promotes unlawfulness, or if it does, is qualified by section 15(3) of the Charter. To the extent that these prohibitions may be relevant to the right to freedom of expression, in my view the provisions do not limit the right. The provisions aim to protect consumers with respect to terms contracts for low-value residential property and rent-to-buy arrangements which can carry

BILLS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1157

significant risks of financial detriment, and where entering into such contracts is unlawful, and can be characterised as reasonably necessary to protect the rights of other persons. Further, the prohibition is not a general restriction on advertising and is restricted to advertising of sales that are prohibited by the Act. As such, the provision is limited to the extent necessary to achieve the objectives of the Bill, and functions to achieve the important purpose of protecting consumers with respect to terms contracts and prohibited rent-to-buy arrangements. AD Act amendments The AD Act prohibits certain activities on ANZAC Day, including certain sporting and entertainment activities, without a permit from the Minister. Clause 29 of the Bill inserts new section 5AB into the AD Act to provide that, despite anything in any other Act or a statutory rule, a person must not conduct a public auction of land or a business before 1pm on ANZAC Day. The Bill creates penalties for contravention of new section 5AB. Unlike the approach taken in sections 5 and 5A of the AD Act, it is not possible for a person to apply to the Minister for an exemption from the prohibition on conducting a public auction before 1pm on ANZAC Day. The right to freedom of expression may be relevant to clause 29 as it prohibits the holding of public auctions. However, in my view, the right is not limited, as it falls within the exceptions to the right in section 15(3) of the Charter. The provision is consistent with community values that certain activities such as sporting events and public auctions should be restricted on ANZAC day, and the restriction is therefore reasonably necessary for the protection of public morality. In any event, I consider that the limitation is reasonable and justified. The restriction only applies for the specified time on the prescribed day, concluding at 1pm. Further, new section 5AB(2) provides the prohibition of a public auction does not apply to an online public auction that has commenced but has not been completed before 1:00pm on ANZAC Day. I therefore consider that any interference with the right is limited, and that a reasonable time is afforded for the holding of public auctions on ANZAC Day following 1pm. This provision may also be relevant to property rights under section 20 of the Charter, as it restricts a person’s capacity to dispose of property during the regulated period. However, in my opinion, the provision does not limit the right. The situations in which the disposal of property is limited are clearly formulated and confined to specific circumstances, and the provision only operates for the specified time on the prescribed day, concluding at 1pm. Further, the provision will not apply to an auction that has commenced but has not been completed before 1:00pm on ANZAC Day. Fair hearing Section 24 of the Charter provides that a person charged with a criminal offence or a party to a civil proceeding has the right to have the charge or proceeding decided by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing. As noted above, clause 21 creates new section 29F(2A), which removes the restriction on a purchaser’s ability to avoid a terms contract entered into in contravention of the Act in relation to certain residential land, where a court is satisfied that certain conditions are established. While the removal of the power of the court to consider and allow such a contract to be entered into may appear to engage the fair hearing right, in my view it does not do so. Both parties retain the right to have any relevant proceedings determined by a court. The provision merely alters the substantive law to be applied. Hon Marlene Kairouz MP Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming & Liquor Regulation Minister for Suburban Development Second reading Ms KAIROUZ (Kororoit—Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Suburban Development) (10:10): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I ask that my second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard. Incorporated speech as follows: The Sale of Land Act 1962 (‘the Act’) was originally enacted in 1962, with the purpose of protecting purchasers under terms contracts and contracts for the sale of land off-the-plan. Subsequently, the Act was amended to protect the interests of property purchasers more generally, and it now regulates the treatment of deposit moneys, provides for mandatory pre-contractual vendor disclosure and regulates public auctions,

BILLS 1158 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019

among other things. It is recognised as a critical piece of consumer protection legislation underpinning Victorian property law. During 2016 and 2017, the Act’s operation was examined as part of the Andrews Labor Government’s broader Consumer Property Law Review (‘the review’). The bill I am introducing today is substantively the same as the Sale of Land Amendment Bill 2018 that passed the Legislative Assembly on 20 September 2018 but was not debated by the Legislative Council before the expiry of Parliament on 30 October 2018 and therefore lapsed. The bill continues to support the Act’s role in providing critical consumer protection by introducing a number of key reforms to address substantive consumer detriment in the Victorian property market identified during the course of the review, and to address other issues attracting community concern. One of the most significant reforms to be introduced by the bill relates to the use of ‘sunset clauses’ to rescind residential off-the-plan contracts. Under the Act, a purchaser under an off-the-plan contract has the statutory right to rescind the contract if the plan of subdivision relevant to the lot they have bought is not registered within 18 months of the contract being entered, or another period specified in the contract. This statutory right to end an off-the-plan contract if it is not completed within a certain time reflects the conditional nature of off-the-plan projects, which involve some risk to a purchaser that the project will not be completed or that completion will be delayed. The Act does not expressly give vendors (including developers) a similar right to end off-the-plan contracts of sale in this event. However, it does not preclude contracts from including such a right, and it is very common for off-the-plan contracts to include a clause enabling the vendor to end the contract if the plan of subdivision has not been registered by a specified date. Contractual clauses of this type are known as ‘sunset clauses’. The Government has become aware of a number of instances in which developers have used (or propose to use) sunset clauses to rescind residential off-the-plan contracts, apparently with the intention of re-selling the relevant lots at a higher price, and in circumstances where it is alleged that completion of the project was deliberately delayed. Although the number of developers who may seek to take advantage of rescission rights in this way may generally be low, the risk of this occurring increases when prices increase faster than expected. Termination under a ‘sunset clause’ in an attempt to capture this value is therefore always entirely opportunistic. The consequence for the purchaser in this scenario is that despite having paid a significant deposit and having waited a period of time for their property to be developed, upon rescission of the contract, they are denied the benefit of any increase in the value of the property, are repaid only their deposit (without interest) and must then find an alternative property to buy, which also may have significantly increased in price over that period of time. Some purchasers in this situation may have to continue to rent, long past the time which they expected to be paying off a mortgage on their own home. Members will appreciate the disappointment and distress experienced by purchasers to whom this occurs, and their loss of confidence in the integrity of the off-the-plan industry, where it seems that vendors have not used best endeavours to complete the project. Therefore, in order to address the misuse of sunset clauses by vendors, the bill provides that a vendor may not rescind a residential off-the-plan contract pursuant to a sunset clause without the agreement of the purchasers, or alternatively the express permission of the Supreme Court. The bill provides that a purported rescission under a sunset clause contrary to Part I, Division 1 of the Act constitutes a breach of contract, enabling affected purchasers to claim damages or other appropriate remedies from the vendor. The bill provides that the provisions restricting the circumstances in which a vendor can exercise a right to rescind a residential off-the-plan contract under a sunset clause are taken to have come into operation on 23 August 2018. This is the day after the day on which the Sale of Land Amendment Bill 2018 was second read. This is designed to protect purchasers under existing residential off the-plan contracts from vendors who may have sought to rescind a residential off-the-plan contract under a sunset clause in the period between the Sale of Land Amendment Bill 2018 being second read and this Bill achieving passage through Parliament. The term ‘sunset clause’ is defined in the bill to mean a clause that enables rescission of an off-the-plan contract if either the relevant plan of subdivision is not registered by a specific date, or an occupancy permit has not been issued in respect of the lot by a specific date.

BILLS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1159

The Supreme Court may make an order allowing the rescission of the off-the-plan contract if it is just and equitable in all the circumstances. In making such an order, the Supreme Court is required to have regard to factors including whether the vendor has acted unreasonably or in bad faith, the reason for the delay in registering the relevant plan of subdivision or the issuing of an occupancy certificate, and whether the relevant lot has increased in value. Vendors will be responsible for their own costs in making such an application to the Court, and will also be responsible for a purchaser’s costs, unless the purchaser has acted unreasonably in withholding consent. The bill also addresses predatory conduct in the alternative housing finance sector that has led to vulnerable consumers entering into unaffordable and high-risk ‘terms contracts’ or rent-to-buy arrangements for the purchase of residential property. The bill amends the Act to prohibit the use of terms contracts for residential land sales (other than sales of agricultural land) under a monetary threshold to be prescribed in regulations made under the Act. Terms contracts are contracts for the sale of land where the vendor and purchaser agree that the purchaser will pay the purchase price of the property in instalments, prior to the vendor completing a transfer of land in the purchaser’s favour. The purchaser may be entitled to occupy the property during this period. During the review it was suggested that market changes over the last 50 years, in particular, the contemporary competitive mortgage market has meant that there is less of a need to use terms contracts as a way of purchasing a home, and that they are now used mainly to take advantage of vulnerable people who cannot access conventional mortgage finance to purchase a home. Indeed, the review received evidence about an increasing trend for terms contracts for lower-value residential property sales to be brokered between financially stressed vendors and purchasers, often in regional or outer- metropolitan areas. Such arrangements are almost always unaffordable for the purchaser, and are of little benefit to the vendor. It was further noted that parties generally cannot afford to obtain independent legal and financial advice prior to entering such contracts, or (in the case of purchasers) use provisions existing in the Act designed to protect their interests. The Government acknowledges, however, that terms contracts can be a useful and appropriate arrangement for the sale of commercial, high-value residential and agricultural property, where the parties are more likely to have equal bargaining power and have involved independent financial and legal advice. Accordingly, the amendments introduced by the bill will not impede the continued use of this form of contract in these circumstances. The bill will also amend the Act to prohibit the sale of land through rent-to-buy arrangements. A rent-to-buy arrangement typically involves a residential tenancy agreement, allowing a person to occupy a residential property for a fee, and a sale option (or sale deed), which gives that person a right or option to buy the residential property at a specified–usually inflated–price, at a future point. Rent-to-buy arrangements present significant risks to consumers. For example, if during the rental period, a person defaults on the residential tenancy agreement (for example, does not pay their rent for a month), the landlord can potentially exercise their rights under the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 to terminate the lease, and as a result the rent-to-buy arrangement. Upon termination of the lease, the person will lose both their option to purchase and any fees paid under the sale option. During the review no evidence was provided of the successful use of rent-to-buy arrangements as a means of achieving home ownership. Rather, the review received substantial feedback that this type of arrangement is of no discernible benefit to consumers and causes significant financial and personal distress. However, the Government recognises that future models of rent-to-buy arrangements may be legitimate, and that these should not be prevented. Therefore, the bill includes a number of exemptions from the general prohibition on rent-to-buy arrangements directed at arrangements which are likely to lead to home ownership, for example, where one of the parties is the Director of Housing or a registered housing association. Provision is also made for other prescribed persons and classes of persons, and arrangements that comply with prescribed requirements, to be exempt from the prohibition on selling residential land under a rent-to-buy arrangement. The bill also closes a regulatory gap that has enabled developers associated with unregulated and problematic land banking schemes to spend the money they have raised selling options to unsophisticated investors without regard to their interests. ‘Land banking’ is a type of speculative real estate investment where property developers buy large blocks of undeveloped land with a view to dividing it into smaller lots.

BILLS 1160 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019

Before any formal subdivision or development has occurred, small-scale domestic investors are offered the opportunity to either buy a lot ‘off-the-plan’ or pay money to purchase an option to buy a lot at some point in the future. The value of the option is tied to the likelihood of the land being approved for development by the relevant council, enabling the investor to purchase the land at a profit. While monies paid by purchasers under off-the-plan contracts are protected under the Act, purchasers of an option to buy land are at considerable financial risk, because the land which is the subject of the option may be unsuitable for re-zoning or development, and moneys paid for the option are not required to be held trust and are therefore at risk of being dissipated. Previous land banking schemes that have involved the sale of options have collapsed, with investors unable to recover their option fees. Such investors have typically been persons with limited funds and limited investment experience. The bill puts in place similar protections for persons who pay money for options to purchase land in a land banking schemes as are in place for purchasers under off-the-plan contracts by requiring option moneys to be held on trust by a legal practitioner, conveyancer or licensed estate agent acting for the vendor of the option until a plan of subdivision has been registered, or until the time by which the option must be exercised has expired. If the option expires, moneys paid for the option must be returned to the purchaser. In addition, the bill provides for the expiry of options to purchase land as part of a land banking scheme after five years so that investors can regain access to their money (which will have been held on trust) should the development not have progressed within this time period. The bill specifically exempts options sold in respect of land banking schemes that are registered managed investment schemes under the Corporations Act 2001, and options that are financial products issued by the holder of an Australian Financial Services Licence ('AFS'), from the amendments to be made to the Act. This recognises that registered managed investment schemes and AFSL holders are already subject to Commonwealth oversight. The bill also includes amendments to address some issues which, while infrequent, are of concern to the community when they arise. One such issue relates to the disclosure of certain facts regarding a property for sale, for example, its history as the site of a homicide, or its past use as a site on which illicit drugs were manufactured. The bill will amend the Act to strengthen an existing requirement not to fraudulently conceal ‘material facts’ about a property, with the intention of inducing another to buy that property. Additionally, amendments will be made to enable the Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria to publish guidelines designed to assist vendors and estate agents to understand what is meant by the term ‘material fact’. Another issue of concern to the community is the holding of public auctions on ANZAC Day. There are currently no restrictions on this practice, however public auctions that are held on ANZAC Day are considered to be disrespectful by many members of the community. The Andrews Labor Government has listened to the concerns raised by the community on this issue. The bill amends the Anzac Day Act 1958 to make it an offence to conduct a public auction of land or a business before 1pm on ANZAC Day, consistent with the general prohibition of shop trading before 1pm on that day. Finally, the bill makes a number of miscellaneous and consequential amendments to the Act, and introduces some transitional provisions relevant to other amendments made by the bill. In conclusion, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many stakeholders who contributed to the review of the Act. The bill introduces critical reforms designed to mitigate consumer detriment identified during the review, while not impeding legitimate and beneficial property transactions. I commend the bill to the house. Mr BATTIN (Gembrook) (10:10): I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. Ordered that debate be adjourned for two weeks. Debate adjourned until Thursday, 4 April.

ADDRESS TO PARLIAMENT Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1161

Address to Parliament GOVERNOR’S SPEECH Address-in-reply Debate resumed on motion of Mr BRAYNE: That the following address, in reply to the speech of Her Excellency the Governor to both houses of Parliament, be agreed to by this house: Governor: We, the Legislative Assembly of Victoria assembled in Parliament, wish to express our loyalty to our Sovereign and to thank you for the speech which you have made to the Parliament. And Mr HIBBINS’s amendment: That the following words be added to the end of the motion: ‘but respectfully regret that the speech fails to outline effective measures to protect Victoria’s natural environment and endangered plants and animals, nor address the urgent water, climate and extinction crises that affect all Victorians’. Ms HALFPENNY (Thomastown) (10:11): Having checked Hansard from last night, I was up to talking about yet another important investment that was promised during the election campaign and that was to support the building of a scout hall in the northern part of the Thomastown electorate, which of course is part of the Growing Suburbs Fund area. There are a whole lot of other pieces of infrastructure and a whole lot of investment that have been committed to that will have a really good impact on and benefit for the residents of the Thomastown electorate. But in the few minutes I have left I would like to talk about some of the really progressive legislative reform of the Labor government. I am so proud of the legislation around voluntary assisted dying. A number of people have come in to talk to me about the awful experiences that they and their loved ones with terminal illnesses had had in being unable to pass at a time of their choosing and on their terms, or to die with dignity. I think this is one of those pieces of legislation that is so progressive. It was brave because, yes, there was a lot of feeling against this sort of legislation for whatever reason. But it was certainly right to pass legislation that allows people to die with dignity and to choose the timing of their passing when they have a terminal illness. Of course there is the even more progressive agenda around the legislation coming on wage theft. It will be a crime for employers to steal wages from employees. So many times we hear of the most terrible and devastating situations where working people are not paid even the minimum wage, which is really an unlivable wage. Those same people are probably not having their superannuation paid, and of course that is what many people now have to rely on for their income into the future when they retire because the age pension is such a small amount of money and really not enough to live on. We heard from the member for Wendouree about the most tragic fatality in her area. Labor has also announced that we are going to bring in legislation that will make industrial manslaughter a crime. So when an employer is negligent and causes the death of a worker they will not be able to hide behind their company structures. It will be a criminal offence and there will be individuals who will be held to account and who will feel the full force of the law because of the way they have conducted their businesses, because nobody in this day and age should have to die at work, with the tragedy for the families around that. Also we can look at things like the free TAFE courses. It is my understanding that there has been a really large uptake of free courses by women. It is also of course a great achievement to see that women are going back into studies and giving themselves the best opportunity for employment and a career, perhaps after they have had some time off as a result of having children and caring for those in the family. It is great to see that women are taking up and embracing the free TAFE courses in order to get back into the workforce or to look for other careers that they may wish to undertake.

ADDRESS TO PARLIAMENT 1162 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019

The Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System, again, is a great advance. The system is broken, and we need to do something. Ms KAIROUZ (Kororoit—Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Suburban Development) (10:15): Deputy Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to give my address-in-reply to the Governor’s speech upon opening the 59th Parliament, and I am delighted to congratulate you on your role as Deputy Speaker and also the member for Bundoora on his appointment to the very important role of Speaker of the 59th Parliament. Congratulations and thank you to the Premier and to Sam Rae, state secretary of the Labor Party, for the amazing result that was delivered to us on 24 November, and of course thank you to all Victorians who voted for us. The Andrews government was lucky enough to see some amazing new talent come into this place at the 2018 election. Congratulations to all of the new members who have joined us to make a wonderful team in this place. All their speeches were inspiring, and it makes me think back to the time when I gave my speech. I wish I could go back and rewrite it, but they all gave some really inspiring and wonderful speeches. Some of them shared some amazing aspects of their personal life, and I would like to congratulate them all. I would like to particularly congratulate all the new western suburbs MPs in this place—the member for Tarneit, the member for Footscray and the member for Williamstown—and of course Kaushaliya Vaghela and Ingrid Stitt in the other place. I know that all these women will make marvellous contributions to their local communities, and I certainly look forward to working with them. It is wonderful to see how many new MPs, particularly in the western suburbs, are women. I would also like to congratulate my good friends the member for Northcote, who just had her baby not long ago, and of course the member for Clarinda on their election to the state Parliament. At this time I would like to take this opportunity to thank all departing members of Parliament. This is a challenging job, and each of them have made a significant contribution in representing their local communities and this state. I am a very proud member of the Andrews Labor government, a government that has been working very hard for the people of Victoria. We have been getting on with delivering some really great things. We have been building better hospitals, TAFEs, schools, roads and public transport. We have made some significant reforms which make our state a safer, fairer and more progressive place to live. We have created more than 400 000 jobs. That is something I am extremely passionate about, particularly given I represent a low socio-economic area where the most important thing for members of my community is a roof over their head and a job so they are able to put food on the table, pay their bills and give their children and members of their family the basic things that they need in life. So I am so proud of the fantastic work that we have done. We have been able to deliver 400 000 jobs and of course protect the rights of those who do work and ensure that they have protections in place at work. I am very proud of the agenda of hard work and the vital infrastructure investment that was rewarded at the ballot box, because I know the Victorian community support what we do and believe in what we do, but I know that there is still so much more to do. I am proud to have been re-elected as the member for Kororoit in the 2018 state election. I have represented Kororoit in this place since 2008. Kororoit is diverse electorate, and in my opinion it is one of the nicest places in the state. I encourage you all to come along and drive through Kororoit to see the wonderful things that this government has done in Kororoit and in the western suburbs just in the last four years alone. Over half of the residents in Kororoit were born overseas and speak a language other than English at home. Our Vietnamese, Filipino, Indian, Maltese and Macedonian communities contribute to making Kororoit a vibrant and multicultural place to live. Kororoit is one of the fastest growing electorates in the state. There are over 20 000 families in the electorate with school-age children. It is vital that we

ADDRESS TO PARLIAMENT Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1163 have adequate infrastructure in place to support our growing community. The investment that we have seen in the west over the last four years is unprecedented, thanks to the Premier and his team. What we have seen in the last four years has not gone unnoticed by the good people of Kororoit and the good people of the western suburbs. We have seen roads being built. We have seen train stations and train tracks being built as well. We have seen the Joan Kirner Women’s and Children’s Hospital being built right before our eyes, and it is due for completion by May this year. We have seen several level crossings removed and we have seen lots of schools being built. Schools in my electorate of Kororoit have been built, and in February this year, for the first time, we saw children fill those classrooms. We have committed to delivering first-class road and rail infrastructure for Melbourne’s west, and we have pledged $150 million towards a business case for the Western Rail Plan. This plan, as we all know, will involve the duplication and electrification of tracks between Sunshine and Melton and will allow more trains more often for the people of Kororoit. We will also see more car parks being built, because as we know, this is one of the fastest growing electorates in the western suburbs and the car parks at train stations are being filled quite rapidly. More car parks will be built. We will see new lighting and CCTV cameras both at Deer Park and Caroline Springs railway stations, allowing residents to feel safer when they commute to and from work. Last term we removed 29 of Victoria’s most dangerous and congested level crossings, and I know that the benefits of this project have been delivered to my community and my electorate. Over the next four years we have committed to removing level crossings both at Station Road and Robinsons Road in Deer Park and at Fitzgerald Road in Ardeer. This will ease congestion on our roads and our rail networks and will make sure that loved ones get home to their families safely. This was one of the things that members of my community spoke to me about the most over the course of the last couple of years, but particularly during the campaign. They were so pleased and so happy and excited to see the Premier turn up to Deer Park and make the announcement himself. These level crossings are something that the community is looking forward to seeing removed. I am a child of migrants so I know firsthand how important it is to give children a good education, particularly at the start of life. Under this government we have seen record investment in our kinders, in our primary and secondary schools and in our TAFEs, but we know there is so much more to do. In growth areas like the one that I represent it is particularly important that our education and infrastructure grow at the same pace as our community. This is why we are committed to building four new primary schools in Kororoit, being Grasslands primary school, Rockbank North primary school, Bridge Road primary school and Eynesbury Station primary school, and of course a new secondary school. We are upgrading and building 100 new kinders and providing every child with 5 hours of free three-year-old kinder by 2022. I know that this $5 billion investment is much needed in my electorate. Locals have told me that dental care is one of the most unaffordable forms of health care, with some families having to do without because of the cost. They simply cannot afford this service. So we will be delivering dental vans across the state that will provide check-ups for all primary and secondary school students. Many young people in Kororoit enrol in a TAFE degree, and our government is making TAFE more accessible, with free TAFE courses in 30 priority areas. The key investments in our education system will provide Victorians with the best start in life, enabling them to accomplish their dreams no matter where they live and no matter what background they come from. With a growing population it is important that we invest in our health services, and that is why we have committed to a range of health services, but one that I am extremely proud of, on top of the Joan Kirner Women’s and Children’s Hospital, is the new $1.5 billion Footscray Hospital, which will be built in Footscray. This will service my community and will service members of the community in the west, and it will mean that they do not have to travel much further to receive the health care that they need.

ADDRESS TO PARLIAMENT 1164 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019

The last four years and the next four years would not have been possible without the amazing support that I have received from members of my staff, both in my electorate office and in my ministerial office. Each member of my staff has worked extremely hard for me and for my community, and of course for the government, and this has not gone unnoticed. At times we can all be very busy and can get caught up in things, but the support that I have received from my staff, from both my electorate office and my ministerial office, does not go unnoticed. I want to thank them for everything that they do. They are like members of my family, as I said earlier on, and I certainly hope that they will be with me for a long time—or at least as long as I am here. I want to also thank my wonderful and loving family. Sometimes days and days go by without me seeing them. I want to thank them very much for their unconditional love and support. They always think I do a fantastic job, even if they do not know what I am doing half the time. I particularly want to thank the little ones in my family. They were so excited during the campaign. They were actively campaigning for Aunty Marlene and they were actively campaigning for Labor at school, at kinder and at the local supermarket when they were wearing their little red-and-white T-shirts that said ‘Labor’ or ‘Marlene Kairouz for Kororoit’, although they do not live anywhere near my electorate. They were actively campaigning, and they were so excited. And they were so excited when they saw the results on election night, seeing my photograph on the TV. I would like to thank my wonderful, gorgeous, hardworking volunteers. I cannot thank them enough. I have got over 150 volunteers that work for me, and they did a fantastic job. Two weeks of pre-poll felt like election day every single day. It was hard work, but they were out there in force when it rained, when it hailed and when the sun shone so brightly. They were out there and they would not go home until they had captured every single vote that they could for us. I just want to thank them very much. I want to thank the good and hardworking people of Kororoit who have entrusted me with this role once again—entrusted me to come into this place and represent them. I will not let them down. I will be doing everything I possibly can to deliver on each and every one of the commitments that the Andrews Labor government made during the course of the campaign. I know that there is so much to do, but they are very excited about what they are seeing in the western suburbs, they are very excited about what they are seeing in Kororoit. Many people have told me that they have not seen such an investment ever. Some of them have been living in the western suburbs for 40, 50 or 60 years and have not seen anything like this. They give the credit to the Premier and to his team, and they certainly recognise that the Andrews Labor government has worked very hard for them. They know that only Labor delivers on its commitments, and they know that only Labor will ensure that the hardworking people of the western suburbs will always have their needs considered. I will not let them down, and I will make sure that every one of the commitments that we have made we will deliver on. In conclusion I would like to say how excited I am for the next four years of this government. I am proud to be a minister in a cabinet where 50 per cent of ministers sitting around the cabinet table are women, and they hold very senior positions in this government. I am so proud of the diversity that we see in this place—people from different ethnic backgrounds, people from different professions and people with different religious affiliations. I am so proud. There are many, many firsts in this Parliament and there are many firsts on this side of the house. It is the Andrews Labor government that has delivered these firsts and that supports and encourages people with a diverse range of views and backgrounds. I am so proud to be sitting with so many fabulous people on this side of the house. I am so proud of what we have achieved and I am so excited for the future. I know there is so much we can do. Victorians can rest assured that we will be working very hard every single day to make Victoria a wonderful place to live, and we will be working every single day to deliver on all the commitments that we have made. The next four years are going to be extremely exciting. I cannot wait. Hopefully I will be back in four years talking about the wonderful commitments and the wonderful projects that we have delivered on.

ADDRESS TO PARLIAMENT Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1165

Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes) (10:29): I am very, very pleased to join in the debate on the address-in-reply. My contribution is much like so many others who have spoken before me in this address-in-reply debate, and that is to reflect on the wonderful renewed trust that the Victorian people have given to us as a government to continue to have great ambition, and not just to have great ambition and talk about it but to develop the policies and programs that address people’s needs and aspirations and actually get on and deliver those. I am very blessed as the member for Mill Park, and I thank the local community for again renewing their trust in me as their Labor representative in this fantastic Daniel Andrews Labor government. I want to reflect on the fact that during the many, many hours that I spent at the early voting centre and that the many volunteers who worked on behalf of me and the party also spent at the early voting centre, a number of people came up to us to say, ‘Look, we’ve not voted for you guys in the past, but we’re doing it now because we can see that you’re getting things done—you’re actually doing things in the local area’. That very much goes to the heart of the way we operated and our whole approach to government over that first term, and that continues. If we can strengthen what we have done in the first term, we are certainly going to be doing that. I do want to reflect on some of the really important initiatives that go to the heart of what communities need. If you have a look at just my own community, we made a big commitment to upgrade Epping Road. That is really important when you think about that growth in that corridor that I share with the member for Thomastown—the growth in the Epping North area, the Wollert area—where people are sick and tired of getting home too late to read a story to their kids because they got stuck in traffic. This is going to be such a game changer for that community. We are investing significantly not only in major upgrades to our rail infrastructure and extra services on the lines that we have there but also in increased bus services, increased connectivity and significant improvements to the road infrastructure in the local area that will actually help people in that local community get to work on time, get the kids to school on time and get home in time to actually do what they want to do most every day, and that is to be at home with their family and share quality time and be able to discuss and enjoy and reflect on what they have all done during that day. These are really important changes for the way communities live. We also of course made a big commitment to build a new community hospital in the Whittlesea region. With this investment that will be forthcoming we will make sure that if a young child gets sick late at night, a teenager breaks their ankle at sport or a loved one needs dialysis or chemotherapy treatment, they can get the care that they need closer to home. What comes on top of this too, which is a very exciting commitment that we have made in government for the local community, is that one of the children’s emergency departments that we have committed to will be located at the Northern Hospital. Close to 20 000 children are treated each year at the Northern Hospital’s emergency department. It is, if not the busiest emergency department in the state, certainly up there amongst the busiest. With the population growth that we have, the growth of new families—families starting up, raising their children in that local area—we so much need continuing investment in the Northern Hospital. To see a children’s emergency department will give great comfort to the local community in that not only will we continue to deliver the best paediatric care that we can get in that area but also we will have a dedicated space where parents can bring their children that is as comfortable, safe and comforting for them as a dedicated children’s emergency department would be to get the care that they need. An early parenting centre in Whittlesea will also be established. We know that these centres play a critical role in making sure new parents are getting the advice that they need, including support with sleeping and feeding and extra care for babies with additional needs. We know there is a lot of pressure on families, and with the added pressure which comes with the pure delight of actually having a newborn in the family, we can never lose sight of the fact that that can often lead to greater stress on families with a newborn. Making sure that we can actually help parents to be able to better manage and get the information, the techniques, the suggestions, the recommendations and the support they need

ADDRESS TO PARLIAMENT 1166 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019 with which to provide the care that they want to and the nurturing that they so dearly want to for their newborn babies is something that is very special and has been very much welcomed by my community. We are providing additional bus services, and of course bringing dental services to public schools is really so fantastic. We know how hard it is with dental care not being part of the Medicare system. It is a significant cost for families to be able to provide dental care to children. We know that where there are gaps in the opportunities and the ability for families to provide or pay for dental care for their children, there are serious health consequences later on in life. So dental services in schools are really going to hit the spot when it comes to helping families at a time when they need it most to be able to feel confident that they can actually look after the dental health needs of their children. I do want to touch on a number of other initiatives that are related to my portfolio as minister and how important these initiatives are to the people of my community in my electorate. Our government made a nation-leading commitment when it comes to the Solar Homes program—a $1.24 billion program which will mean that 770 000 Victorian families will be able to have a solar generator on their roof, a solar hot-water system or batteries available to them. What does this mean, Deputy Speaker? Well, it means a hell of a lot when it comes to affordability of energy supply, putting power back in the hands of families in terms of their energy bills and, importantly, helping families actually make a significant contribution to the need for us to decarbonise our energy system. We know that with climate change Victorians of all shapes and sizes, of all walks of life, want to take every opportunity they possibly can to do their bit to ensure that we have got a good future for our children when it comes to looking after our environment and our planet. I only have to reflect on the school strike that students organised themselves and took part in last week to know that we need to do more. I am so pleased that we are doing more not only with respect to reducing our emissions but also of course by making it easier for families to be able to look after their energy bills and putting power back in their hands. We know of course with the privatisation of the energy system that we had in our state a number of decades ago—the big experiment—that Victorians have been the losers in that. Ordinary, hardworking Victorian families, small businesses and larger businesses—it has not been good for them. Our government is about turning the tables back the other way and putting power back in the hands of families. The popularity of this scheme is just amazing. We have had so many requests, so many applications coming forward. It is a 10-year scheme and one that will be very much transformative in how families can deal with and better manage their energy costs. We are also making that available to renters, of course, which is a very important feature here. I will not go into the details of that program—that is enough to cover all of my address-in-reply—but I do want to touch lightly on a number of other initiatives that really will help Victorians and also people in my electorate when it comes to better managing household costs. We made a commitment to increase our renewable energy target to 50 per cent by 2030. This change will be made in legislation. Again the more clean energy supply we can get into our system, the more jobs we will be creating through that program—thousands of jobs right across rural and regional Victoria—and the more energy supply we get in our system, the cheaper power will be. This is really important. It is nation leading, and we are absolutely going to get on with the job of delivering on that 50 per cent target by 2050. We are well on the way to meeting the other targets that we set for 2020 and 2025. We also went to the election with an energy fairness plan to protect energy customers and are supporting 11 recommendations of the Independent Review into the Electricity & Gas Retail Markets in Victoria. This involves doubling civil penalty notices for retailers who wrongfully disconnect customers; ending door-to-door sales, cold-calling, telemarketing and performance bonuses; and implementing an Australia-first Victorian default offer and removing and abolishing the very costly standing offers. All of these together will wipe hundreds of dollars off the cost of power for Victorians each and every year. We also have a commitment to establish more suburban parks. A re-elected government—which we are now of course—will be creating new parklands more than 170 times the size of the Royal Botanic

ADDRESS TO PARLIAMENT Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1167

Gardens to make sure that everyone has a great local park no matter where they live. Certainly in my own area there will be a massive upgrade to the Plenty parklands area. Parkland area is so important. New pocket parks for areas that are poor in open space will be created and of course off-leash dog parks across Melbourne. I do want to make my last comments, and I hope the house will extend to me the opportunity to go into the issue of the terrorist attack in New Zealand because I have not had the opportunity in Parliament to make some comments on the record. I do want to say salaam alaikum. As a member of Parliament with a large Muslim community in my electorate it pains me, along with many others, to speak about the impact on our brothers and sisters in our community of the devastating terrorist attack that occurred in New Zealand last week. I mourn the 50 lives that were taken so unjustly and so brutally in the circumstance of a place of worship and prayer and peace. The many worshippers at the Thomastown Mosque in my community, the Australian Shia Gathering Place, the Imam Hassan Al-Mutjaba Islamic Centre, the Alawi Community Centre in Epping and the Al Siraat College in Epping—all of those people, many of whom I have met and others who I have not, I call my friends. I have put on record in this chamber my absolute ongoing commitment to call out racism, fearmongering and public humiliation of a very, very proud group of communities whose only attraction to such vile, brutal attacks has been their faith. I say to all of them that I stand by them. I will always call out racism. I will always call bigotry and hate what it is and stand with them, protect them where I can and assist them in protecting themselves so that they can quite confidently and proudly trust that when we say they are part of our community that they indeed feel a part of our community, equal members side-by-side feeling the freedom to be able to walk down the street without being attacked and the freedom to be able to speak other languages or exclaim commitment of faith that gives them reassurance. That is a genuine multicultural and multifaith community, one that is well- respected and respectful of one another. I say to them: I am with you, and I will be for this no doubt terribly long journey to recover from this devastating attack. Ms KILKENNY (Carrum) (10:44): Let me say from the outset how wonderful it is to be back here as the member for Carrum and to be given the opportunity for a second term to continue to deliver important and transformative infrastructure projects, upgrades and investments in my local community and to be here as part of a progressive Labor government that is delivering for all Victorians. On 24 November last year the Victorian people endorsed—pretty comprehensively I might say—a great Labor government that gets on and gets things done, a government that does what it says and keeps its promises, a government with a proven track record, a government that listens to the community and responds to the community and a government that puts Victorians first. This is a government made up of almost 50 per cent women and it is a government with a cabinet that for the first time in this state’s history is gender equal, and that is something that we should rightly celebrate and acknowledge. Congratulations to each and every member in this place but of course congratulations particularly on this side of the house—and also that side of the house, for those in bay 13—to our newest members in this place. The class of 2018 are the members for Clarinda, Northcote, Footscray, Narre Warren South, Melton, Cranbourne, Hawthorn, Buninyong, Bass, Nepean, Ringwood, Mount Waverley, Williamstown, Wendouree, Burwood, South Barwon, Box Hill, Bayswater and Tarneit, I am indeed in awe of the sheer breadth of talent, experience, empathy, inspiration and energy you all possess. Your respective electorates are certainly in good hands and I am proud to call you colleagues and friends. In 2014 I was elected as the Labor member for Carrum with a buffer of 572 votes. If you are going to be a marginal seat, you might as well be ultra-marginal. It sure does keep you on your toes. Members interjecting.

ADDRESS TO PARLIAMENT 1168 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019

Ms KILKENNY: Whilst this time around the results are slightly more comforting for me and my sand belt colleagues, I will always consider myself in a marginal seat and never, ever take for granted this most wonderful gift. I must say that heading into last year’s election on a rather slim margin was not without its ups and downs, particularly with a couple of interesting polls in the months leading up to November. But we held our ground, confident that whatever the result on 24 November we had given it our all, and as a consequence we were mighty proud of everything we had achieved across the Carrum electorate as well as across Victoria. I could not have done this without the support of our Premier, the Deputy Premier, all of our ministers and every member of the Andrews Labor government in the 58th term of this Parliament. And I could not have done it without my incredible local community—a community I have been so very privileged to serve and represent. My local community has taught me a great deal. They have taught me things like their care and concern for their neighbourhoods, their local areas and their neighbours; their ideas on how to improve our local area, how to make it more inclusive, how to engage more with people and how to make life better for others; and what it means to volunteer—in other words, what is possible. And together over four years we certainly made things possible. We built the Karrum Karrum Bridge. This magnificent bridge over the Patterson River finally provides that missing link to join Station Street between Bonbeach and Carrum and finally connects these two communities that for decades have been cut off from each other by the Frankston train line. On 22 September 2018 the Premier and I joined with proud construction crews, the level crossing removal project (LXRP) and more than 1000 local residents to officially open the Karrum Karrum Bridge. It was the biggest community gathering I have ever seen, and the memory of that day will stay with me forever. We delivered something for this local community that others had only ever talked about. We delivered something that many thought would never happen—certainly not within their lifetime. We delivered this bridge because we listened to this community, and I could not be prouder. I want to thank Paul and his crew, who have been working so hard and are still working in Carrum to deliver this vital project, as well as the dedicated team from the level crossing removal project. You can tell they are absolutely invested in this project and, importantly, they are invested in the local community. I know this firsthand. Last weekend I caught up for a coffee with one of the residents, an older woman whose Carrum property had to be acquired for the project. She invited me over to see her new place. She tells me that Chris from the LXRP still pays her regular visits just to check in to see how things are going. But of course the project is not over yet. Earlier this year we kicked off major works to remove three more level crossings as part of the Carrum level crossing removal project and part of this government’s commitment to remove 18 level crossings on the Frankston line. In Carrum we are extending McLeod Road to the Nepean Highway, building a new state-of-the-art Carrum station, relocating the train stabling, creating more than 1.6 hectares of open green space and installing the brand-new Carrum beach promenade as part of a massive transformation and revitalisation of Carrum. This total project is costed at more than half a billion dollars. Can I also say that with big bold projects there are big changes, and there will always be some members of the community who are going to be impacted more than others, some during construction and some over the longer term. I want to acknowledge residents in Seaford and also those in Carrum and Seaford north in particular, who do not want vehicle access closed at Eel Race Road and the Nepean Highway. I empathise with these residents. I understand their concerns, and in all honesty I have struggled too. I want to acknowledge all of their work in distributing petitions, collecting signatures, holding street stalls and even running a candidate on this issue. Please know that I have not taken this lightly. I have considered this issue at length, I have met with residents, I have proposed options, I have taken advice, I have looked at this from every angle and I have also taken into account the community feedback and consultation which took place before designs were finalised for Carrum—feedback which overwhelmingly endorsed a shorter rail bridge

ADDRESS TO PARLIAMENT Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1169 option through Carrum. Having taken all of that into account and after weighing everything up, it remains my view that the current design, which does not extend the rail bridge over Eel Race Road, is the better option. It provides significantly greater outcomes for the community at large, both in terms of safety and in terms of amenity. I will continue to work with the local community throughout the construction phase and beyond and will remain open to any and all measures for making necessary enhancements and improvements. And I will continue to keep my election promises. As I say this, construction is taking place on the shared user path that will run through Eel Race Road and down towards Seaford as part of the project that removed the level crossing at Seaford Road. It was one week after opening the Karrum Karrum Bridge—the Thursday before grand final day 2018— when we removed the Seaford Road level crossing and drove for the first time under the new rail bridge. The boom gates at Seaford Road are gone, banished to the history books. No more boom gates and no more bells. The workers who have transformed this area, making it safer for everyone, are rightly proud of the extraordinary effort they put in to deliver this incredible project that is already benefiting thousands of people. Works are continuing to upgrade the surrounding area at RF Miles Reserve and to construct the shared user path that will run from Carrum through Seaford and Kananook and on to Frankston. There will be an adventure playground and a new RF Miles pavilion for the Seaford Tigers and Seaford cricket teams as well as 100 000 trees and plants. Some of those trees have been propagated from seeds taken from banksias that had to be removed to make way for the new rail track. I went to the Frankston Indigenous Nursery to visit these ‘babies’ recently. They are already more than 6 feet tall and looking beautiful. Later this month I will be joining students from our local primary schools and kindergartens in a community tree-planting day to kick off the massive replanting program that will take place. On the other side of my electorate, in Carrum Downs, we achieved another significant milestone just this week. Back in 2014 we promised to duplicate Thompsons Road as part of a $207 million upgrade to duplicate 10.7 kilometres of this important arterial road and upgrade 11 intersections, including traffic lights at McCormicks Road and at the Western Port Highway. Well, on Monday we opened all lanes in both directions. Drivers can travel on a duplicated carriageway along Thompsons Road between the Frankston-Dandenong Road roundabout through to the Western Port Highway and further on up to Lyndhurst Boulevard. Someone made the comment this week that for the first time in many, many years his GPS directed him to take Thompsons Road. I was bursting with pride. I could not let this opportunity pass without mentioning education. I hope most people know that one of the things that really drives me is the power of, and the opportunities that come from, learning and education—from kindergarten to our local schools and to TAFE and beyond. And I hope I have not disappointed. We have got upgrades happening at nearly every school in my electorate. We have breakfast clubs and soon-to-be lunch clubs. We provide support with school uniforms and glasses. We make sure kids do not miss out on sports, camps and excursions—providing vital funding the Liberals cut. We are rolling out school-readiness funding. This needs-based funding means kinders can access specialist support like speech therapists, literacy professionals and psychologists and can help reduce the impact of disadvantage on children’s learning and development. And now, in an Australian first, the Andrews Labor government will give every Victorian child access to three-year-old kinder. I am honoured to have been appointed Parliamentary Secretary for Early Childhood Education, working with our incredible Deputy Premier and Minister for Education to roll out this most progressive and positive initiative. Of course at the other end we have rebuilt our TAFEs, and from 1 January this year we have free TAFE for priority courses. The take-up speaks volumes, with more than 13 000 people opting to take up these courses; of these 8000 are women. This is all about opportunity. The opportunities our investment in education opens up for all Victorians, no matter their postcode, are key. At the 2018 election the Andrews Labor government put forward a positive, optimistic plan for Victoria’s future. This is about hope, about opportunity and about potential. This is about getting things

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 1170 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019 done and getting even more things done. This is about putting Victorians, all Victorians, first. This is about leadership. So we will continue our record investments in education, in road and rail upgrades, in major infrastructure like the metro rail tunnel, like airport rail and the suburban rail loop—things which will unlock this city and make it absolutely world class. We will continue our investments, our significant investments, in our health system and hospitals, including nurse-to-patient and midwife-to- patient ratios and of course our half-billion dollar upgrade of Frankston Hospital. Profoundly, we will soon see people, suffering incurable and unbearable disease and under strict criteria, being able to access voluntary assisted dying and to end their lives at a time of their choosing. We will continue our work to address the greatest law and order issue our state—our nation—has ever faced: family violence. We will work tirelessly to end it by calling out and eliminating one of its main drivers, gender inequality and bad attitudes towards girls and women. We are going to hold a royal commission into mental health because we know our system is broken and we must fix it. We are transitioning to renewables, bringing down our prices, bringing down emissions and growing industry and jobs for Victoria's future. And we are continuing to work with First Nation peoples to advance an Aboriginal treaty. In the words of Jill Gallagher, the Victorian treaty advancement commissioner: Aboriginal people have never wavered in their call for treaty as a recognition of their ancient sovereignty. What has changed is that non-Aboriginal people in this country have started to hear our call, and answer it. Finally, I wish to thank Victorian Labor, our incredible trade unions and the union movement, members, supporters, volunteers and my wonderful staff. What a privilege, what a gift, to be working with this extraordinary community of people in our efforts to make the lives of every single Victorian better. And to Rafferty and Judd: thank you for your love and support. Without you, I would not, could not, be here. In my remaining minutes I would like to just take this opportunity to speak in more detail about one of the areas in which are investing, and that is in education and our commitment to introduce three- year-old kinder in Victoria. In a first for our nation we will be committing funding to ensure that there is universal access for every three-year-old to two years of learning and play-based education in the years before they enter school. We know that investing in our kids at an earlier age will bring about results that can transform their futures and provide immense opportunities. We know that the power of being able to invest in play-based learning and help our children means that we can identify and acknowledge vulnerabilities and issues that may impede their development later in life. We are told by educators that they can identify those children who have had the opportunity to enjoy one or two years of education before entering school. It is for that reason that we are going to invest in these children, to make sure that we level the playing field for them, that we provide every opportunity for these children to enjoy a better, fruitful life in Victoria. The SPEAKER: Order! While I have the attention of so many members of the house prior to question time, can I remind all members of the house, particularly newer members of the house, that whilst the Chair is provided with call lists for questions, ministers statements and in fact any debates in this chamber, it is the responsibility of a member to rise in their place and seek the call if they are next in line to speak. I do ask members to rise in their place if it is their turn to speak, if it is their call, so I clearly know that they are seeking the call rather than relying on the Chair, whether it be me or another Chair, to look at the lists. Business interrupted under sessional orders. Questions without notice and ministers statements MEMBER CONDUCT Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (11:01): My question is to the Treasurer. How long has the Treasurer’s investment portfolio included Transurban shares?

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1171

Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (11:01): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Can I make it clear that all my investments—all my investments—have been properly declared in the register of members’ interests. That is as it should be and as it will always be as far as I am concerned. This of course is a passive management fund. It is an investment strategy that tracks against market-weighted arrangements. Consequently, the fund itself, as has appeared on the register, commenced in 2011 and it is balanced across the ASX top 20. Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, the question was: how long has the Treasurer’s investment portfolio included Transurban shares? Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Oakleigh is warned. Mr M O’Brien: And I ask you to bring the Treasurer back to answering the question. The SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer’s answer was relevant to the question. The Treasurer has concluded his answer. Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (11:02): Given that his investment portfolio included Transurban shares, did the Treasurer absent himself from cabinet decisions on Transurban’s unsolicited bid for the West Gate Tunnel? Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (11:02): I want to make clear the arrangements that are in place. A passive managed fund is a set-and-forget fund. That is where the state has—I have—no understanding or involvement around these things. They are, however, publicly accessible in terms of your access—the public’s access— around how this fund is managed. In that respect, not having any knowledge about which of these shares— Members interjecting. Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, the question was: did the Treasurer absent himself from cabinet decisions about the West Gate Tunnel? I ask you to bring him back to answering that very simple and important question. The SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer, to come back to answering the question. Mr PALLAS: No, because there was in fact no requirement. Members interjecting. Mr PALLAS: Let me just explain how a passive fund works. It is a set-and-forget fund. It is on an investment profile— Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer to resume his seat. The Treasurer is answering the question that was asked of him. I will not have members shouting across the chamber such that I cannot hear his answer. I warn members they will be removed from the chamber without warning. Mr PALLAS: What appears to be behind the question from the Leader of the Opposition is that I should check what comes into and out of the ASX top 20 on a daily basis. Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, the Treasurer is debating the question. Yes, we expect the Treasurer to know what shares he has invested in and if there is a conflict of interest. Yes, we do. Members interjecting.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 1172 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019

The SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer began by answering the question and had strayed to debating the question. The Treasurer, to continue answering the question. Mr PALLAS: Just to reassert the point, this has been done strictly in compliance with the rules of this place and the act that governs this place, and I believe that I have met all obligations. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: PUBLIC HOLIDAYS Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (11:04): I am very pleased to update the house on progress that the government is making in full delivery of our commitments in relation to public holidays for those hardworking Victorians—public holidays on Grand Final Friday and public holidays on Easter Sunday and of course Christmas Day, depending on where it falls each year. These declarations in the past have had to be made year on year, and of course perish the thought that others might be in power. Their position on these matters has been at best confused, at worst—more likely—anti-worker. Easter Sunday is an ordinary Sunday according to some. Grand Final Friday? Maybe, maybe not. Yes, no. Apparently they love it now. We are putting it beyond doubt. Why is that? Because we think that they are not ordinary days. What is more, we support penalty rates being paid to all those who work and are away from their families and make a sacrifice in being part of our economy and offering services to the rest of us, who might have the good fortune of having a day like that off. We think it is appropriate that people are rewarded for that additional effort in compensation for the fact that they are away from their families and that they are providing key and essential services or keeping our hospitality industry going— whatever the case may be. Our position on these matters is absolutely clear. We made commitments at the election, and today we have taken the first important step to delivering on those commitments. Those days will be public holidays, subject of course to passage through this chamber and the other place. It will be interesting to see who supports these arrangements and who does not, because of course we get the old ‘say one thing’ just before the election and then lots of different positions in the last few weeks. Let us wait and see, but our position is clear. We make commitments, and we get on and deliver them. MEMBER CONDUCT Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (11:06): My question is to the Premier. Given that the Treasurer’s investment portfolio holds Transurban shares, why didn’t the Premier follow his own ministerial code of conduct and require the Treasurer to either divest himself of the investment or pass decision-making for the West Gate Tunnel unsolicited bid to another minister? Members interjecting. Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (11:07): I will not pick up on the commentary of those opposite who felt the need to tell the Leader of the Opposition that it was ‘a very, very good question’—apparently. If you need to be told that, perhaps it was not. The Treasurer has made it abundantly clear in accordance with my expectations—not a code, the law of the state, the act of this place that requires each and every one of us to make declarations each and every year. The Treasurer has made those declarations in full accordance with an act of this place. I would expect nothing less of him or any member of Parliament. Whilst the Leader of the Opposition’s colleagues may be convinced this is a good question, I am not quite so sure. Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, the ministerial code of conduct is crystal clear about situations where there is a conflict or potential conflict of interest. It says the Premier will require the minister to divest themselves, relinquish control, put in place appropriate arrangements or take such other action as consistent. The question is, which of these elements did the Premier require the Treasurer to undertake? He has not referred to that matter at all. I ask you to bring him back to answering the question that was asked.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1173

Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! Again, the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition may be a good supplementary question, but it is not a point of order. The Premier is being relevant to the question. The Premier has concluded his answer. Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (11:08): The Treasurer has handed Transurban the deal of the century and he has personally benefited from helping its share price go through the roof. Given this blatant conflict of interest, will the Premier now sack this dodgy Treasurer? Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Mordialloc can leave the chamber for the period of 1 hour. Member for Mordialloc withdrew from chamber. The SPEAKER: I ask the Leader of the Opposition to refer to members without adjectives in front of their titles. I will allow the question, but further questions of such a nature will be ruled out of order. Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (11:09): I tell you what, I reckon John Pesutto needs to write less op-eds for the Age and some of this bloke’s questions. Where is John Pesutto? Bring him back. You need to phone a friend. Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, this is about the integrity, or what remains, of this Premier and this government. I ask you to bring him back to answering the question. Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Sunbury can join the member for Mordialloc for 1 hour outside the chamber. Member for Sunbury withdrew from chamber. The SPEAKER: I warn members not to shout across the chamber, or they will be removed. The Premier was not answering the question. The Premier is to come back to answering the question. Mr ANDREWS: I reject absolutely the sentiment and imputations in the Leader of the Opposition’s question— Mr M O’Brien interjected. Mr ANDREWS: Well, that has cleared that up then. The Leader of the Opposition is many things; the sole determiner of facts he is not. I reject his assertion, his allegation. I reject the imputations in his question— The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will resume his seat. The Leader of The Nationals on a point of order. Mr Walsh: On a point of order, Speaker, on the issue of relevance. The Premier is saying that he rejects his own ministerial code of conduct. That is what has been quoted here—the ministerial code of conduct. I do not know how the Premier can reject his own ministerial code of conduct. I ask you to bring him back to answering that question. The SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. Mr ANDREWS: As I have said, I reject the construction of argument put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. There is no conflict of interest here. There is no apparent conflict of interest here.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 1174 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019

All declarations have been made appropriately. And the Leader of the Opposition, I would suggest to him, I think you have peaked a bit too early. Mr Riordan interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Polwarth can join the previous two members outside the chamber for the period of 1 hour. Member for Polwarth withdrew from chamber. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: THIS GIRL CAN WEEK Ms WILLIAMS (Dandenong—Minister for Prevention of Family Violence, Minister for Women, Minister for Youth) (11:12): It is my privilege to share with the house today that women across our community are kicking goals. Whether it is Tayla Harris, Cecilia McIntosh, Sam Kerr, Ellyse Perry or young Georgie from Coburg—this girl can. In This Girl Can Week the focus is on women’s participation in sport, no matter how good they are and no matter how they look. We all know that physical activity is important for health, yet half of Australian women are not getting enough exercise, and women participate far less than men. ‘Why is this?’, we have to ask. Well, according to 52 per cent of Victorian women the reason is that they feel scared of being judged. Women are being deterred from playing sport because of outdated stereotypes and harmful attitudes. We have seen this on display this week, haven’t we? First it was Cecilia McIntosh last week, and yesterday it was Tayla Harris. Every day in our community, in every home, at school, in workplaces, in the media, on public transport and even in bars on the streets women are encountering sexist behaviour. This has very real and very damaging consequences for women across our state. We are committed to dismantling archaic stereotypes and the attitudes that we know contribute to bad outcomes for women. We are a gender-equal cabinet, which I am very proud to be a part of. With government benches that are 48 per cent women, we are leading by example in the Andrews Labor government. We are working hard to level the playing field for women and girls. We are building female-friendly facilities, ensuring parity on government boards, delivering cultural change campaigns and investing record amounts in women and in achieving gender equality because we know that bad attitudes towards women lead to bad outcomes for women. Our message is simple: this girl can, and she will. MEMBER CONDUCT Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (11:14): My question is to the Treasurer. How does the Treasurer expect Victorians to believe, as he told the media today, that he only realised yesterday he had shares in Transurban, despite the register of interests showing he has had this investment portfolio since 2010–11? Is the Treasurer being disingenuous or is he just incompetent? Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (11:14): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I am not going to sit here and spend any time trying to explain to him what a passive investment fund actually is, because clearly he would not understand it. Essentially it is a set-and-forget fund. Let me be very clear: a passive investment fund should not be confused for a passive government, because he was instrumental in that. We are getting on and delivering the infrastructure that the west vitally needs. Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, the Treasurer’s investment covers the top 20 ASX- listed companies. Is he seriously saying to the house that he does not know what the top 20 ASX-listed companies are? The SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer started by being relevant to the question, but he moved away from being relevant to the question. I ask him to come back to answering the question.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1175

Mr PALLAS: Am I seriously suggesting that I do not know what the ASX top 20 is on a daily basis? Well, I am going to have to say, ‘No, I don’t’, because I do not spend my time checking what is going on in the stock market. I spend my time looking after the interests of the Victorian taxpayer. If you spent a bit more time attending to the needs of the Victorian public, then you would not be sitting on that side of the table. Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! I could not see, but I think that was the member for Euroa or the member for Lowan. I ask members not to shout across the chamber. Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (11:16): On a supplementary question, Speaker, how does the Treasurer justify to Victorian motorists, who he is slugging with $87 000 in additional tolls to Transurban, that it is acceptable for him to own thousands of dollars of shares in Transurban? Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! Members, if they continue to shout across the chamber, will be removed from the chamber. Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (11:17): I thank the Leader of the Opposition again for the opportunity to reinforce how a passive investment fund operates. I have complied with all the obligations required by the act and by this place. But to make the point, if we are talking about justification, I would ask the Leader of the Opposition how he justified signing a dodgy side letter that fitted up the Victorian taxpayer to hundreds of millions of dollars. I am not taking a lecture on probity from him. Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, fairly self-evidently, I would ask the Treasurer to actually answer the question, which was: how does he justify to Victorian motorists, who his dodgy deal is slugging with extra tolls, how he can also own thousands of dollars of Transurban shares at the same time? He has not addressed the question. The SPEAKER: Order! I am willing to entertain points of order when they are raised in the correct form. The Treasurer was relevant to the question and then strayed. He needs to come back to answering the question. Mr PALLAS: I will tell you how this government justifies what it does: by holding itself to account, by putting into the public domain— Ms Allan interjected. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House! Mr Walsh: On a point of order, Speaker, the Treasurer is totally disregarding your request of him to actually come back to answering the question. I would ask you to reinforce that message with him, please. The SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer had only uttered a few words. The Treasurer will come back to answering the question. Mr PALLAS: The way that we justify it is by complying with the forms, the processes, of this place and the law that has been put in place by this place. So quite frankly, if the Leader of the Opposition has some special law that he himself believes should be complied with, perhaps he should share it with us.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 1176 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019

MINISTERS STATEMENTS: VICTORIAN BUSHFIRES Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine—Minister for Water, Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (11:19): I wanted to provide an update to the house on how we are supporting the communities impacted by the recent Bunyip and other Gippsland fires. Since 1 December our emergency services have responded to 3800 fires—bush and grassfires—and even yesterday we had a number of fires that started as a result of lightning. We currently have six going fires that have burnt through 129 000 hectares. What incredible work we are seeing from our CFA volunteers, career firefighters, MFB, forest firefighters, who are still working right now on our firegrounds. During the height of the fires we had over 2000 of them working through and supporting communities. Unfortunately, we know that some communities have lost homes, have lost property—32 homes. We have lost fencing, we have lost plantations and 133 outbuildings. But we also saw, through the incredible work of our firefighters on the ground and in the air, 240 homes that were saved. But behind these statistics are families and individuals, and they are the ones we are now working with. They are the ones we are now supporting. We have provided over $1 million in relief payments. We have established recovery centres. We have the Victorian Bushfire Case Management Service, and we know that already 145 households have accessed that case support program. Last week I joined with the emergency management commissioner to announce a state government- led coordination of the clean-up effort, making it easier and taking the burden off those communities. We are also providing assistance with rainwater tank clean-up. One hundred and twenty-five have already been cleaned up with new water, and 192 are about to be commenced now. We are there for the long term. We are walking with those communities. We are standing with those communities as they undertake the very, very difficult task of recovery. And we will be there for the long term. BIRCHIP AND WYCHEPROOF INFRASTRUCTURE Ms CUPPER (Mildura) (11:21): My question is to the Premier. In the 2017–18 budget the government made a funding commitment to upgrade Birchip’s main street, Cumming Avenue, and Broadway Street in Wycheproof, through the Building our Regions program. The Birchip and Wycheproof communities planned and campaigned hard for these upgrades to their main streets. It is of high priority for the community to improve the safety for locals and visitors to the town. Will the government commit to funding the full scope of the works for Cumming Avenue and Broadway Street, which are long-awaited and important infrastructure projects for the communities of Birchip and Wycheproof? Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (11:21): I thank the member for Mildura for her question. The member for Mildura and I had an opportunity to discuss this matter and many other matters relevant to her electorate, both Mildura proper and many of the smaller communities who look to Mildura for so many of their services and supports. I am pleased that the member acknowledges that the government in an earlier budget had provided some funding for important work at the two intersections or the two communities that she noted, Birchip and Wycheproof. The issue here is that I am not in a position today to confirm that we will provide further funding. The budget will be delivered in a few weeks time. Indeed, what I can say though to the member for Mildura, is having raised these issues with me in a lengthy meeting, we went through a whole range of different concerns. I have asked relevant ministers to look at those projects and what needs to be done in order to deliver them in line with community expectations. They are important projects. That is why they were funded in the first instance. I cannot today make a funding announcement about any additional resources to deliver those projects. But they are very important to us. I know they are very important to the people of Mildura, and the member for Mildura has made sure I understand that very clearly. Relevant ministers will do the further work around that, and if there are more announcements to make at a point in the future, we will.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1177

Ms CUPPER (Mildura) (11:23): These communities are quite anxious. Why should they be waiting and having to wait while others do not have to wait? Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (11:23): Again I thank the member for Mildura for her question. I will make the point: we are investing many hundreds of millions of dollars in road upgrades across regional Victoria. We are investing many millions of dollars in community infrastructure in communities large and small right across the state. I will say the member for Mildura is frustrated about this issue. The community is as well. She is, I think, the first member for Mildura to raise this issue with me. That is an important point, I think. Whilst I am not in a position today to give to the member for Mildura and her community the answer that she wants, relevant ministers are working on these issues. And that is as a direct result of the representations the member for Mildura made to me. And they will be, I am sure, just some of many representations that she will continue to make standing up for her community and keeping the government honest. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME Mr DONNELLAN (Narre Warren North—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers) (11:24): I rise to the update the house on how the Andrews government has stepped up in relation to the roll-out of the national disability insurance scheme (NDIS). We are very much dealing with a federal government whose heart really is not in it—six ministers in six years. Through their stewardship of this scheme we have seen significant delays in relation to 15 000 Victorians who should be in the scheme who are not; staffing caps at the National Disability Insurance Agency, which has led to $430 million being spent on consultants to actually run the scheme; individual NDIS plans rushed and not meeting the needs of those with disabilities; and a lack of transport plans, even though some of these plans have been tested in tribunals and the like, and the commonwealth has been told that it is wrong and that they should be included. There is the idea of creeping communism, where you set the price which simply does not have any reference to the market demands of regional and rural Victoria in relation to the provision of services, and a head-in-the-sand approach when it comes to complex cases. After three years we have finally got a pathway being set out for those complex cases. I would have thought that it was pretty obvious that the NDIS is actually set there for complex cases, but it is only now after three years they are rolling out a pathway for those with complex cases. Let me be clear: this government will not sit by while the Morrison government simply does not deliver the services it promised. I feel the community has been told that they would be delivered a roast, literally, but at the moment are being delivered a Tic Tac. It is not a service we committed to and not a service which is appropriate. Due to their failures we have had to create specialist teams to get 20 000 people through to navigate the NDIS. We have had to run a dual-track disability system. A couple of weeks ago staff in my department were called in because there were no emergency services in the NDIS. We have had to implement a workforce plan to actually provide the staff we need for these services, because the federal government simply is not doing its job. MEMBER CONDUCT Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (11:26): My question is to the Treasurer. The ministerial— Ms Allan interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the House will assist the smooth running of the house. Mr M O’BRIEN: My question is to the Treasurer. The ministerial code of conduct says: … Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries will be obliged to take necessary action to prevent conflicts or potential conflicts of interest.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 1178 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019

The Treasurer received personal financial benefit from the increase in Transurban’s share price as a result of his deal with them over the West Gate Tunnel, a clear conflict of interest. Why did the Treasurer not abide by the Andrews government’s own ministerial code of conduct? Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (11:27): I do not know how many times I have to say this, but I have complied with the rules and the forms of this place. I have complied with the act, and that as far as I am concerned is a compliance with all my obligations to this place. Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (11:27): I make available to the house the ministerial code of conduct and maybe the Treasurer could read it. On a supplementary question to the Treasurer: CityLink users are now facing $87 000 in extra tolls under this Treasurer’s dodgy deal with Transurban, a deal which personally made him money, so given Victorians cannot possibly trust this Treasurer ever again, will he now do the decent thing and just resign? Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (11:28): To get a question from the Stephen Bradbury of coalition politics like that is just insulting. Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer can resume his seat. Members should not be shouting across the chamber. The Treasurer should answer the question that was asked. Mr PALLAS: Well, the question went to what constituted criteria under which one would consider themselves eligible to resign. I remember reading an article in the Age about the performance and the behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition when he was Treasurer, the dodgy side letter— Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, the Treasurer is debating the question. I also make available to the house the S&P Dow Jones index announcement that shows that Transurban entered the ASX 20 on 18 March 2016. The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. That is not a point of order. The Treasurer will not use his answer as an opportunity to attack the opposition. The Treasurer, to continue. Mr PALLAS: This is a vital road that will assist the growth of the Victorian economy. Let us be clear: those opposite have tried repeatedly to stop this road. I am proud to be part of a government that is delivering this vital piece of infrastructure to all Victorians. Mr Walsh: On a point of order, Speaker, the Treasurer is not answering the question. He is constantly evading the simple question: will he resign because he did not abide by the ministerial code of conduct? I ask you to bring him back to answering that question. It is a very simple question, and Victorians deserve an answer to it. The SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer has concluded his answer. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: MAJOR EVENTS Mr PAKULA (Keysborough—Minister for Jobs, Innovation and Trade, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events, Minister for Racing) (11:30): I wish to update the house on what was this year an enormously successful Australian Formula One Grand Prix, despite Daniel Ricciardo’s lap 1 mishap. Over 100 000 people were at Albert Park last Sunday to witness Valtteri Bottas win his first Australian Formula One Grand Prix, but over four days the total crowd was over 324 000, the highest four-day total since 2005. A member interjected.

CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1179

Mr PAKULA: That is right. And over that four days we were able to show off our city and our state to an enormous number of interstate and international visitors. But the amazing thing is that in March we are able to do that in more ways than any place on earth can, at any time of year. The range of different events in Victoria in March is truly remarkable, but it is only when you list them that you can really understand the impact. We started with the Avalon airshow, and we moved right on into the Virgin Australia Melbourne Fashion Festival. Then right across the state, from Red Hill to Prahran to the Jindivick Village Feast, people have been and will be enjoying the food and wine festivals. We have had Super Saturday, the inaugural running of the world’s richest mile race, the All-Star Mile at Flemington, the Arnold Sports Festival Australia and the formula one grand prix, all on the weekend just gone. We have the Melbourne International Flower and Garden Show, which we have been enjoying a taste of in Queens Hall this week; tonight we will have the start of the 2019 AFL season; on Saturday night will be the premiere of Muriel’s Wedding; next Wednesday, the gala opening of the Melbourne International Comedy Festival; and of course we still have Harry Potter and the Cursed Child. That is just March, and that is without the reminder that this Saturday Bri Davey and Tayla Harris will lead the mighty Blues out in the AFLW preliminary final at Princes Park and send both Fremantle and countless craven trolls home with their tails between their legs. We have a sport and major events calendar that our rivals can only dream of. It creates thousands of jobs, brings in millions of visitors, and adds billions to our economy—and March is just a taste of things to come. Mr Wakeling: On a point of order, Speaker, I just wish to draw to the house’s attention that questions on notice 36, 48, 49 and 50, which are in my name, are yet to be responded to, and I ask that you pass them on to the relevant ministers. The SPEAKER: We will follow those questions on notice up. Constituency questions WARRANDYTE ELECTORATE Mr R SMITH (Warrandyte) (11:33): (398) My question is directed to the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change. My office was recently contacted by a constituent who was walking through Pound Bend in Warrandyte State Park and was horrified by the amount of fire fuel that was on the ground and in the bushland. The Warrandyte State Park would need just a single lightning strike to ignite, such as we saw in the recent Bunyip State Forest fire. When my constituent went to the local Parks Victoria office she was told that due to, bizarrely, a heritage overlay the advice from the department was that they were not to conduct any burning in the area. Only 1 hectare has had a prescribed burn since 2016–17 in the Warrandyte State Park, compared to 54 hectares in 2014–15 under the previous coalition government. This lack of action from the current government is putting Warrandyte homes and lives at risk. I ask the minister: when will the appropriate prescribed burns be conducted in the Warrandyte State Park to help ensure the safety of my community? PASCOE VALE ELECTORATE Ms BLANDTHORN (Pascoe Vale) (11:34): (399) My constituency question is for the Minister for Education, and I ask: what supports are available for secondary school students in the Pascoe Vale area to make informed decisions about their future career options? Our electorate is serviced by fantastic government, Catholic and independent secondary schools, with great teachers and inspiring students with bright futures ahead of them. From meeting with many secondary students in the area, it is abundantly clear that these students have the potential to achieve great things after completing their school education. Only recently I received a collection of inspiring letters from Pascoe Vale Girls College year 7 students, who wrote to me about all the issues that are important to them in their community and about policy areas where they would like to see change. Victoria is lucky to be home

CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS 1180 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019 to some of the best universities and TAFEs in the world. However, making a decision about what path to go down can be incredibly rushed and confusing. Secondary students deserve to be fully informed about all their future options and possibilities and to be provided with adequate time to think and reflect on those options. CROYDON ELECTORATE Mr HODGETT (Croydon) (11:35): (400) My constituency question is for the Minister for Roads and Minister for Road Safety and the TAC, and it relates to the intersection of Dorset Road and The Gateway, Croydon South. A life was tragically lost at this intersection on 23 January 2019, and my constituents deserve answers. On 31 January 2019 I wrote to the minister’s office and to VicRoads about this serious matter, and I have not even received an acknowledgement. I also raised it in a members statement here in the Parliament on 20 February 2019. Minister, what is the time line for when my constituents can expect a response from you? IVANHOE ELECTORATE Mr CARBINES (Ivanhoe) (11:35): (401) My constituency question is to the Minister for Transport Infrastructure. I seek information on the progress of concluding the active transport links at the Chandler Highway bridge project. I am very pleased to see that the $110 million project has seen all six lanes on the Chandler Highway bridge now open for motorists in particular, but of course there are also those active transport links, which include the heritage bridge and also the bicycle trail underpass for the Main Yarra Trail, which you, Speaker, would be familiar with from our occasional rides into this place. I understand those works will be concluded in the coming months, and my constituents understand that to be the case, but I look forward to information from the minister on that project to conclude what has been a very successful piece of work. Picking up the project had been in the too-hard basket for too long. Getting those six lanes open is fantastic, and to conclude the active transport links will be a full package for locals in the northern suburbs. EVELYN ELECTORATE Ms VALLENCE (Evelyn) (11:36): (402) My constituency question is to the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events. Constituents in my electorate of Evelyn involved with the Lilydale Football Club would like to know whether the government will provide the club with the $20 000 needed to build new coaches and player interchange boxes to replace the existing facilities that are inadequate and in disrepair. Lilydale Football Club, formed in 1872, is believed to be the second oldest active footy club in Australia and is run by a team of hardworking volunteers. In 2018 it was a pleasure to make an election pledge of $20 000 to the club for these much-needed facility upgrades, a pledge which has so far been met with silence from the Labor government. I will continue to fight for grassroots, volunteer-run sports clubs in the Evelyn electorate to get the funding assistance they need. The 380 player members, their families, parents, partners and children and the thousands of locals who enjoy supporting local footy at Lilydale deserve to know if this funding will be made available. BOX HILL ELECTORATE Mr HAMER (Box Hill) (11:37): (403) My constituency question is for the Minister for Roads in the other place. The 10-kilometre Box Hill to Ringwood shared user path runs along the Belgrave and Lilydale railway alignment, linking Box Hill to Ringwood and allowing users to connect with public transport, community services and recreational facilities. Construction of the path progressed for the Blackburn, Mitcham, Heatherdale and Ringwood sections of the trail as separate contracts or as part of various level crossing removal projects. There is a small section of the path within the suburb of Box Hill, between Sagoe Lane and Middleborough Road, that has not yet been completed but will be critical to providing the connection between Box Hill High School and the Box Hill CBD and train station. My question is: when is this section of the path expected to be completed?

CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1181

MELBOURNE ELECTORATE Ms SANDELL (Melbourne) (11:38): (404) My question is to the Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation and is in regard to dodgy behaviour by some big developers which is significantly affecting the lives of people living in apartments in my electorate. By way of background, lately I have been hearing more and more disturbing stories from local residents who are dealing with a whole host of issues in apartment buildings, such as, one, the difficulty of replacing flammable cladding and the uncertainty and huge cost burden this is placing on apartment owners and the fact that the system is not working; two, potentially corrupt behaviour where developers trade as shell companies, so when owners discover defects with their buildings they cannot hold anyone to account; three, potentially corrupt behaviour whereby big developers sign long contracts with other companies, from owners corporation management to energy companies, at above-market rates and then owners cannot get out of these contracts; and proxy farming, which is leading to lots of problems but especially a proliferation of short stays. My question is: when will the government comprehensively deal with these problems, which are really severely affecting the lives of my local residents? SYDENHAM ELECTORATE Ms HUTCHINS (Sydenham) (11:39): (405) My constituency question is to the Minister for Roads, and I ask the minister: what progress is there in relation to future upgrades to roads in my electorate of Sydenham? The Calder Freeway and the Melton Highway are the main arteries of my electorate, along with local council roads such as Taylors Road and Calder Park Drive, and these roads are under immense pressure from population growth within both my electorate and surrounding electorates. Despite Victoria having over 25 per cent of Australia’s population and predictions of growth for Melbourne to surpass Sydney as Australia’s largest city, the federal Abbott-Turnbull- Morrison governments have continued to short-change Victorians. We have seen underinvestment by the federal Liberal government and those opposite cheering them on when it comes to roads investment in this state. It is now time for the federal government to cough up their money for investment in our roads. HASTINGS ELECTORATE Mr BURGESS (Hastings) (11:40): (406) My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. I am seeking information on behalf of my broader electorate community regarding the reintroduction of the police in schools program. The wonderfully successful police in schools program continued for 16 years until axed in 2005 by the then Labor government despite a Department of Justice-commissioned Monash University study into the program in 2004 which found the program was effective and recommended its continuation. The program also allowed local police to establish positive relationships with local young people by visiting the schools regularly and getting to know them and letting them know that police are on their side and that they are their friend, not their enemy. Up until the program was axed there were 75 police on the ground around Victoria regularly visiting 650 primary and secondary schools, speaking on the dangers of drugs and alcohol, leading anti-crime and good citizenship initiatives and developing critical early links with young people. By removing that relationship-building opportunity between impressionable kids and those who are responsible for minimising criminal and antisocial behaviour, the Victorian Labor Party contributed directly to a worsening situation of a lack of respect for authority and combative relationships between police and our youth. MOUNT WAVERLEY ELECTORATE Mr FREGON (Mount Waverley) (11:41): (407) My constituency question is to the Minister for Roads in the other place, and I ask: what are we doing to support cyclists in my electorate travelling from Syndal to Monash University? Work is currently underway on a user-operated pedestrian crossing on Waverley Road, which will provide a safer crossing not only for cyclists but also for pedestrians, including schoolkids and dog walkers. The great initiative will also provide easier

ADDRESS TO PARLIAMENT 1182 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019 crossing for many senior citizens who reside in the local area. The crossing and the planned crossing on Forster Road will also safely connect the Scotchmans Creek Trail to my good friends in their electorates of Clarinda and Oakleigh. I know that providing a safe means of crossing these roads will greatly benefit many. Address to Parliament GOVERNOR’S SPEECH Address-in-reply Debate resumed. Mr WYNNE (Richmond—Minister for Housing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Planning) (11:42): I am delighted to participate in the address-in-reply debate today and to reflect on what was an extraordinary election win by this government. It was for me a particularly pleasing outcome because— Members interjecting. Mr WYNNE: Indeed. Thank you so much. Because indeed there was much speculation that my seat would fall in an avalanche of Green tide, that the opportunities for the Greens political party to conduct a clean sweep of the inner city were almost assured and that I would be the first to fall. Let the record show that the result in the seat of Richmond was an increase in my vote that changed the seat from a marginal seat with a margin of about 1.2 per cent to a two-party preferred lead of 5.5 per cent. I am deeply grateful to the people of the Richmond electorate for the support that they have shown to me. It was not just about me as a candidate obviously; it was about the party and what it was offering to the people of Victoria. I do have to say that this was a particularly nasty and vindictive campaign. We should not forget that the Liberal Party, in I think a very personalised and vindictive mood, actually did not run a Liberal Party candidate in the election for the seat of Richmond. They did not run a candidate, so the 22 or 23 per cent of Liberal Party members who wanted to vote for a Liberal Party candidate in the lower house were denied that opportunity, and I have to say that both at pre-poll and on election day many of those Liberal voters were completely shocked to learn that they actually did not have a candidate to vote for. But it spoke, I think, of really a foolish decision by the Liberal Party not to run a candidate, with motives that I would suggest were very personalised and very vindictive. Can I also say that in the past I have had many decent contests against the Greens over this journey of my public life, but I have never seen a performance like that of the Greens political party and what they rolled against me in the seat of Richmond. It was a disgraceful campaign and one that does not befit a party that alleges that it is beyond the ruck of normal political discourse. The materials that the Greens political party put out against me were truly both inaccurate and in many respects completely disreputable. I just think that what we have seen is really the meltdown of the Greens political party more generally. They have a lot of work to do to reflect on not only their performance in my seat but more generally their performance across a number of electorates. I do not particularly want to single out the candidate for Footscray, but why that was not resolved smartly and quickly by the Greens saying, ‘We repudiate this sort of behaviour’, was something that I found quite extraordinary. The commentary that was provided to us by a former upper house member, who of course was defeated, referring to the toxic culture of the Greens political party, is something that ought to give the leadership of the Greens political party a moment to pause, to reflect and indeed to think very carefully about what sort of culture they are actually running in their party. We saw that reflected in my campaign in Richmond. We saw the most disgraceful material being put out—falsely, can I say—by two former academics, Michael Buxton and Miles Lewis. They put out disgraceful material—

ADDRESS TO PARLIAMENT Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1183

Mr Staikos interjected. Mr WYNNE: Indeed, outright mistruths, and they sought to misrepresent Hansard to try to drag me down as a candidate. It was an appalling effort by both these people. It gives them no credit whatsoever. Indeed we are still to get an answer on who actually funded this document, because what was of most interest to me was not only the so-called authors of this document but where in fact this document was printed. Lo and behold, this document was printed at the same printing office as used by the Greens political party. They have failed to date to fess up to the fact or answer the question, ‘Did you fund this vile, untruthful document that was created and distributed through the electorate of Richmond claiming appalling falsehoods and indeed, shockingly, misrepresenting Hansard?’. These are the depths to which people actually stooped to try to knock me off. Guess what—they did not knock me off, and here I am. We won every booth. We won the pre-poll. We won the absentees. We won the postals. We got swings of up to 10 per cent in parts of the electorate where we had not won one booth for probably a decade or more. So I say to the Greens political party: ‘You’ve got a lot of thinking to do both about your culture and indeed about your organisation more generally’. Mr Staikos: In 10 years time there will be no Greens in the Parliament. Mr WYNNE: Indeed. Can I say that we in the inner city are very, very bullish about the federal seat of Melbourne—rest assured we are. We have got an excellent candidate in Luke Creasey, a local secondary school teacher from Princes Hill Secondary College who is very well known in the community. We are out there campaigning very, very hard, and we are very bullish about the seat of Melbourne—do not worry about that. I very much look forward to when the announcement of the federal election occurs because we are strongly out there, and we have got a very, very energised group of volunteers who are working extremely hard for what I think is an excellent candidate, someone who would be a very fine federal member for Melbourne in a Shorten Labor government. Can I turn briefly to some of the extraordinary commitments that our government has made for the seat of Richmond. Mr McGuire: This is why you win. Mr WYNNE: Indeed. ‘This is why you win’, the member for Broadmeadows quite rightly says. You can be a Green and sit up there in the grandstand and cheer things along, but we are the people who actually go out and deliver. Let me briefly run through a number of these commitments. There is the upgrading of the beautiful Brunswick Street football oval—the WT Peterson reserve, probably the most iconic ex-VFL ground in the state—$6.5 million to upgrade the oval. At Citizens Park, which would be known to many people, just behind the Richmond town hall—a beautiful open space there—there will be a $2 million upgrade of the Jack Dyer pavilion. Citizens Park is home to the Harriers, home to the cricketers, home to the footballers—a wonderful facility. One of the stand-outs has to be the extraordinary commitment that this government is making to the rebuilding of 100 schools. This is just unbelievable. Let me run through a number of them. Apart from of course the opening of Richmond High School—my goodness, what a magnificent facility that is— there is $12.1 million to upgrade Clifton Hill Primary School. There is the building of a senior school campus in North Fitzroy at the Fitzroy Gasworks site, a very polluted site which we are cleaning up. That is $84 million to build a new secondary campus at the Fitzroy Gasworks site for Collingwood College and Fitzroy High School—a senior high school of 650 students. There will also be a six-court basketball facility, a community gymnasium and a housing development as well, including 20 per cent public, social or affordable housing on the site—an exemplar of what can be done on some of the worst sites that we have. Can I also just indicate—again in the education space—a $40 million

ADDRESS TO PARLIAMENT 1184 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019 commitment to a new state-of-the-art facility at Melbourne Polytechnic in Collingwood. This is a facility that is going to offer tremendous pathways, particularly for young people, and with a specific emphasis on our African community. There is already a hub there, and we are ensuring that all of those training opportunities are made available to ensure that our African community is given a pathway through training and then into employment as well. I could go on for a very, very long time, but— Members interjecting. Mr WYNNE: Well, I would not mind an extension. There is an upgrade to Fitzroy North Primary School of course, $9 million—and on and on it goes. Let me just say a couple of other things, if I can, in the couple of moments I have got left. There are a number of people and organisations that I need to acknowledge, because without their support I would not be here. Can I thank our friends from the trade union movement, particularly the Electrical Trades Union and United Voice, who have stuck by me for a very long time. I thank them absolutely for all of the support that they have provided to me. You do not win these seats without the support of your loyal staff, and I have got a fantastic staff: Maureen Corrigan, Danielle Evans, Chris Oliver and Rhys Devine. Rhys was my campaign director, who just did a magnificent job. I thank all of them. Obviously there are my hardworking ministerial staff, who are known to so many of you. I do not seek to name them all, but you know who they are, and they are just magnificent. I do not know how they put up with me—it is beyond me—but they do, and I am just so pleased that we have been able to take that journey together. The final point I want to make is that you cannot do this job if you do not have the support of your family. I am so blessed to have the wonderful support of my dear wife, Svetlana Karovich, who is further to the left than I am but keeps me straightened up, and my two boys, Dushan and Sasha, who have taken that journey with me as well. Thank you so much to the people of Richmond. Mr SCOTT (Preston—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Veterans) (11:57): It gives me great pleasure to rise on the address-in-reply. Being elected or in fact re-elected to this place is a great honour, and I find myself humbled to understand that people within my own electorate, the wonderful community of Preston, which covers the suburbs of Preston, Reservoir and a small section of Coburg North, have entrusted me again with their faith to serve them in this place. It is an important duty and one that we should all—and I know we do—take seriously. The electoral process is a wonderful festival of democracy where people choose who represents them and who holds executive power in this state. Rather than leaving it to the end, I would like to start by thanking those who have supported me: particularly of course my staff, Stephen Gagen, Christina Han and Rukiye Unal in the electorate office, and the many, many volunteers who assisted during the campaign, led very ably by my campaign manager, Louise Kenney. Of course, as was mentioned by the member for Richmond, you cannot perform these duties without the support of family. I would like to particularly thank my wife, Shaojie Wu, and my son, Lucas Wu Peng Scott, who although at a young age missed me during the campaign for much of it, and the rest of my family, who always assist during my election campaigns, including my mother, my brothers, my father-in-law, my mother-in-law and other family members. It is important to recognise that none of us reach this place alone, and we rely upon the support of others who share the values which we hold. Elections are principally in my view about the clash of value systems and what value systems predominate in the legislation and allocation of public resources in this state. I am heartened by the electoral result, where the good people of Preston and Reservoir chose to increase my vote, and the people of Victoria re-elected the Andrews Labor government. On a local level the re-election of the Andrews Labor government will mean significant investment in the electorate of Preston, and I will touch upon a number of local issues. The first I would like to touch upon is school investments. The Labor government will be investing this term in the upgrade of

ADDRESS TO PARLIAMENT Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1185

Reservoir Primary School to the tune of $4.5 million and the upgrade of Preston Primary School with $400 000. There has of course also been the opening this year of the Preston High School subsequent to the election. The reopening of this school, which was previously the Preston Girls school and now has been reopened as Preston High School, a co-educational public high school, will be of great benefit to the community of Preston and will ensure that the wonderful traditions of Preston Girls will be continued in the high school, which will lead to the betterment of the lives of thousands of young people in the electorate which I am lucky enough to represent. There are also investments in the former Ruthven Primary School site where we managed to ensure, while working cooperatively with the local council, that a new park will be created in the West Reservoir area, which will ensure that community facilities will become available in what was once a derelict, empty site. We will also be very significantly expanding the number of level crossings being removed in the electorate of Preston. This builds upon the previous work that was undertaken and promised, and work on the High Street, Reservoir, level crossing is already underway and continuing at a pace within the electorate. The Bell Street level crossing, which was part of the original 50 railway crossings to be removed, is in the process of being removed as part of an expanded number of level crossing removals, including Cramer Street and Murray Road in Preston. It is hard to state as a resident of Reservoir the significance of the impact that particularly the removal of the Reservoir railway crossing will have on the community that I am lucky enough to represent. Reservoir is significantly divided, and those who understand the geography of the northern suburbs of Melbourne would know that between Regent Street and Mahoneys Road there is only a single crossing at the Reservoir railway crossing—a crossing which effectively cuts the suburb of Reservoir into East Reservoir and West Reservoir. There are very significant delays, and the RACV often has placed the Reservoir railway crossing at the top or near the top of the list of traffic hotspots in Melbourne. So the investments that are being made in removing level crossings will fundamentally alter for the better the community which I both live in and represent. This investment in Reservoir particularly but also the investments in Preston will be transformative and will unite the communities east and west of Preston and Reservoir. There are significant delays in the area around Bell Street, which is a very busy road, and around Murray Road and Cramer Street, particularly on market days. As people would be aware, the Preston Market is a hub for fresh fruit and vegetables not just for the community that I represent but for the northern suburbs of Melbourne. The Preston area is blessed with a market, and one of the other aspects of the re-election of the government was the commitment to ensure that the planning work that is currently being conducted by the Victorian Planning Authority in relation to the Preston Market site can ensure the long-term viability and continuation of the market. The Preston Market is an important part of the community which I both represent and live in and provides a wonderful community space. Unlike some other markets, it is a privately owned market so there are a number of complex planning issues that relate to ongoing land utilisation around the market site, but I am confident that with the commitment of the Minister for Planning and the Victorian Planning Authority we will find the best way possible to ensure the future of the market, which is a very high priority for the community where I live. In terms of the election itself, I would like to particularly praise the work undertaken by the local staff of the Victorian Electoral Commission. Elections are complex and difficult processes and the people who were engaged certainly did their best to ensure that the democratic will of the electors in my electorate was expressed. Unlike the member for Richmond, I did indeed have a Liberal opponent, Guido Lilio, and I was also principally challenged by Susanne Newton from the Australian Greens. With some minor exceptions I would say that the contest, particularly around areas like early voting and on the booths, was a relatively good-natured affair in the electorate of Preston, and I would like to praise those who may not share my political view but engaged in the democratic process in an open

ADDRESS TO PARLIAMENT 1186 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019 and civil manner. There were some of course who did not engage in such a manner, but I will leave them out of the contribution since their failure at the election speaks for itself. In the roles that we play in this place it is really important to ensure that we understand that all members of our community should be able to participate in the electoral process. I would note that informal voting in my own electorate was at 6.71 per cent. A large proportion of the community I represent is from non- English speaking backgrounds, and research has shown that there is a direct relationship between informal voting and persons coming from non-English speaking backgrounds. I think it is incumbent on this Parliament—and I make note that we have an Electoral Matters Committee—to see what further work can be undertaken to ensure that all Victorians, regardless of their background and regardless of their English language proficiency, have the full opportunity to participate in the electoral process. All members of the community should be able to fairly participate in the electoral process. Where we have co-relationships between people’s background of being non-English speakers and informal voting— this seemed to be borne out in the relevant statistics between different electorates in the cursory examination which I undertook—I think it is important to ensure that all Victorians, regardless of their background, can fairly and freely participate in the electoral process and have their vote heard. Subsequent to the election I was lucky enough to be appointed as the Minister for Veterans in addition to my Assistant Treasurer responsibilities. The Assistant Treasurer responsibilities, with some variations, largely reflect my previous responsibilities as Minister for Finance but the veterans portfolio is one that I am pleased and honoured to have the opportunity to serve. Veterans have of course in many cases risked their lives on behalf of the Victorian and Australian community and it is important that we as a community honour that sacrifice. Sadly too many have lost their lives over the years. The government made a number of significant commitments to ensure that veterans are both honoured and receive better services. I will touch on a number of those commitments which I am very pleased that the government has made. They include introducing a weekly Last Post ceremony at the Shrine of Remembrance to recognise that sacrifice and allocating $1 million to the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia, Victorian branch. It is important to note that as the number of veterans from earlier conflicts pass on from this world, Vietnam veterans have increased as a proportion of veterans in the Victorian community. There is also a commitment to ensure that all government secondary schools host a guest speaker from the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia. The speeches will be targeted at years 9 and 10 and will be recorded for use as classroom resources for other students. There is also the National Vietnam Veterans Museum, which will receive funding of $200 000 to increase student visitation to the museum. The government has allocated $1 million to veterans in construction to secure work for 100 veterans across our major projects. I note that yesterday I made an announcement in this house that the target for employment of veterans within the Victorian public sector would be increased from 250 to 750 because veterans are making a wonderful contribution through their employment in both the public and private sectors. I would also encourage private sector employers to take advantage of the opportunities that employing a veteran provides. The government certainly supports the increase in employment opportunity for veterans who live in Victoria. There will be a provision of $1.5 million to support the expansion of the Centenary of Anzac Centre, which provides mental health support for current and former Australian Defence Force personnel and their families. Again, the mental wellbeing of our veterans is a very important part of how the community as a whole can support veterans as they return to civilian life. Many veterans, as I indicated earlier, have served in war and there can obviously be consequences for the mental health of veterans in such circumstances. While the principal responsibility for veterans affairs in terms of welfare lies with the commonwealth government, it is important that the Victorian government does our bit as a community to honour and support the contribution of veterans. I would also like to note on a broader level in my electorate and more broadly the strong support for inclusion. I was formerly the Minister for Multicultural Affairs and one of the things that I found most

BILLS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1187 heartening during the election campaign when I was out doorknocking or talking to members of the community was that the work that had been undertaken in supporting multiculturalism and diversity in the state was recognised by the community. There has been a strong tradition of supporting multiculturalism in this state. It is very important to understand that we can never take for granted the benefits of diversity and to ensure that we create a society where people of every background, regardless of which country they have come from, regardless of which faith they may hold or having no faith, are able to live in this society and feel part of the society. There are sadly too many across the world who wish to foster the view that unless you belong to a monoculture you cannot belong within a society. Australia, and Victoria particularly, is a multicultural society, and, firstly, there is no monoculture to return to. Nearly one in two Victorians were either born overseas or have at least one of their parents born overseas. We are a multicultural society; that is the reality of the community in which we live. All of us who hold elected office and seek public support have a choice to make. I would hope that all members of this house in the future would make the simple choice not to denigrate or to seek to vilify a member of the community in order to garner political support. It is a choice that all of us have available to us, and in Victoria we have to be better than some, particularly at the federal level, who have chosen to denigrate other human beings in order to achieve political support. We should not pretend that we are completely free of such forces here in Victoria. There are members of the Victorian community who hold bigoted views, who are racist, who are prejudiced against members of the community on the basis of their racial, cultural or religious background, and we must always have a constant will to ensure that bigotry has no place in our community. When one person in our community is discriminated against we are offending the very values we seek to uphold as a free, democratic society. All members of the community should have opportunity to live free from fear, and all members should be treated on the basis of their merit, not the basis of their background. I look forward in the next four years to implementing the work that was taken to the community by the Labor government, and the re-election of that government gives me faith that there is confidence within the Victorian community and in the approach that was taken. But I reiterate: we must always work to ensure that the better angels of our nature are heard and that hate and fear has no place in this community. Mr PAKULA (Keysborough—Minister for Jobs, Innovation and Trade, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events, Minister for Racing) (12:12): I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day. Bills MAJOR TRANSPORT PROJECTS FACILITATION AMENDMENT BILL 2019 Second reading Debate resumed on motion of Ms ALLAN: That this bill be now read a second time. Ms RYAN (Euroa) (12:12): It is a pleasure to rise today to outline the position of the Liberals and The Nationals on the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Amendment Bill 2019. Primarily this bill deals with the interaction that occurs between utilities when government is seeking to deliver major projects. The purpose of the bill is to amend part 7 of the principal act in order to give government and project authorities the power to engage earlier with utilities, where that interface occurs between utility infrastructure that will be affected by declared projects. It also seeks to facilitate earlier negotiation between those two parties, between project authorities and utilities. We will not be opposing this bill, but

BILLS 1188 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019 it is fair to say that there are a couple of concerns we have, just around trying to make sure that the balance of this bill is right. Utilities, under the principal act, are defined as an entity, either public or private:

… that provides, or intends to provide, water, sewerage, drainage, gas, electricity or other like services under the authority of an Act of Victoria … I think it is also important to put on record that utility infrastructure, as defined by the act, means:

… any part of the supply, distribution or reticulation network owned, operated or controlled by a utility, including poles, pipes, cables, wires, conduits and tunnels … In considering the bill before us, I think it is worth reflecting on the context of the principal act. The Major Transport Projects Facilitation Bill was a creature of the Brumby government, was introduced into this house in 2009 and was primarily designed to fast-track environment, heritage and planning approvals for declared major transport projects. It set up two assessment processes, an impact management plan (IMP) and a comprehensive impact statement (CIS), and perhaps, most importantly, limited review and appeal rights in these approval processes. Projects in the first instance are assessed by the Premier, who makes a call, based on their economic, social and also environmental significance to a state or a region, as to whether they will be declared a major transport project, and the act then gives the Premier the power to declare whether all of the act or just part of the act will apply to that major transport project. Following that declaration, the project, according to the act, is then assessed, and the proponent prepares and submits a project proposal to the Minister for Planning. It then follows through to an assessment pathway, where the Minister for Planning considers the proposal and determines that assessment pathway according to the two possible assessment pathways—the IMP or the CIS—and then it goes to scoping directions. So the Minister for Planning is then responsible for preparing those scoping directions for the applicable assessment pathway. The proponent then prepares the IMP or the CIS to satisfy the requirements set out in those scoping directions. It goes to public review and then an assessment committee conducts a formal public hearing. Then it goes back to the planning minister to make an assessment considering relevant information, and finally there is an approval decision made by the Minister for Planning. So there is quite a prescribed process set out under the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009. Since the bill was established there have been a number of projects which have been assessed under that process. We have had east–west link, for example, declared for assessment and delivery using both part 3 and part 8 of the act. There have been six projects declared for the use of delivery powers just under part 8 of that act, which include sections 1 and 2 of the regional rail link, Peninsula Link, the north-east link, the Metro Tunnel, the West Gate Tunnel and also the duplication of the Western Highway between Beaufort and Ballarat. When we are considering what kinds of projects might be assessed under this act I think it is important to note that whilst the title suggests it will be for major transport projects and that a transport project is defined in the principal act as a project for the development of transport infrastructure, these powers can also be used on other non-transport infrastructure projects where they are part of a project under an act. That might apply, for example, in the instance of value capture around perhaps the development of a station or other such circumstance. As I mentioned earlier, one of the main provisions is to commence negotiations earlier with utilities. To that end, this amendment before us brings forward the time when the utilities regime can commence, which is outlined in part 7 of the principal act. Currently the utilities regime begins after the planning phase, so it is quite some way into that process that I just outlined. It is when project approvals have actually been granted and the project area has been determined. Under the amendment before us the project area will no longer have to be determined first. Instead the utilities regime will be able to come into effect when the project is declared to be a major transport project under the act. In effect the government is seeking to engage part 7 of the act, which outlines how utilities are to be engaged, at the start of the process as opposed to the end of the process.

BILLS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1189

I understand that the government’s rationale in doing this is really aimed at reducing the potential for cost blowouts on major infrastructure projects when you go through the discovery of utility infrastructure partly into the project. I think the primary concern is that consortia responding to tender come along, they put in their project bids, and then as they are actually rolling out that project they discover utility infrastructure that perhaps they did not know about and subsequently there is a blowout in costs. I think there is a degree of logic about that. I think the government is hoping that this will reduce the premium around risk that consortia are taking into their bids around major projects so that if they know what the utility issues are that are inherent in a project before they submit that bid they can develop perhaps a more circumspect and more appropriate bid. I must say I would like to know what tangible examples the Victorian government has where it considers that this has been the case in recent years. I understand that in the bill briefing there were not Victorian examples provided. Perhaps that is something that government members might be able to outline in the subsequent debate that we have this afternoon. I do know that there has, of course, been the example of the Sydney light rail project in New South Wales, where there has been a considerable amount of trouble with electricity infrastructure. That is a 12.5-kilometre, 19-stop tramline that runs between Circular Quay and the CBD. There have been substantial blowouts in costs on that project as a consequence of the discovery and treatment of underground electrical infrastructure which the company building the project say they were not aware of when they went in to bid for that project. So we do have, I guess, a current, contemporary example of where this issue around the discovery of utility infrastructure after project bids have been submitted becomes an issue. But I would like to know whether there are examples of that occurring in Victoria, considering some of the major projects that we currently have on the table here. As to the question of getting value for money, which I think is really a driving factor behind this bill, I will return to that a little bit later because there are some points I would like to make around that subject. The bill also removes the requirement currently in the act to notify every utility company. The government’s key argument here is that the requirement to notify everybody is not necessary since some utilities have infrastructure which is limited to only one particular geographic area. I suppose hypothetically you could understand where that might be the case. For example, if they are working in an area where City West Water owns the water distribution network, you do not want to be notifying other water utilities like South East Water, which clearly has no overlap in that area. Instead the bill seeks to require the project authority to take all reasonable steps to identify all utility infrastructure which could be affected by the project and engage only with those which it believes may be affected by the declared project. I do think that there is a delicate balance to be struck here. I could foresee where this might present problems down the track. For example, in a built environment like Melbourne I think utilities do not always have line of sight of where their infrastructure might be. Part of this arises from how Melbourne developed. The city was incorporated as a town back in 1842. When that occurred, the town council was given the responsibility for developing those essential services like drains, streetlights and the water supply. Trains, trams and communications infrastructure were all put in in the couple of decades that followed. By the turn of the century Melbourne’s population was actually half a million people. The first Water Act was not passed by the Victorian Parliament until 1905, which then led to the establishment of the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission. That might sound like a boring history lesson, but I think that the reality is that how Melbourne developed in its early years was somewhat haphazard. For example, the State Electricity Commission of Victoria was not set up until 1921. Whilst we had the great benefit of Robert Hoddle developing the grid which Melbourne’s CBD now sits on, a lot of the development in the surrounding suburbs just blossomed and grew up. There was not necessarily the planning there to know now where a lot of the infrastructure is. I suspect that that is not uncommon in modern cities. I know that there is an example in Chicago, where they have been trialling a 3D infrastructure mapping platform to try to reduce the time spent on construction projects. They are encouraging people to log and view data on the location and condition

BILLS 1190 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019 of pipes, water mains, power cables and other kinds of essential utility infrastructure so that they can help construction workers and limit those costly damages. This is no doubt a problem that cities across the world face, but the reality is that not all of our utility owners have perfect records about where that infrastructure is. The bill also changes the negotiation process that is currently in place. It reduces the prescription around notification and negotiation time frames, which is a quite important point. At present the project authority or the utility can only give written notice of their intention to begin negotiations 30 business days after the project authority first provides notice of the potential effects of the project on utility infrastructure. This amendment will enable that negotiation period to be triggered once the utility responds to the notice provided and supplies the information that has been requested by the project authority. Essentially what it is saying is that 30 full days do not have to elapse if they are not needed. That seems like a sensible change to ensure that infrastructure is not held up just because there is a prescribed period of time under the act. I think one area of the bill which is perhaps slightly weighted more in favour of utilities is the proposed changes around time frames for unnotified infrastructure. Unnotified infrastructure is currently defined as: • utility infrastructure, the location of which is not known by the project authority, because it could not be identified even after taking all reasonable steps or because the utility failed to respond to a notice within 30 business days … or • utility infrastructure that has been incorrectly described or its location incorrectly given by the utility … which effectively comes back to my earlier point around the difficulties with utility companies not always knowing exactly where their infrastructure is. Section 212 of the principal act, which determines that utility infrastructure is deemed to be unnotified if a utility company fails to respond to a notice issued by the project within 30 business days, is currently a bit of a problem. Again it comes back to that issue of having prescribed times. I think that the law as it is currently written is quite a heavy-handed approach because there is no provision in the act for the project authority to actually provide more time to the utility owners. Again I draw on my earlier statements about the complexity of a lot of utility infrastructure, particularly in those dense urban areas where a lot of these declared major projects are being delivered. So I think that the government’s amendments to provide a bit more discretion to the project authority to give those utilities more time is a sensible way forward. The final major change under this amendment bill is the change to the negotiation period, which is currently 50 business days. If parties have not actually reached agreement by the 50th day, then either of them has to inform the other that a dispute exists and either party can trigger that dispute resolution process. Effectively under this amendment, rather than simply waiting for that 50th business day to tick over, they will be able to proceed straight to dispute resolution. That is another measure which will reduce, I think, avoidable and unnecessary delays to major projects where both parties have made an effort to negotiate a resolution but cannot reach an agreement. We would agree with the government here that a negotiated agreement is preferable to a determination by a third party, but I think that it makes sense to simply let the company and the project authority get on with it rather than waiting for a prescribed period of time in order for them to proceed to the next stage. While a lot of the changes in this bill are I think sensible, we do have some concerns that some of them, particularly the earlier ones, put costs back onto utility providers, which of course in some instances, such as the water authorities, are wholly state-owned entities. My concern really relates to whether the utility companies then seek to pass those costs back on to consumers. There is no doubt that this bill makes life significantly easier for the government in trying to get through those declared major projects. It truncates time frames and it really does give the government some power to crunch through those major projects in, hopefully, an effort to get better value for money. I do find the argument around value for money somewhat ironic given I do not feel that our current government has been overly concerned about that to date. I think tearing up signed contracts like the

BILLS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1191 east–west link where you are wasting over $1 billion is likely to have a far greater impact on how consortia then come back and seek to do business with the state. They are obviously then going to put a premium in their bids because they are concerned about the precedent that the government has set particularly over the east–west link. So I think in some respects the government is a bit late to the party on its financial responsibility around some of these issues. We have of course also had some fairly substantial cost blowouts in major projects around the state. For example, in addition to of course the east–west link we have had substantial cost blowouts on the Metro Tunnel. It was originally promised at $9 billion and costs are now estimated at around the $11 billion mark. The government’s level crossing removal program has also substantially blown out from $5 billion to the $8.3 billion that the Auditor-General is now talking about. And of course there is the West Gate Tunnel. The government went to the 2014 election saying that they were going to build a $500 million road and we now see that that project is a multibillion-dollar project that is going to deliver huge revenues back to Transurban. There is also the north-east link—there is a whole bunch of declared major projects where the government has gone out and told taxpayers that they will be one cost and a year or two later we find that there is a significant increase in the budget for those projects. On that point, you would have to hope that this bill perhaps controls some of those cost blowouts, but it is hard not to feel a little bit cynical that the government has had huge revenues and perhaps has not looked at some of these issues quite as closely as it should have over the last five years. Effectively I think this bill really takes power away from utilities and puts that power back in the hands of government. The concern I have around that is that there is, as I mentioned earlier, a shifting of the risk to the utility owners, and with that risk comes cost as well. That really raises a concern for me over what the cost will be to consumers, because of course those utilities all have customers and the customers are the ones who ultimately bear the increase in any cost. I think the government really does need to have an eye to how those people will be impacted by these changes. Ultimately it is households who are required to pay for those essential services like water, sewerage and power. I do think the government is trying to get the right balance here, but if utilities believe that that is too heavy-handed then there is a bit of a risk that they will build that risk into their cost structures, and that will affect consumers. I think particularly at the moment people cannot afford that. We have seen utility costs increase substantially already under this government. We have had the news in recent days that the government plans to order water from the desalination plant, which will pass a direct cost to people’s bills and back to households. And of course electricity prices have increased exponentially in the last couple of years. If you look at the energy and water ombudsman’s affordability report for the six months to December 2012, it says that there are 180 000 Victorian households that have persistent bill payment difficulties: Nearly one quarter (24%) of all our credit Investigations that closed between July and December 2018 involved customers who couldn’t afford to pay for their consumption. These customers represent 7% of all our Investigations in the same period. I think it is concerning when you see data from them that some of their customers have average bills for their energy and water of about $100 per fortnight, but they are saying that for many of them their capacity to pay is only $45. So there has already been a huge impact on people’s household budgets as a result of increased utility costs. It is incredibly important that customers are protected from the potential flow-on impacts of legislative change that the government is seeking to make where the risk might be passed back to utilities and utilities then pass those costs back to consumers. I think you could expect that the flow-on costs of major projects would be a natural concern for the government, but when you see, for example, the debate over the West Gate Tunnel in recent days where you have tolling of $87 000 over the life of the extension to those concession deeds on CityLink, impacting motorists who will not even use a road that they are being tolled to build, that is an indication to me that perhaps the government is not giving so much consideration to the flow-on cost impacts of their major projects; the government would rather just get on and build them. We certainly support a

BILLS 1192 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019 full and active infrastructure program, but we do need to be mindful of the people who are impacted by that when there are hidden costs like the huge tolls that will be applied to CityLink in order to deliver an enormous return to Transurban. In summary, I think my message would be that I urge the government to use this legislation judiciously. There is a balance to be struck. Those who own the asset need to be fairly compensated in these kinds of processes, but also we do not want utilities to be able to hold projects up either. Ms SPENCE (Yuroke) (12:38): I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Amendment Bill 2019. I am also very pleased to hear that the opposition will not be opposing this bill. In fact, having listened to the member’s contribution, I think it would be fair to say that in the main the opposition are supporting many aspects of this bill. The purpose of this bill is to amend the current regime in the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009 in regard to how the interface with utilities is managed on major transport projects. In doing so it will improve the operation of that regime. A key precursor to any major project delivery is reaching agreement with the utilities on how utility infrastructure will be removed, relocated or protected. Currently major transport projects face significant costs, both in regard to time and money, on the agreements for how this removal, relocation or protection should occur. A key change in this bill relates to when the formal process of utility identification and negotiations can begin. Projects already engage with utilities in the planning phase, but this bill enables that to be captured under the act’s regime with a structured process towards fair agreements. Currently the regime comes into effect after the project approvals have been granted, but this bill amends part 7 of the act to bring forward when the regime commences. Under these changes, utility identification and negotiation can commence at any time once the project is declared to be a major transport project under the act. As such, the project authority’s obligation to take all reasonable steps to identify utility infrastructure that may be affected by the project will be brought forward to when the project is declared, rather than when it is approved. The bill also recognises the value of reaching agreement with utilities as early as possible. Clarity around the total cost of relocating or protecting utility infrastructure improves the project tendering and procurement process; the more information that can be provided to bidders the better. This can help avoid a risk premium being built into bids where that information is absent. Earlier engagement is also beneficial for utility providers and consumers, as there is less scope to devise solutions that avoid disruptions once the project delivery phase is underway. The bill does not change the rights of utilities, just the timing of the utility notification and negotiation. This recognises the importance of understanding what utilities will be affected by a project early in the project delivery cycle, and it means that utility interfaces are considered when there is the greatest scope to come up with the best options. The bill also seeks to improve the efficiency of the utility regime. In doing so the bill removes redundant work for the project authority and unaffected utilities by requiring the project authority to notify only those utilities that may be affected by the project. The act currently requires the project authority to give notice to every utility company regardless. However, given that some utility providers do have geographical limits and will have no assets anywhere near the project, this change removes the need for a formal exchange where the outcome is already known. The other changes in the bill that improve efficiency relate to the use of utility notification and negotiation time frames. Currently the project authority or the utility may give written notice of the intention to commence negotiations 30 business days after the project authority first provides notice of the potential effects of the project on utility infrastructure. This 30-day notification period must elapse before negotiations can begin. This bill enables the negotiation period to be triggered as soon as the utility responds to the notice provided and supplies the information that has been requested by the project authority. The full 30 days

BILLS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1193 does not need to elapse if it is not needed. Essentially this means there is no need to waste time waiting for the clock to run down if it is not necessary to do so. These proposed amendments also give the project authority discretion to allow more time for utilities to comply with notification requirements if they need it. Currently if the utilities fail to respond to a notice issued by the project authority within those 30 days, then the utility infrastructure is deemed to be un-notified infrastructure, and this can result in significant costs to utility providers and also risks the project delivery schedule. So the ability to extend the time for notification responses will address these issues. The bill also provides for a more efficient negotiating environment. Currently a 50-day negotiation period needs to elapse before an expert determination can resolve any disputed issues. The bill enables either party to trigger the dispute resolution process earlier within this period. This will avoid unnecessary delays where all reasonable endeavours to negotiate resolutions that are acceptable to both parties have been unsuccessful. Again, this will avoid time being wasted while parties have to wait for a clock to run down when that is not necessary. Together, the changes in the bill will reduce the time taken to resolve any potential issues with utility protection and relocation. Reaching agreement with utility companies on how utility infrastructure will be removed, relocated or protected is a very significant precursor to major project delivery, and as I mentioned before, it has significant costs and time associated with it. What does this look like for a major project? If we have a look at the north-east link project, the north- east link is the biggest road project in the state’s history, completing the ring-road between the Eastern Freeway from Springvale Road to the M80 ring-road, connecting the growing northern and south- eastern suburbs. The north-east link is already out to market. Expressions of interest have been called in two packages. The primary package involves construction of the tunnels; and the early works package involves preparatory work, including the utility relocations. Over the past year the project team has been working with utility service providers to identify and locate the utility infrastructure that is likely to be impacted by the north-east link. To date the north-east link project has entered into or is negotiating agreements with 17 utilities, including partnership and resourcing agreements to enable the parties to resource the up-front planning that is required for utility identification and management. A great benefit of this bill is that it will help the project authority and the utility companies to get resolution of agreements sooner, which will ensure that agreements with utilities can be locked in before tenders are finalised. That means that bidders can then factor into their proposals the costs and the risks that are associated with utility infrastructure removal, relocation or protection. This reduces the risk premium that bidders would otherwise price into their proposals, ultimately leading to cost savings for the state. The bill also facilitates agreements sooner by enabling the parties to potentially access any dispute resolution processes under part 7 of the act now, rather than waiting until the project has planning approval. This will enable the project authority to resolve agreements with utilities where a position cannot be reached by negotiation. The changes in the bill are able to be used by the project authority. If a utility has responded to a request about the location of the infrastructure, the project authority and those utilities will then have access to the negotiation and dispute resolution processes under the act. This bill, as I said, recognises that the changes in major transport project delivery over time have already occurred, particularly in relation to project planning. The bill provides for a more efficient utility regime, with earlier notification and negotiations, more efficient administration and better use of existing time frames, reducing the risk of un-notified infrastructure, and earlier dispute resolution if agreement cannot be reached. The measures in the bill are practical. They will deliver tangible benefits for major transport projects, utility companies and their customers. I commend the bill to the house.

BILLS 1194 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019

Mr WAKELING (Ferntree Gully) (12:48): I am pleased to rise to also contribute to this debate on the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Amendment Bill 2019. As the member for Euroa has indicated, the opposition will not be opposing the bill that is currently before the house. The bill seeks to make a range of changes in regard to the facilitation of major transport projects that have been undertaken in terms of notification and engagement with utilities that have assets that will be potentially impacted or that will affect the potential development of major transport infrastructure. Certainly it is eminently sensible to provide greater opportunities for relevant authorities and a proponent of a major transport project to have early discussions to try to identify potential areas of conflict, potential areas of identified impact on existing infrastructure, existing assets that will either impact the potential construction of the transport project or, more importantly, potentially increase costs in a way which has not been factored in as part of the original tender process. Certainly that notification process being streamlined is something that is going to be of benefit. There have been a range of projects in the past that have occurred throughout Victoria under successive governments where there have clearly been impacts on electricity, water, telecommunications and other authorities for which significant works have had to be undertaken. We know from previous practice that there have been variation in terms of the impacts. I recall the construction of EastLink throughout my community. There were in fact problems that were faced as part of the construction which involved a range of utilities that needed to be taken into consideration. In fact I recall that in the City of Greater Dandenong there was debate as to whether or not a historic tree would be retained as part of the development process, and that was while the road was actually being constructed around the said tree. So clearly having an opportunity to have these opportunities identified and dealt with earlier is going to streamline the process. It is interesting that we are talking about major transport projects, and I know those opposite have made reference to projects that are being constructed or more importantly are under construction or will be under construction by this government. Talking about major transport projects, the member for Yuroke just made reference to the north-east link, a project that will link the Western Ring Road at Greensborough with the Eastern Freeway. As those opposite will well recall, this was a promise that the government made to Victorians. They said this project would be delivered with a $5 billion price tag, $5 billion obviously being a significant figure, but that was the figure that those opposite had costed—they knew in advance what the cost would be. Given we are talking about the impacts of authorities, I can only presume that unknown to the government there were obviously utilities—water, telecommunications and the like—that impacted the construction of that project, because we now know that the project has in fact increased its cost from the promised $5 billion to now a figure of $16.5 billion—a mere blowout of $11.5 billion! I will be very interested to hear from the next speaker what the utility impacts were that required a rescoping of the project that required a $11.5 billion blowout that the member for Yuroke was commenting on just before. When we are talking about other major transport projects in this state, we have got the Metro Tunnel, which was lauded at $9 billion, and now we have got it at nearly $12 billion and growing. Then we look at the West Gate Tunnel, a major piece of transport infrastructure—a project that is underway and a project that is necessary. Those opposite opposed the second stage of the east–west link, which would have provided a second tunnel crossing through the western suburbs. We now have it in the form of the West Gate Tunnel. It started off, as those opposite would know, as the West Gate distributor. That project we know was going to cost $500 million. We also remember the Premier in the last Parliament saying it was a shovel-ready project. In fact the Premier of the day said, ‘We’re not talking about a project that doesn’t have a deadline. We’re not talking about a project that’s not ready. We’re talking about a project that is shovel-ready—ready to go’. We know that the member for Narre Warren North when he was given control of the portfolio talked about the fact that he had a shovel- ready project. This time four years ago he talked about his shovel-ready project. How did his $500 million shovel-ready project come out? Not only do we now have a project that has blown out

BILLS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1195 to $6.7 billion but we now have a project that commuters who are not going to be using the road will be paying an additional $87 000 to fund it. So residents in the electorate of Ferntree Gully, residents in the electorate of Bayswater and residents in the electorate of Rowville who use CityLink every day to commute from the City of Knox and who get off at Punt Road to come into the city and then get back on at Punt Road to go back home, will be paying an additional $87 000 to fund a project that is going to deliver a road on the other side of the city. I will be very interested to hear the justification from those opposite of why residents in the City of Knox should pay an additional $87 000 in tolls and see an increase in the rate of tolls for 10 years and an extension for a period of 10 years of the tolls that they will be paying to use CityLink to fund a project which will shovel dollars into the profits of Transurban shareholders. We will not talk about which individuals are going to be benefiting from that. Certainly I will let others in the house think about what members of this house may in fact be benefiting personally from— Mr Foley: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, of course the honourable member is entitled to address the contents of the bill, but he is well and truly straying into items that have already been addressed in a more appropriate forum. I ask that you draw the honourable member back to the core of the bill, which he has well and truly strayed from, as his recent contribution would seem to indicate. I ask you to bring him back to the bill. The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Couzens): I ask the member to come back to the bill. Mr WAKELING: Thank you, Acting Speaker. I appreciate that that was actually dealt with appropriately today in question time. As I indicated, the importance of this bill is that it ensures that we will have a greater opportunity for engagement between the relevant authorities that have infrastructure and those that are developing transport. I just hope the government will learn a lesson from this—that if they are in fact going to be dealing with earlier engagement with authorities to identify potential challenges they might have earlier engagement on what the funding of these projects will be, because if they had done their homework earlier, if they had actually done the job they were expected to do, we would not be having cost blowouts in the magnitude of the $500 million promised for a West Gate distributor blowing out to $6.7 billion for a West Gate Tunnel. My only word of encouragement for the government would be that what they should be doing if they are going to focus on earlier engagement with relevant authorities to identify potential problems is do their homework and get on with the job earlier of identifying what the true cost of a project will be. Then we would not be faced with cost blowouts on major transport infrastructure in this state. Mr HAMER (Box Hill) (12:58): I am also very pleased to speak on the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Amendment Bill 2019. As the member for Essendon pointed out, this is actually my first speaking opportunity on a bill in this house. It is a great honour and opportunity to speak on a matter related to transport infrastructure projects— A member interjected. Mr HAMER: not only, as the member for Burwood says, because I have some professional expertise in this area but also because it is symbolic of the delivery program that this government has. In the couple of months that I have been a member almost every week of Parliament there has been a bill related to a major transport infrastructure project, and that again represents the delivery agenda of the Andrews Labor government and the fact that we are getting on with our plan of delivering for all Victorians. The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Couzens): My apologies for interrupting your first speech, but it is now time to break for lunch. Sitting suspended 1.00 p.m. until 2.02 p.m.

BILLS 1196 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019

Mr HAMER: As I was speaking about before the suspension, the second-reading speech sets out the particulars of the bill. In particular the purpose is to facilitate the early engagement of utilities by project authorities in relation to utility infrastructure affected by declared projects and to facilitate the early negotiation of utility agreements between project authorities and the utilities. The change really relates to when utility negotiations can commence. Currently all the negotiations have to occur once project approvals have been granted and the project area has been designated, but this will bring forward that discussion to the planning phase. I just want to touch on how important that is in a project environment. There have been many projects that I have been involved in. Particularly if they are small local transport projects, where the risk is transferred to the contractor it is up to the contractor to work out what utilities are onsite and how they need to remove them. Bringing this utility discussion forward enables the contractors, the utilities and the project authority to investigate the issues and drill down on the particular scope of works that are required. Projects such as these, particularly in terms of major transport projects, do face significant costs associated with the removal, relocation or protection of our utility infrastructure. The interface with utilities is costly in both time and dollar terms, so anything that we can do to actually bring forward that time frame and reduce that cost is of great benefit. As we know, this is specifically around major transport projects, particularly major transport projects such as the north-east link and other major transport projects that will come under the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009 in the future, such as the Melbourne airport rail link and the Suburban Rail Loop, no doubt. There are significant tunnelling components to all of these projects. Particularly when we are talking about construction of underground infrastructure, it necessarily means that we are going to conflict with underground services, so the sooner in the project time frame that we can bring forward those investigations and negotiate with the utility companies, the better. The earlier engagement is obviously much more beneficial to both utility providers and consumers, giving the providers time to devise solutions in a way that can actually minimise the disruptions to customers during their delivery phase. It is important to note that the bill does not change the rights of the utility and the utility providers. It is just the timing of the notification and the negotiation. I briefly want to just touch on how this is going to impact on the north-east link project as a major project within the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act, which this bill seeks to amend. The north- east link project will be of big benefit to my constituents in the Box Hill district, providing a modern- standard freeway along the Eastern Freeway and making sure that there is a connection to the northern suburbs and out to the airport. Obviously both along the Eastern Freeway corridor, where the proposed widening is occurring, and also in the tunnel that goes to the north-east they will encounter quite a number of underground services that have probably been there for many, many years, some of which will have been well documented and others perhaps less well documented. This bill really offers the opportunity for the project authority to work with the utility providers to make sure that they identify those utilities as early as possible. I just also want to touch on the points made by the member for Ferntree Gully. He talked about the cost associated with the north-east link. Well, I can say that the reason behind the cost of the north- east link project is that it does not just include the tunnelling work, it also includes the widening of the Eastern Freeway and it also includes a major busway—a major public transport facility—that is going to improve access for all people in the eastern suburbs, including constituents of the electorate of Ferntree Gully and the constituents of Box Hill. I have had a number of discussions with the project authority, and they have put a number of infrastructure elements into that project to make sure that the number of homes that are taken by this project are minimised and to arrange for the construction of the infrastructure and the project space to minimise the impact on homes and businesses. All of this is contributing to making sure that the utility infrastructure that is along this corridor can be identified and that any that is going to be impacted by the north-east link can be addressed as early as possible.

BILLS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1197

To date the project has actually entered into or is negotiating agreements with 17 utilities, including partnership and resourcing agreements to enable the parties to resource the upfront planning required for utility identification and management. This will take time. It is a big project and it is going to take time, but the only way to make sure that we do deliver it on time and on budget is to get bills such as these passed, make sure that we are negotiating with the utility providers upfront and negotiate and go through any dispute resolution process sooner, leading to more efficient outcomes and administrative savings for the state. I commend the bill to the house. Mr PEARSON (Essendon) (14:10): I am delighted to make a contribution on the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Amendment Bill 2019. As previous speakers have outlined, and certainly my friend the member for Yuroke eloquently expressed the sentiments of this legislation, the bill addresses some of the issues that invariably arise when you build a major piece of infrastructure that might have an impact upon utilities. Indeed one of the great challenges, I think, with utility infrastructure is of course that it cannot be seen because it is subsurface. This has been an issue that has bedevilled administrations for a long period of time. Indeed I am reminded of the great work of Julius Sextus Frontinus, who wrote De aquaeductu. He was commissioned by Emperor Nerva, or it might have been Trajan, at the end of the 1st century AD. He was required to do a survey of all the Roman aqueducts. This was an outstanding piece of research, and interestingly—and I think the house would most benefit from this knowledge—Poggio Bracciolini managed to uncover a copy of the two volumes on Rome’s aqueducts in 1425 at the time of the rise of the Renaissance. This work underpinned the further provision of aqueducts throughout Rome in the mediaeval period. Interestingly, Julius Sextus Frontinus was, rather like me, a novus homo, which is a new man, because he was the first of his family to serve in the Roman Senate. Acting Speaker Carbines, I think we can both say that we are novus homos. A bill like this is important because of course with major projects you have the sense that you do not know what lies beneath the surface. One of the great challenges is that when something lies beneath the surface it is not seen to the eye, and there are some inherent challenges and difficulties to working out the quality of the said infrastructure. When you are looking at major projects like the Metro Tunnel or the north-east link, these are projects which have a significant impact on the utility infrastructure that they come up against. Certainly the ability of the state to start engaging with the providers, the owners, of this infrastructure is very important. I know some of the challenges in the past with the NBN, for example, have been that the decision to put the fibre-optic cables underground, through the infrastructure that is owned by Telstra, has caused some challenges for those who are rolling out that infrastructure because you just do not know what lies beneath the surface. Mr Richardson: Like a Liberal Party preselection. Mr PEARSON: Indeed, it is like a Liberal Party preselection, member for Mordialloc. You just do not know what goes on beneath the surface. But a bill like this is indeed important. It does beg the question: why are we here? Why are here debating this fine piece of legislation on a Thursday afternoon? We are doing this because we are committed to rolling out the critical infrastructure that our state demands in order to cope with the population growth that we are experiencing. Melbourne is adding a city the size of Canberra to our borders every three years, and we need to make sure we have the investments required. I did listen to the member for Ferntree Gully’s lamentable contribution. The member for Ferntree Gully’s view of the world is: ‘Sit still, sit quietly, do your homework, don’t move, don’t do anything until you absolutely know what it is you’re doing, and only then you might think about acting’. I think the member for Ferntree Gully neatly summarised his actions, I daresay, in the 57th Parliament and those of the former government. There is a need and a time to be bold—to go out there and do the things that need to be done and not to sit lazily around the cabinet room playing Angry Birds or trying to work out how far you can throw a paper plane over Ted Baillieu’s head to the other side of the cabinet room. You have got to roll up your sleeves and get on with it. We are not here forever. We are

BILLS 1198 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019 here for a finite period of time, and you want to get on with it. You want to get into it and you want to get it done, and we have a bill like this before the house because that is exactly what we need to do. Of course if we were in the days of the old State Electricity Commission of Victoria, we would not require legislation like this, because clearly the minister for energy—or as it was in the Cain government of 1952 to 1955, the Minister in Charge of Electrical Undertakings, which I found to be quite an interesting portfolio—had responsibility for the State Electricity Commission of Victoria. That person of course would speak with the minister for transport, and the different statutory authorities and departmental heads would work this out. We are living in a world where these assets have been privatised, where they have been disaggregated and a number of different entities have carriage of these assets. Indeed these assets form a significant value on the balance sheet of these companies. So you must of course have an appropriate regulatory environment in place to ensure that these assets are protected as we get on with the job of delivering the critical infrastructure that the people of Victoria are craving. I am so proud. It is a great joy to be a member of a government which is spending so much on the critical infrastructure we need. If you go back to the period 2006 to 2014, the average capital expenditure across those years, as I am sure the member for Mornington could attest, was $4.7 billion, and across the forward estimates at the moment we are around about $10.5 billion or $10.6 billion. We need to make these sorts of investments in order to continue to underpin the population growth and the growth and prosperity that we have. The reality is that the public sector in Victoria represents approximately 25 per cent of gross state product. It is not a command and control economy, it is not a case where the state government represents 50 per cent or 80 per cent or 100 per cent of the economy—it is 25 per cent. But that 25 per cent, when it is harnessed, when it is focused, when it is utilised, can play a really important role in terms of providing confidence to the private sector to invest. When you have got a government that has made it very clear that we are going to be investing around $10.6 billion across the forward estimates and when the private sector can get some sense and confidence that beyond 30 June 2023, once we factor in the April budget, which will be handed down when we next get together, there will be continued activity and then they will start to invest. They will start to invest in their people, they will start to invest in PPE—property, plant and equipment—they will start to make sure that they make the investments required to ensure that they can continue to employ people and support the state in this noble enterprise of building Victoria to be a truly great state, a better state, a state which can be home to 10 million people by 2050, with 8 million people living in Melbourne. We are not wasting any time. We are getting on with the job, and we are committed to doing the things we were sent here to do. The people of Victoria sent a very clear message to both the Andrews Labor government and the opposition. They liked what they saw and they wanted more of it. This bill will help us continue to do that important work which will underpin the strength of the economy. When you have got a government that is committed to making this level of investment it ensures that we can continue our rate of growth, we can continue to be the powerhouse economy of the nation and we will be seen as a desirable place for people to live, work and raise a family. This is a great bill. Again it was curious to listen at times to the contribution made by the member for Ferntree Gully. Thankfully for me I was not here for the member for Euroa’s contribution; I do find her contributions at times somewhat tedious and boring. But anyhow this is a really— Mr Morris: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, there are appropriate mechanisms for delivering the sorts of criticisms the member is directing at opposition members, and during the course of debate is not one of them. I ask you to bring him back to debating the bill. Mr Fowles: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, the comment made was about contributions being tedious and boring. I think the point of order is itself tedious and boring.

BILLS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1199

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Carbines): I understand there can be some reflection on other contributors to the debate on the bill, but I would ask the member for Essendon to come back to the bill at this time. Mr PEARSON: Thank you, Acting Speaker, for your guidance. This is an absolute cracker of a bill. I am delighted to be here on the Treasury bench, to be a member of a government that is getting on with it. I am delighted and pleased that we are going to be able to use legislation like this to fulfil each and every one of our promises. We are growing the state, we are making a great society here in Victoria. Bills like this ensure that happens. I commend the bill to the house. Mr RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (14:20): It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Amendment Bill 2019 and to follow the great contribution and history lessons of the member for Essendon. It is always a pleasure to get his insights. He goes right back in history, beyond the pale, and his accuracy is spot-on. It is not like the former Minister for Public Transport, Terry Mulder, who thought our rail lines were 300 years old at one stage, which is an extraordinary number. The member for Essendon’s history is always accurate. We get it right on this side. This is a bill that amends some legislation that barely got a shake in the 57th Parliament, let us be honest. It barely got any use of powers, this one. Major transport project facilitation—you could not really name a major project that those opposite put forward in the 57th Parliament. The Western Highway might have got a bit of a shake, but major projects from that side were lacking. What Victorians wanted during that period were the transport priorities—the big-thinking, big-ticket items that will underpin our prosperity in the future, that will create the jobs, that will get people home safer and sooner and move our city. The fastest growing state in the nation is our state and the engine room of Australia is our economy—and that is what people want, as the member for Essendon outlined. They want bold decisions on infrastructure projects, and this is what this government is doing. The 2009 iteration of this legislation was introduced under the Brumby government, and then it went into a bit of a hiatus. It was not really found in the bill book or the legislation list too often, it did not really get much of a shake, and now again we are coming forward with amendments on utilities to make sure that we can streamline these processes and make sure that projects are not unnecessarily delayed. Down in my neck of the woods, in the electorate of Mordialloc, through the City of Kingston region, there is a substantial amount of infrastructure work going on that requires this very facilitation, and some of these amendments are really important for my community. When I think of the level crossing removals from Bonbeach through to Edithvale, a substantial change to the Frankston line, they are a wonderful revitalisation of our community. The electricity assets and telecommunication assets that run up Station Street and up the Nepean Highway that are both above ground and below ground are substantial. We have already gone through an environmental effects statement process. It has been substantial, and it has been significantly consulted on. We have had public hearings, and we have gotten to a point now where we are not be far away from construction in the next 18 months. But this bill may provide the mechanism to allow that utility process and that engagement and negotiation to occur alongside those processes, meaning that we do not have further delays after we conclude that process; we can get on with the important construction work and get underway with those projects. That same example that will be so critical up at the Mentone and Cheltenham level crossing removals. That was exciting last week, having gone through community consultation on that project and having shown the community those designs, protected the heritage-listed station there and repurposed that open space. Those opposite, particularly the member for Sandringham, after three years of community consultation and after three years of engagement—including from the former member for Sandringham, who rocked up and engaged in that consultation as well, representing his community and putting forward those interests—on how that project will be constructed and consideration of utility assets and how we will manage that process, are going back to tried and true behaviour and old form. The member for Sandringham is now saying, ‘Let’s spend another few years consulting; let’s have another round of consultation after going through all that critical work’.

BILLS 1200 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019

That is what crippled the 57th Parliament and the Baillieu-Napthine governments—they did nothing. They did not want to offend anyone. They did not want to put anyone out of joint. They did not have an agenda coming in. They were not ready to govern, they were on the back foot, and what happened—we had everything up for review and no projects got done. You have got to be bold. You have got to put forward a mission, and the Andrews Labor government in its second term was elected on a substantial platform and footing that said, ‘We’re going to invest in the infrastructure that Victorians need’. Down in my community that is so critical. We are going to get you home safer and sooner, and we are going to have bold projects that will change our city forever. The Acting Speaker, the member for Ivanhoe, knows this with the Hurstbridge line just going fantastically at the moment, and level crossing removals as well. It is transforming our state—not just one project plucked out of obscurity, not underpinned by good economics and put forward as the solution to the whole state’s issues. No, that is not how we run our show in Victoria. We have got a multitude of projects worth tens of billions of dollars in the making, and, extraordinarily, with very minimal federal government contribution. We are still waiting for that locked box to be unlocked. I welcome the announcement by and collaboration finally with the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, on delivering the $5 billion that is owed to Victorians. That was actually his predecessor’s initiative—the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull—but that is also a project where utility assets and the significance of that project might require this act to be used and engaged. When we think of the scale of that project, how many decades have we talked about an airport rail link? Every one of our constituents in our community says, ‘That’s the missing piece of the puzzle in a modern, world-class city like Melbourne—to have that airport rail link’. But importantly it will connect rural and regional communities as well to the airport rail link and get them through to Tullamarine and on their journey as well. That kind of project is a big-thinking, big-ticket item. The other project which is really exciting—I had a constituency question on this; my community is absolutely at fever pitch about this—is the Suburban Rail Loop. This is so exciting, this project. This is absolutely amazing. The community enhancement, activity centre, precinct development opportunities and community engagement that will be had—this is game-changing stuff. This is that once-in-a-generation chance to leave your mark and make your state better, not just to change it for years but change it forever. Melbourne Metro rail tunnel will be an example of that when that has finally concluded, but think of the Suburban Rail Loop and how that will transform how we travel and how we get around our great city and our great state. In my community about 12 per cent of people catch public transport each and every day, and our future prospect of reducing congestion is by a myriad of approaches—on road, on rail and on buses. If you have got to get over to Clayton, you have got to drive at the moment, and it is a 40-minute drive if you are heading from Chelsea Heights, so that is an extraordinary burden for people trying to get to their place of work and employment. To then have the Suburban Rail Loop, you could go from around the Cheltenham area, link through to Clayton and go on to various universities and precincts. That is the kind of vision that people want to see—being bold and putting that forward at the state election. When that project was announced, my community had great confidence in that future vision. As the Premier said, that might be opened up by another government of a different colour or persuasion, but it is starting that idea there and putting forward that bold agenda. I really welcome the federal Labor opposition’s commitment of $300 million to those initial planning stages. That is clearly a project of substantial significance—$50 billion-plus in the making that is probably going to interact with the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Amendment Bill 2019. By running the Suburban Rail Loop all the way from Cheltenham, I will be able to go and visit my good colleague the member for Ivanhoe in a few years time and then go over to the member for Broadmeadows’s electorate—I will get across to him as we head around on the Suburban Rail Loop— and then eventually I will get all the way around. I will go to Broady, and then I will go all the way around to the member for Sunbury. Well, I might do that; I sit next to him anyway. I might get to

BILLS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1201

Sunbury. He winds me up a bit, but I will get all the way around. I will go to St Albans. I will go and see the member for Tarneit. I will even on the way wave to the members for Box Hill and Burwood. That is the kind of game-changing infrastructure that we need in our state, and it will absolutely interact with this act. The member for Mount Waverley is a bit aggrieved. I will even go and visit the member for Mount Waverley, a good member and a good contributor in this Parliament. That is a game- changer. You think of all those communities, all their history, being connected by major transport infrastructure and every major line in our state being connected. It is the thing of dreams, but it is going to be happening. It is going to be consulted on and will start in the next couple of years. That is the kind of major transport project that will require that engagement with our utility operators. Already now various councils, community groups, development firms, government bureaucracies and departments are thinking about where that route will go and what we will need to do, and of course our utility operators will have that important role to play. So this is an exciting amendment because it is common sense. It is trying to fast track as much as possible and not waste a day. When the Premier was elected in 2014 I remember the first caucus meeting where he discussed with us and said, ‘Don’t ever waste a day in this place. Don’t ever waste a day in government, and don’t ever waste your opportunity to make your community better tomorrow than it was today or the day before’. That is the mission that we have as all parliamentarians—not to ask for constant reviews leaking into the year where you do not get any opportunity to see the fruition of these projects. We want to get on and build the infrastructure that is so critical for our state and our future needs. I will tell you what: sit back and wait, and in the next few years there will be more level crossing removals and more rail tunnels underway. I will not hold up the member for Ivanhoe anymore. Mr CARBINES (Ivanhoe) (14:30): I am pleased to follow the member for Mordialloc, and I was sure he would have mentioned the Dingley bypass in there amongst the many, many significant projects happening across his electorate. In contributing on the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Amendment Bill 2019, in particular—and it has been touched on by some previous speakers—the north-east link project, declared back on 19 June 2018, is of course a major transport project. Many years ago now I was attending the Heidelberg town hall as the endorsed candidate for Ivanhoe back in 2009. It was packed to the rafters there at the Heidelberg town hall, when previous iterations of the north-east link were being considered by a previous Labor government. This year, particularly within those first 100 days—in fact within just about the first couple of days after our re-election and the affirmation of the Victorian people last November in overwhelming numbers—we were out there with the Premier and many other members from the northern suburbs to kick off the north-east link project going out to market. There is absolutely no doubt that what is great about the Ivanhoe electorate in the context of the north- east link is that we are very close to the city and very close to the airport and the Metropolitan Ring Road, but what that also means is that people and goods and services travel right through the middle of the Ivanhoe electorate. We need to be able to link people in the city and in other parts of south-east Melbourne that need to get out to the significant economic hubs there, and the La Trobe employment cluster in particular, to get back out there on the Western Ring Road and of course get to Tullamarine and the other service industries out there in the outer northern suburbs. To get this north-east link project moving is absolutely fundamental for the livability and the neighbourhood character in my community and for the opportunities to get greater value for my community and to take some of that pressure off and return local roads to local people. That has not been an easy project. It is one that has been talked about for decades and decades and decades and decades, but we have the courage of our convictions, we have worked very hard with the community and we have got their support on this project. This amendment bill before the Parliament certainly reflects our desire to provide every opportunity to ensure that the north-east link is a successful project, but also that we have the capacity here in legislation to keep that project moving. We have also demonstrated our bona fides not just in road projects locally but of course also on the Hurstbridge line. We not only made the commitment to duplicate the line between Greensborough

BILLS 1202 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019 and Eltham, but we have already delivered duplication of the rail track on the Hurstbridge line between Heidelberg and Rosanna. There was a single track for over a century before we got that project done as part of the level crossing removal on Lower Plenty Road. In delivering that project over the previous term we demonstrated again that you get the community’s confidence when you can demonstrate that you can walk and chew gum at the same time and you can invest in significant road projects that require us to have this Major Transport Projects Facilitation Amendment Bill and also invest in the Hurstbridge line and public transport infrastructure. The removal of the level crossing and the duplication of the 1.3 kilometres of track between Heidelberg and Rosanna have provided many, many extra services that are able to run on the Hurstbridge line. The commitments that we have made this term on the duplication further up the line are very significant to my colleagues particularly across Yan Yean, Bundoora and Eltham, because it is their residents who are in many cases in motor vehicles heading down to use the duplicated track south of Greensborough. So to duplicate it further up the line is going to get people out of their cars and back on the train further up the Hurstbridge line. That will be of great benefit to the people of my electorate. Another thing which relates to the work we are doing around major transport infrastructure has been the completion and opening of the six lanes of the Chandler Highway bridge, a $110 million project. People said ‘Oh, you know, it can’t be done—too hard, too difficult’. I remember when we were out there in opposition and we made our commitment to deliver the project. I was with the member for Mulgrave, the now Premier, and I remember him saying to me, ‘I can’t believe how many people are here’. They were tooting on the side of the road and people were giving us a wave; they were rapt because this is a massive project for people. It has been a talking point for decades out in the northern suburbs, and I was very pleased to see the six lanes of the Chandler Highway bridge now open. We are talking 45 000 vehicles a day using that Chandler Highway bridge. With the Grange Road level crossing also removed it is one of those key routes from the western part of my electorate in West Ivanhoe and West Heidelberg. Being able to use Grange Road without the level crossing and get onto the six-lane Chandler Highway bridge is a very significant outcome. People trust you when you can deliver on these projects. When people can actually use the infrastructure investments and projects that we have completed then you get their support and confidence to pursue the other significant projects like the north-east link. In the meantime we have also been able to demonstrate across other aspects of these major projects that we have been doing some of the small stuff in between. We have put truck bans and curfews on Rosanna Road and surrounding streets. We have made sure that we have got traffic safety cameras at two intersections on Rosanna Road that are being installed as we speak, and they will be activated in the coming months. We have also instituted several million dollars worth of other upgrades to traffic lights and 40-kilometre-per-hour zones along Rosanna Road. That work is also happening. All of that, together with the traffic safety audits that have been put in place and the $850 000 of works already done up at Lower Plenty Road, at Rosanna Road and Greensborough Highway, is part of having greater accountability from VicRoads to deliver on these projects. It is also about making sure that we are doing the little things as well as those big-picture long-term projects in terms of the removal of level crossings, the expansion of the Chandler Highway bridge and the active transport links that will open in the coming months that are critically important to cyclists. Certainly, along with the member for Bundoora when we ride our bikes into this place, we are looking forward and we are watching the work at the Chandler Highway bridge. When we see those active transport links and the bypass—we have to lug our bikes up dozens of steps, actually; we have got to talk to the member for Richmond about doing the same thing over at Gipps Street and find out how that project is going too—can I say, the Chandler Highway bridge has been a fantastic outcome for people. We are seeing that now with level crossing removals, perhaps not other commitments that have been made in my electorate at this term for other level crossing removals, but other ones across the north. I mean, all roads lead to Bell Street, and to see the removal of level crossings right across the member for Preston’s electorate and several other level crossing removals there from Moreland Road right across to Sydney Road and

BILLS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1203

High Street—for people who travel along Bell Street, and that includes people in my electorate—is going to be very significant. These things are absolutely critical. People understand them and people support them. I might just say that those opposite, when they came out and showed a little bit of interest very, very early on when we were having community consultations on the three different options for the removal of a level crossing at Lower Plenty Road, Rosanna—I think from the two public consultations we had in the first instance with the three different options—we had 550 people attend the two sessions, one on a Saturday and one midweek. A few of those opposite sniffed around and came and had a bit of a look, but only because they wanted to be negative or only because they wanted to see it as a political opportunity to tear down that project. Once they realised that people were absolutely fascinated and wanted to get involved, wanted to be part of that project and wanted to get it done, people in their hundreds were turning up on Easter weekend to see the bridge being craned into place. People came down there with their families to check it out. They wanted to be part of it, which was a big thing in a local community. It says a lot, I think, about the importance of renewing infrastructure and the opportunities that renewal has provided. We had people, including the minister in the other place, Minister Tierney. We had automotive sector workers who had been retrained and who had worked on that project. We had people who understand—when they are there every day, as I was this morning at Rosanna station, when they are there five days a week on their way to work—that these places are really important places and important public infrastructure for our community. I think as long as we continue to demonstrate that we can deliver on these projects then we will have the community’s confidence to continue to tackle the big challenges that we have in an ever-growing population. I think that also explains a little bit more about why the Morrison government continues to fail us by wanting to talk of population gain but not talk about investment in education and schools and our hospitals and our public transport. To that extent the Andrews government understands and is delivering. Mr McGUIRE (Broadmeadows) (14:40): This is about adding value to the big-picture vision that the Victorian government is driving. There is the AAA-rated economy and the record pipeline of investment in infrastructure, anchored on two multi-billion-dollar projects of national significance— the missing link in the road network, the north-east link, and the rail link to the airport. Here they are, both about $15 billion, and already the Andrews Labor government has got the north-east link out to market. Expressions of interest have been called for two packages: the primary package that involves construction of the tunnels and the early works package, which involves preparatory works, including utility relocations. When we first came into government I said life is short, government is shorter, let us get on with it. That has been the drive that this government has brought to get the vision, get the partnerships, get the deals done and then the delivery. I think this is the key factor in the re-election of the Andrews Labor government and the driving force. What are we wanting to do? We are wanting to build on the momentum, and we are wanting to add value. I see this as a great opportunity to have these two anchor projects where we finally have unity tickets with the Australian government. That is important to get to this position. I have a view that I would like to see priority precincts in Sunshine because that will become the hub for the rail link to the Melbourne Airport, and Broadmeadows for the north, because that captures the area that is going to be the size of Adelaide in population in a decade—as soon as that, that is how strong the growth is. And of course it has got the most affordable, available land only 16 kilometres from the heart of the city. It has got the blue-chip infrastructure there, and that is why these infrastructure deals are so significant. The Andrews government has widened the Tullamarine Freeway, we have got the ring-road, we have got Sydney Road and we have got the curfew-free international airport. I doubt there is anywhere with such a cluster of such high-value infrastructure—

BILLS 1204 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019 not just the international airport but nearby is Essendon Fields as well. I drive as many of these strategies as I possibly can to get people to see the opportunity here. This is the chance of a lifetime to reinvigorate this community. It is important as well because we are going through deindustrialisation. So what are the new industries, what are the new jobs? One of the best opportunities we have is the Ford site, which is basically the size of a suburb—about 40 hectares. I am hoping there will soon be an announcement on a deal, on who is their preferred tenderer to actually get on with that. The idea that I have been heavily promoting is that that should be used for new industries, new jobs and innovations. I would love to see, then, what the anchor tenants will be in there, and who are the institutions that can come and be part of that, such as La Trobe University or RMIT University and their innovation hubs, because I think if you have a major institution there in the same way that we have the University of Melbourne at Fishermans Bend, that is a really important match-up. Then we can ask what are we going to be making as a state—this is still a critical question—and what are we going to export internationally to make our way in the world. That is the opportunity that is there, and obviously I have CSL manufacturing life-saving blood products from Broadmeadows, and that is critical as well. What I say to the medical research sector, as the parliamentary secretary, is that here is one of our absolutely world-leading sectors. You can have your brains trust in Parkville, you can have your manufacturing arm in Broadmeadows and here is how we should be exporting globally, particularly to China, Japan and Korea, where we already have free trade agreements. These are the arguments nationally. We have got to get over the arguments between the states and have a much bigger national strategy on how we deliver on these. The example that I cite is the proton beam going to Adelaide, which was a folly. It should have been in Melbourne. I say that also because you invest in any business model where you have the leadership and in medical research Victoria got 47 per cent of the funding in the last round. It is a record. So the lion’s share goes to the lion. We are leading like the lion and we are making a point of that. I absolutely want to see this when the Medical Research Future Fund rises to $20 billion, because 47 per cent of that is real money. I think that is what we should be seeing here, because this where we can take the leadership position—the Cancer Moonshot to cure cancer with the US and all those other different projects with the elegance of the science—has been built up here over generations, and that is a critical point. We will be looking closely to see what comes out on that in the upcoming federal budget. We are hoping that there will be some propositions that come through that actually take a bigger national interest position. If you want to invest to get the maximum return in the national interest, it has got to be to your leading institutions. Judge them on merit and performance and that money will inevitably come to the people who deliver the best opportunities for lifesaving changes, reforms and breakthroughs. That is what we have and that is how we are trying to aggregate our assets. These why this north-east link is important in being able to help connect up the network. I also want to say that I am hoping to shortly be in a position to make an announcement that is very important for my community. After years of negotiation, argument and debate, we will hopefully soon be able to announce that the Hume City Council has finalised a deal with VicRoads on the Camp Road loop road site. That is really important to unlocking the valuable land right in the heart of Broadmeadows. This will be of great benefit to what we are doing to try to revitalise Broadmeadows, being one of the key recommendations from the revitalisation board that I chaired last year. The Victorian government has already invested $14 million in this project, with $7 million invested in the council’s town hall redevelopment, which will feature an innovation hub, again for creating new jobs, businesses and local opportunities. That is critical for the ongoing development of this community, where jobs are needed most. This area also has the support of a number of state government agencies that want a solution to the parking in Hume central. These include services of the Department of Justice and Community Safety, Victoria Police and Northern Health. If agreement on a purchase can be made, it will open up a whole range of other opportunities, including a car park deck for perhaps 400 to 500 car parks in the vicinity

BILLS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1205 of the Broadmeadows railway station. That of course is a vital need and would be greatly appreciated by my local residents. This is an issue of great significance not just locally but also for the development of Melbourne’s north at a time when we need to get these arrangements together, get a coordinated strategy, get the deal settled and get on with the job. That is what this government does best. I am hoping that having brought the parties, VicRoads and Hume City Council, together in the Victorian Parliament in the past, we can finally get this done—signed, sealed and delivered. Then we can get on with these really important developments within the community. I think it just goes to the approach of this government about how you add value, how you create opportunity and then what results come from that. Just in summing up on this bill, why I think it is important is that it is part of the ongoing development of the strategy of the government: here is the vision, here is the plan, here are the partnerships—how do we add value and how do we then create the new industries, the new jobs and the new opportunities. If we keep doing this and keep driving it hard this will be seen by the public as us acting in the best interests of the state. We are giving people a better opportunity, more jobs and a better chance in life. That is why I commend this bill to the house. Mr DIMOPOULOS (Oakleigh) (14:49): What a pleasure it is to speak on this bill. The member for Essendon in his contribution asked the existential question: what are we here for? He meant in government, obviously. Mr Pearson: It’s Thursday afternoon. It could be whatever you want it to be. Mr DIMOPOULOS: He says it is Thursday afternoon; it could be anything. It is clear that we are here to actually deliver on an agenda. We are here to represent the people of Victoria. We are here to actually do things. We are not here to occupy an office and have a name on the office wall. This bill is one of many changes we have made to legislation, administrative arrangements and financial instruments to achieve the same objective, which is to get things done. As the Premier is proud of saying and we are all very proud of saying, we have not wasted a day. We have used every lever in the state apparatus to efficiently, purposefully and powerfully drive to our goals. This bill is just one of those levers. Interestingly enough, this is a bill amending an act of Parliament that was established under another proud Labor government in 2009. It may sound slightly gratuitous, but I want to say that of course it would not be a conservative government that would establish a major transport infrastructure facilitation act because, particularly in the four years before we came to office, there was no major project to speak of, so that government did not have to facilitate anything. I think the member for Essendon talked about sitting in an office, in a cabinet room, making paper aeroplanes. Mr Fowles: Playing Angry Birds. Mr DIMOPOULOS: Playing Angry Birds. That is the kind of view you get of that opposition. Of course under those circumstances, without ethos, you would not need a major transport project facilitation bill. But we are a very different government. Our focus has been not just on infrastructure but infrastructure is a very, very big focus. As I said, and others have said in their address-in-reply speeches in the past few days, they are the comments and commentary we received from the Victorian community about the brand of this government. In my view there are at least four factors that are instrumental in achieving such a bold infrastructure agenda. They are in no particular order, but you have to have financial responsibility in the way you deliver these things. You have to have all possible financial instruments at work. Number one is a good budget, a budget that delivers strong budget surpluses and responsible borrowings and uses the lazy assets on the balance sheet. They can be things like the lease of the port of Melbourne, which unlocked billions of dollars to put back into infrastructure projects such as the removal of those 50 level crossings that we first announced. They can be the land titles registry function or a range of other initiatives.

BILLS 1206 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019

Also before the last election the Treasurer announced that we would increase our borrowings. We announced to the Victorian community before the election in a very transparent way that we would increase our borrowings to 12 per cent of the budget for the purpose of funding three projects: the airport rail link, north-east link and the removal of the additional 25 level crossings that we announced. In the very early stages of the first four-year term we went on with setting up a number of administrative offices that were purposely established for executing key projects. We did not leave it to a large government department to find a focus around these projects; we established administrative offices. I think one of the first ones was the Level Crossing Removal Authority. That administrative focus was key to delivering these projects. And then we obviously established other administrative offices, including the West Gate Tunnel Authority, the North East Link Authority and Rail Projects Victoria, all under the stewardship of the Major Transport Infrastructure Authority and an excellent public servant, Corey Hannett. That is the second element of delivering a bold infrastructure agenda— a purposeful administrative arrangement that works to the delivery, not to some kind of loosely defined goal. I think the third element of a bold infrastructure agenda is leadership. We have talked about the Premier’s leadership, but in my view we cannot talk enough about that because it is bold, it is extraordinary and it is unique in the history of leaders. He is someone who has committed to a bold agenda and actually committed to delivering it, and he has shown that in the last four years. But there is also the Minister for Transport Infrastructure. She has been an exceptional minister in that portfolio. You need leadership to drive this, but you also need the community underwriting, the community support. I think where the last government and this government—as in our last term and this term— have been successful is in communicating to the Victorian community what that narrative is. It is a narrative of a big infrastructure agenda and appropriate borrowings to help fund that agenda, but we communicated that in a way that was intelligible and also built an immediate connection with the Victorian community. You do that by demonstrating the need. Other speakers—I think again the member for Essendon—have said Victoria is growing at a huge rate. If we do not make these investments—in fact many of them should have been made decades ago—we will be in gridlock all over Victoria, not just in a transport sense but in a social infrastructure sense. In schools and in a whole range of other ways we will be in gridlock. We communicated that effectively, but that was the lived experience of the Victorian community, so they did not need much convincing. But we also tied that narrative to jobs. We inherited the highest unemployment rate—I think second to Tasmania actually—when we took office in late 2014. We now have the lowest. We linked that big infrastructure agenda to employment and jobs. We linked it to training. We then completed that narrative by providing free TAFE, more accessible education, better schools and a whole range of other investments. I think the fourth element of a bold infrastructure agenda is the one we are debating today, which is legislation. You need to use every vehicle available to deliver that bold agenda. Amending the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009 to make it easier for major projects to engage with utility services in a fashion that is both responsible and appropriate for those utility assets and those utility providers but also does not delay unnecessarily major projects that Victorians have needed for decades is what this this bill seeks to do. We have also had the same ethos in social policy. In social policy it is obviously less about financial and other administrative arrangements and more about legislation and leadership. We have shown that in a whole range of ways in social policy, and I mentioned some of those in my contribution to the address-in-reply yesterday, from the expunging of historical homosexual convictions to voluntary assisted dying to the safe injecting room. We have shown that similar ethos of leadership, of boldness and of reform, and that is exactly what we are doing here.

BILLS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1207

You know you are on a winner when the opposition is talking about your agenda, and that is exactly what they did the whole week in question time—they talked about the West Gate Tunnel, our agenda. That is what they did for four years in the previous Parliament. They talked nothing but level crossing removals, sky rail and a whole range of other things. They were talking about our agenda. And they still do not get it. That is partly why they lost government—because they were talking about our agenda. So talk about our agenda as much as you like. I remember you talked about the removal of asbestos in schools. Every good thing that we did, you talked about. Of course you tried to nitpick, but what the Victorian community heard was, ‘People are talking about this bold agenda’, so my advice is keep talking about it, because you did us a favour. Leadership is not when you yourself talk about your agenda but when everybody around you is talking about your agenda. Thank you for contributing to the bold leadership of this government, and thank you for supporting this bill. It is a very sound bill, and I commend the bill to the house. Mr J BULL (Sunbury) (14:59): I am pleased to have the opportunity to follow the member for Oakleigh this afternoon and contribute to the debate on the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Amendment Bill 2019. In my contribution yesterday to the address-in-reply to the Governor’s speech I spoke extensively about this government’s exciting, big, bold, progressive agenda that we of course took to the November election. The member for Oakleigh spoke in his contribution about this agenda—this pipeline of projects, these plans that are going to propel Victoria for decades to come. This was of course, Acting Speaker Carbines, as you know from your local community, overwhelmingly endorsed by the Victorian community. I believe, and I am sure government members on this side of the house believe, that that is because this government stands for getting things done and stands for working with Victorians to find solutions to problems rather than just simply political pointscoring. This government, in my view, was comprehensively voted back in because we are focused on projects and not posturing, focused on delivering a better state, more jobs, new skills and that pipeline of projects and infrastructure that supports this great state. This is an important bill because it allows for greater efficiency and a greater management process around agreements for major projects. We of course know, and we have heard this afternoon members speak about, the importance of delivering projects on time and within budget—of making sure that these projects can be delivered in a manner that is timely and in a manner that works for the bottom line and, importantly, forms a broader picture, whether it is in roads or rail, schools or hospitals—to be able to do the things that this government is focused on and that are improving the lives of all Victorians. This bill, as I have said, enhances the efficiency of those agreements struck by utilities to make sure that projects can be delivered in a better way. By flipping, if you like, in many respects the way that we manage and deal with utilities, it creates a better planning system, with more certainty and greater security. It allows us to get on and continue to deliver that extraordinary pipeline of projects that I mentioned yesterday and that other honourable members have mentioned this afternoon. We are making sure that we are doing everything we possibly can to make Victoria the wonderful state that it is. Essentially this is a practical bill where small changes will improve the agreement-making process and provide greater clarity to all parties. The Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009 sets out a process for negotiating agreements on how utility infrastructure will be removed, relocated or protected. I have no doubt that further work will be done in this space at a local level. I am sure that a number of members will be able to reflect on the complexities that arise when you are dealing with local community infrastructure and utilities-based companies, whether it is gas, NBN or power, and the time it often takes to relocate services for some of this really important work. A number of members will be able to reflect on local matters where these delays cost money and time and they delay really important projects. Of course we know that much of our community infrastructure is mixed use, whether it is roads or health, and what needs to happen in many of these examples is exactly what is outlined in this important piece of legislation before the house this afternoon. This bill removes redundant work for the project authority and unaffected utilities by requiring the project authority to notify only those utilities it believes will be affected. We know that some utility

BILLS 1208 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019 providers are geographically limited and will have no assets anywhere near the project, so the change removes the need for a formal exchange where the outcome is already known. That is in many respects common sense, but it is an important change. It is a change that is going to result in, I think, less compliance but certainly a greater outcome in terms of being able to deliver the project exactly when it needs to be delivered. The proposed amendments will also give the project authority discretion to provide more time for utilities to comply with notification requirements if needed. This is valuable for both the utility and the project authority. If assets are unnotified, there are costs for the utility and risks to the project delivery schedule. It is worth reflecting just on the size, the amount—the Premier speaks about it often, as does the Treasurer and cabinet ministers—and the extraordinary level of projects that are happening in each and every community right across this state, in the city, in the regions, in country areas, in areas of growth and certainly in my area, in Sunbury, and its surrounds. The member for Melton is over there, and I can certainly see his acknowledgement of the growth of new communities, with new families that want to come and move into our growth corridors. This government is focused on giving our new communities the best possible life: a great local school, access to terrific health care and access to good local roads. We are ensuring that all of the facilities and services are provided certainly for our growth corridors but right across the state. This is an important element of this government’s agenda. It is not just about focusing on those projects that are important today, tomorrow or next year. I have no doubt that members in the house would have had these conversations at train stations, at street stalls and at community forums, where the Victorian community asks for a greater level of planning and a view for the next 10 years, the next 20 years and the next 30 years. This government is about exactly that. If you look at projects like the Solar Homes package, like the Suburban Rail Loop and like the airport rail link, it is long-term planning that is going to set this state up for many years to come. I have said in this house before that if you could just for a moment imagine Melbourne and Victoria without the city loop and without the projects that the Victorian community relies on each and every day. I think in 50 years time—although I do not expect to still be around, although possibly— Mr Pearson: Oh come on, you will live until you are 110. Mr J BULL: The member for Essendon will still be around, and he will probably still be in this place, I would imagine. The member for Essendon is just a dynamo. Ms Williams: He will still be wearing his blue suit. Mr J BULL: He will still be wearing the blue suit, member for Dandenong; will he ever. The blue suit will be fit and firing in 50 years time. These projects are setting this state up for the future. They should be universally supported. There should be no disagreement about building the Suburban Rail Loop. There should be no disagreement about the airport rail link. There should be no disagreement about investing in schools, hospitals and the things that matter. This is what this government has set out to do over the past four years, and we will continue to do so in this term and, if we are given the opportunity, in the next term—and in 50 years time when the member for Essendon is still here. This is an important piece of legislation. It streamlines the process and it allows utilities to be dealt with earlier on in the cycle of design. It will certainly go a long way to ensuring that this government’s record investment in infrastructure, local services and the things that matter to the lives of local families and Victorian communities right across the state are delivered in a manner that is supported by the Victorian community. I commend the bill to the house. Mr FOWLES (Burwood) (15:10): It is my absolute pleasure to follow the member for Sunbury in making a contribution on the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Amendment Bill 2019. This bill is

BILLS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1209 not in and of itself particularly exciting. These are ultimately administrative arrangements that we are changing. I will tell you what is exciting, and that is the unbelievable pipeline of projects that this bill supports. These changes are important because the projects are very, very important. These are projects that were endorsed resoundingly on 24 November last year. In addressing some of these matters, and as I say, they are of an administrative character, it is about making sure that we can deliver these programs—these major projects, the huge pieces of city-changing infrastructure—in a way that is efficient. As we know, when we go underground there are lots and lots of intersection points with utilities, be it phone, be it water, be it electricity, be it gas—there are lots and lots of intersection points. It is a testament to this government’s forward thinking that we have not taken the easy road on these things; we have taken the city-changing option of putting a lot of this key infrastructure underground. The government is to be commended for that absolutely. These amendments remove the requirement for project areas to be determined before you actually go and talk to the utility providers. That is a very sensible amendment, because it means that you can efficiently deal—once you know the basic corridor for a piece of infrastructure—with those utility providers to ensure that you can get an economically efficient outcome but also improve the overall outcome of the project. I was pleased just recently to spend a bit of time on the route of the north-east link; I spent a bit of time with some of my colleagues looking at that project. The north-east link project is a major transport project under the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009, but it is also captured by these amendments. It is a really important project, as you will know, for your community, Acting Speaker Carbines, because there are a number of very congested points right along the breadth of that corridor. It was interesting to me as we traversed the corridor just seeing the amount of power lines crossing the corridor and clearly big pieces of infrastructure next to or in the corridor which are going to need to be relocated. Under this bill we will be able to get on with the job of getting those utilities relocations sorted before we actually start work on the tunnel proper. I think it is relevant to talk about what happens when you do not get utilities relocation right. You do not need to look too far to find examples, because north of the Murray they are having their own little drama with a few pieces of utilities relocation. There is the light rail linking the south-east of Sydney with the CBD built by the Berejiklian government—which still has two days to run. The Berejiklian government has managed to turn a $1.2 billion— Mr T Smith: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I ask about the relevance of mentioning the Berejiklian government in New South Wales when discussing a Victorian act of Parliament. Mr FOWLES: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, this bill is about utilities relocations. My comments are about utilities relocations. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Carbines): It has been a wideranging debate, and I would ask the member for Burwood to continue. I do not uphold the point of order at this stage. Mr FOWLES: The Berejiklian government, in undertaking utilities relocations, which is the subject matter of this bill, managed to foul it up, as it turns out. I will tell you why it is important to get utilities relocations right, and it is this: that project started its life as a $1.6 billion project— Mr Taylor interjected. Mr FOWLES: You will be staggered to learn, member for Bayswater, that it is now a $3 billion project. It has been crippled by litigation. That litigation hinges on, wait for it, utilities relocations. So because the Berejiklian government—48 hours to go; they will soon be done— Mr T Smith: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the excitable member for Burwood continues to talk about the New South Wales government. I would ask you to return him to talking about Victorian legislation in the Victorian Parliament.

BILLS 1210 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Carbines): It is okay for the member to make comparisons in the wideranging debate that I have chaired so far. I will ask the member for Burwood to continue. Mr FOWLES: It is a comparison indeed, because when you compare the approach taken by governments in other jurisdictions to utilities relocations—like the Berejiklian government—you will find that their approach to this has resulted in an absolute mess. This project has been crippled by litigation. The amount the project builder is suing the Berejiklian government for is $1.2 billion, because they fouled up—grossly fouled up—the Ausgrid wires replacement, which forms an absolutely critical part of this project. Whilst the member for Kew is getting very vexed about my references to governments in other jurisdictions, the reality is we can always learn things from governments in other jurisdictions. We can always learn things, but frankly right now the learning that should be going on is the learning by those opposite about how you spell out and then deliver a city-changing package of infrastructure projects. You spell it out, you make it clear, you take it to the people, you get resoundingly endorsed and then you go and get things done. We are not just getting them done, we are doing them well. No more comparison is required than to the project being fouled up, absolutely destroying the CBD of Sydney and hastening that city’s great decline into being Australia’s third city—behind Melbourne and Wodonga, I think. The Suburban Rail Loop is another project that will be a great beneficiary of these changes. The subterranean works that are occurring as part of the north-east link and will occur as part of the Suburban Rail Loop are complicated works, undoubtedly. They do intersect critical utilities infrastructure at numerous points. The reality is that these changes will assist those projects. They are important projects. They are city-changing projects, and right in the heart of my electorate of Burwood we are likely to have Deakin station as part of the Suburban Rail Loop. That will put the people of Burwood just minutes away from critical health infrastructure like Monash hospital and Box Hill Hospital. It will put them just minutes away from universities like Monash University and La Trobe University at Bundoora and link those great institutions, and it will put them just minutes away from a city connection as well. You will be able to go from Deakin Burwood to Box Hill station, transfer and go right to Richmond station. That brings me to the start of the AFL season. The Suburban Rail Loop will ensure that the people of Burwood can get to the great game we know and love, Australian Rules football, which kicks off with great excitement tonight. I can assure the Melbourne supporters in this place—not many of them on my side of the house as it turns out—that we are going to have a terrific year of AFL football right across the competition. The ability of the people of Burwood to get to those games will be radically improved by the delivery of the Suburban Rail Loop, a critical piece of infrastructure—a game-changing piece of infrastructure. Some members have made comments in this place and tried to run debt and deficit scare tactics around some of these very, very important works. That is myopic. It is short-sighted, because there is a vast difference between debt used to fund infrastructure as opposed to debt used to mop up deficit. The reality is that this is a government that is running a AAA budget—a surplus budget—and it is using debt judiciously, cleverly and sensibly to fund critical infrastructure projects, like the projects I have been referring to. Any project we can deliver quicker is better. Delays are the enemy of good project outcomes. We accept that good projects take time—the West Gate Bridge did, the Great Ocean Road did, the Snowy River scheme did. They do take time, but these are terrific projects that will be assisted by these very sensible amendments, and I commend the bill to the house. Ms HALFPENNY (Thomastown) (15:20): I rise also to talk about the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Amendment Bill 2019. As previous speakers have said, this is a piece of legislation that is really about trying to improve some of the processes involved in major projects to make them easier and more streamlined so that they are undertaken in the quickest possible way and to ensure that utility companies work with the government so that major projects are delivered in a timely manner without

BILLS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1211 the hold-ups we have seen with a lot of projects when it comes to issues around utility supply— connection, reconnection and so on. This legislation deals with the process under which a major project is undertaken. First of all there has to be a business case and then there are feasibility studies and the scoping of the work, there are planning phases and so on. Under current legislation it is often not until pretty well all of the planning is done, up to the stage of being shovel-ready, that utility companies are engaged and negotiations start around when, how and what utilities are underground or overhead, what needs to be moved, what needs to be gone around and so on. But if the work were incorporated in the planning stage rather than afterwards, then things could be planned in such a way as to minimise disruption to the various connections for power, water and so on, and therefore the work could be undertaken more quickly. There would not be the same delays as those we have often seen in the past. It will be part of a seamless process without things having to be redeveloped when certain things have already happened and are in place. I know this legislation is really for those projects that are declared major projects—things like the Melbourne Metro Tunnel and regional rail, those really large projects—but I think the concept is the same across all projects. I would like to talk a little bit about the Thomastown electorate and a project that residents in the Thomastown electorate think is a really major project, even though it is not designated as such—and that is, the O’Herns Road project, which involves a diamond interchange onto the Hume Freeway and the duplication of O’Herns Road. Of course we have seen the first stage already done, the removal of the roundabout at Epping Road and O’Herns Road and replacing it with traffic lights. When we talk about this legislation it really shows the initiative, the drive and the will of the Labor government to ensure that these major infrastructure projects are done as quickly as possible and as seamlessly as possible, with everything working together so there are no delays, there are no overruns and there are no extra costs. These issues also occur with projects that are not declared as major. As I said, to the residents the O’Herns Road project is major, but it is not major in terms of the legislation. This is a good example of why we need this legislation. The O’Herns Road project was an election commitment by the Labor Party in 2014, and it is still not completed. We still have not duplicated O’Herns Road and we still do not have the diamond interchange onto the Hume Freeway. There have been problems. For example, six power poles needed to be removed or moved. Two days were allocated for that but only four of the power poles could be removed, and that meant the power company went away saying, ‘Look, you will have to rebook’—and we will have to wait another three months. That caused delays to the project while everyone sat around with not a lot to do until those poles were removed. The problem continues and the project extends further and further out. At the moment we are waiting for environmental approvals from the federal government around the habitat for the growling grass frog. I have to say that while these things do cause a lot of frustration and hold-ups to some of the construction in the area, it was with a great sense of hope that I found, when I was researching another piece of legislation being debated in this house, that the growling grass frog is no longer endangered; it is only now being threatened to be endangered. It shows that these processes actually work and that we are saving our native flora and fauna. But sometimes it causes frustration when projects are held up. I do not think it is the frog to blame in this case; I think it is the federal government, because there has been an agreement reached on how to deal with the natural habitat to ensure that both frogs and the golden sun moth are protected. But now when the state government has asked for agreement on early works, including putting a bond in place, they have been told, ‘No, that is not possible No works can start until the full thing has been agreed’, which includes, I think, acquiring something like 60 hectares of land as an offset. Of course that is not something you can do overnight. That takes some time, and this is holding up that project, to the anger and frustration of so many residents in the local area.

BILLS 1212 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019

In terms of these issues around power companies and the real need, as with this legislation, to ensure they are brought in at the earliest possible time, I will just give some examples. When we found out there were problems with O’Herns Road and also with some of our smaller projects, I found some examples of what has been going on in Victoria, in the suburbs, around VicRoads projects and in particular utility companies. I will give you some examples. The Childs Road–Dalton Road intersection, which is in Thomastown, was only the replacement of a roundabout with traffic lights. The intersection reached completion at the end of August 2017, including the issuing of a certificate of electrical safety (CES), but there was then a four to six-week period for connection works to be completed. The lights would only be functional through the use of an onsite generator from 15 September, so there had to be a little shed constructed with a portable generator just to keep those lights going for something like six weeks while the power was being connected. Another example was pedestrian-operated signals in King Street, Melbourne. A point of supply was requested at the time of the traffic signal plan development in the usual way. There was an application for power after the request for electrical works, and the CES was submitted in October 2016, but the final power was not provided until September 2017. Yet another example is Smith Street between Keele and Rose streets in Fitzroy—again, pedestrian-operated signals. It was all done by August 2016, and final power approval was not given until August 2017. So really this legislation is the government responding to the public interest, the needs of Victorians, to ensure that when the major projects are done—and the government is pushing to get them done as quickly as possible, on time and on budget—there are not other things outside of the control of government, because we know that government does not have the same sort of regulatory powers over power companies as if they were government owned. Of course we know who to thank for that—that was the Kennett government, the Liberal government, many years ago. These are some of the problems that continue to happen on the roads that are not considered or deemed to be major projects, but obviously the same issues would occur on the major projects, and it is really good to see that there is legislation to ensure that they can be averted into the future and that these projects can be organised to be done right on time. In terms of this piece of legislation, I am really proud to be part of a Labor government that really is thinking outside the box in many ways, accepting far-reaching and fundamental legislative reform and also looking at the very practical ways that things can be done better in the state of Victoria. Mr CHEESEMAN (South Barwon) (15:30): It is with some pride that I rise this afternoon to speak on the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Amendment Bill 2019. At the Victorian election just recently the Victorian community sent a very powerful message to this place that they wanted to see a government getting on with building the infrastructure this state needs. That is what we took to the community at the last election—a very strong plan to build the infrastructure that our state needs to support a growing community, a growing population and a growing economy. We have not only record investment in our road projects and the removal of our level crossings, but we also have massive investment in our rail network. In order for us to deliver these projects in an efficient and effective way we need to have some further reform—and this bill does this—to ensure that we can plan for the removal of utilities when they are in the way. Often, as we would all be aware, the infrastructure that has been built in this state has been in place for a very long time. To put in additional passing loops for our rail networks, to duplicate track or indeed to remove level crossings often we have to remove utilities that are in place. This bill sets out a clear process, when it is a major project, to ensure that that can be done in an effective and efficient way. I listened very closely to the previous contribution. Whilst I very much disagree with the privatisation of our utilities, which the Kennett government did, it is very disappointing that at that time they did not put in place the arrangements to ensure that we could as a government, as a Parliament, be able to invest in the infrastructure that this need state needs and be able to do it in a way that sees cooperation

BILLS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1213 from our utilities providers. I know, as a member of Parliament and as someone who has been interested in the civic affairs of Geelong for a long time—as many others are of course interested in their own communities—that often with projects that have been delivered by VicRoads or other bodies there are utility hold-ups, such as hold-ups in having electricity connected or having mains electricity moved to facilitate a project. That is why this bill is so important. As I said at my commencement, this government has a very strong plan to deliver the infrastructure that this state needs. Of course, with the election having just gone, we have a very strong agenda that builds on the hard work of the Andrews team between 2014 and 2018. I am very pleased to say that in the Geelong area we have made significant commitments to build the infrastructure we need. My community, the growth corridor of Geelong, is growing rapidly, and we are making the investments to make that community a very sustainable community. In order to do that we have committed to massive investments in our rail line. Many people might be aware that for some of Geelong during peak hour we deliver, as a government, a 10-minute service. That is fantastic, but of course the southern suburbs of Geelong at this stage do not have that service, and there is a very clear reason why: historically the investments have not been made to ensure that we have the infrastructure in place to enable people to access 10-minute services. We have a very strong plan, and that plan locally goes to the duplication of the rail line between the main Geelong station, which services the CBD of Geelong, and Waurn Ponds. This is a very large project, and we have some commitments of support from the commonwealth but at this stage not enough commitments. We of course want to see not only that rail line duplicated; we want to see the Waurn Ponds train station have an additional platform and additional car parking put in. We also want to see a new rail line created to Armstrong Creek. These projects are of course complex, they are expensive and they do require detailed planning around the removal of our electricity assets predominantly. We have of course other authorities that may from time to time have infrastructure that might be in the way of some of these assets. Barwon Water would be an example, as would our other water authorities. Having said that though, because our water authorities are effectively controlled by the executive of government, it does mean that we have the necessary capacity to work with our water authorities to remove their assets and replace them to enable that infrastructure spend to be undertaken. But unfortunately in Victoria we have much less capacity to be able to influence our electricity companies to remove their power lines, their assets, when they are in the way. This bill, I think, ensures that those utility companies are involved early on in the scoping out of the work that is required so that we can have those assets removed in a timely way so that we do not have unnecessary hold-ups with Victoria’s very, very substantial Big Build program. I just want to briefly touch on some of the major investments that we are making in terms of the road network in my community. As I said earlier, Armstrong Creek is a growing community, a community that will eventually see some 50 000 residents located between the southernmost Geelong suburb of Grovedale and the Surf Coast community of Torquay. We have roads that have serviced that geographic location for a long time, though having said that, with all of that influx of additional people into that area we need to make some very substantial investments into our road network. What we have committed to doing is duplicating the Barwon Heads Road, which will be the eastern main arterial of that community. We need to duplicate it so that that road has additional capacity to carry traffic. In committing to duplicate that particular road, we have also committed to removing the level crossing located on Barwon Heads Road. As I mentioned earlier, we are also duplicating that train line. These are complicated, complex projects. Not only will a number of different authorities of the state of Victoria be managing them but we will also have significant private-sector contractors building and delivering that infrastructure. Right now I am aware that in numerous locations we have different utilities that cross either the rail line or indeed the road. We need to ensure that we have consideration for what those utilities are and what that infrastructure is, how it interacts with the rail line and how it interacts with the road network and then bring those utilities into those conversations early so that we do not have unnecessary delays in the delivery of that infrastructure. I know my community wants to see a government that is not only going to deliver these projects, which of course we are committed to

BILLS 1214 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019 doing, but it is going to deliver them in a timely way, because when you have such a massive building agenda—not only in my patch but across Victoria—that does create some necessary disruption to people’s lives. I commend the bill. Ms WILLIAMS (Dandenong—Minister for Prevention of Family Violence, Minister for Women, Minister for Youth) (15:40): I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. Ordered that debate be adjourned later this day. AUDIT AMENDMENT BILL 2018 Second reading Debate resumed on motion of Ms HENNESSY: That this bill be now read a second time. Mr WELLS (Rowville) (15:40): I rise to speak on the Audit Amendment Bill 2018. It must be one of those great bills because, as I look around the house, I can see how many people are here, absolutely riveted to listen to debate on the Audit Amendment Bill. But this is a very important bill because it amends an act that the Parliament and the people of Victoria use to hold the government to account. This bill was introduced into the Parliament in the last term of Parliament. Although it passed through the Legislative Assembly with the support of all parties, it unfortunately got caught in the logjam in the Legislative Council, and as a result of the election it is now being reintroduced now. To start with, the reason why we are at this point is that concerns were raised by stakeholders, the Auditor-General and the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, that the act needed to be updated because it was difficult to navigate and it was operationally challenging. What that actually means is that when people tried to read the act they had to keep referring to other sections for something to be clear and operational. When you have to start looking at other acts in order to interpret part of an existing act, it becomes very, very difficult. So when I became the shadow Special Minister of State, we looked at this bill. Obviously when you have concerns raised by the Auditor-General and the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, you take great note. I have great respect for the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, having been on it twice, I think. Looking at how the public accounts system works, you have the ability, when in opposition, to hold the government to account—that is, after the budget is brought down there is a very good system in place where ministers come before the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee and have to explain the expenditure within the current budget. That raises some concerns. It gives information to the public about why the government is spending money in a particular area. It is also a great way of being able to hold the government to account from an opposition point of view, because if the government has made a number of election promises, then what is in the budget is able to be reconciled with the election promise and what the minister is advertising or what the minister is in a position to explain to the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, so it is a great way to line up election commitments with what is actually in the budget. Sometimes election commitments are made over three or four years, and it is a great way for the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee to be able to track that through to make sure election commitments are being delivered. There were a number of concerns raised by the Auditor-General and by the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee. One of the great reports, I maintain, of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, was presented some years ago and was suggested by a former Treasurer, Tony Sheehan. It was in the area of environmental accounting and reporting. That was one of the great committee reports, and it is a great tribute to Tony Sheehan for suggesting that and putting it forward so we can look at the environmental

BILLS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1215 and reporting costs of developing a mine or developing industry and hold an industry to account in regard to damage or cost that it is doing to the environment. On this bill, when we checked with the Auditor-General’s office and when we had a great briefing by the government—we thank the minister responsible for providing a detailed briefing; we are very appreciative of that—we learned there are no changes from what was introduced in the previous Parliament and the bill that is now before us. The only changes are to proposed new section 8(4) of the Audit Act 1994, which has been updated to refer to the financial year just past for the purpose of calculating the threshold amount, and the change to the commencement date, obviously, from 1 January 2019 to 1 July 2019. We certainly have no issues with that. Some of the other changes being put forward in the bill will clarify the Auditor-General’s jurisdiction and improve consistency with other integrity bodies and key legislation. The bill simplifies the current definition of ‘authority’ in the Audit Act by replacing this term with the more widely used term ‘public body’. The bill aligns the Auditor-General’s mandate with that of other integrity bodies and key legislation such as the Public Administration Act 2004. The bill also allows the Auditor-General to conduct assurance reviews. I think assurance reviews are a very good accounting tool for accountants, auditors and especially the Auditor-General to use. Accounting standards, as I said, can provide for an assurance review. It is an alternative to a full audit. If there are concerns about a particular part of a public body, the Auditor-General can go into that organisation and conduct an assurance review—that is, a shorter type of audit—to make sure that what is expected from the public body from an integrity point of view is actually happening in accounting terms. The ability for the Auditor-General to do a number of assurance reviews rather than just one very large audit has significant benefits, because you may find that four out of five assurance reviews come back all positive, but if an assurance review comes back and there are inconsistencies within that assurance review, then a larger audit can be implemented to ensure that the assurance review did not just pick up a one-off inconsistency, which some auditors would accept. If it is a systemic issue, obviously the Auditor-General would have the authority, based on the information and evidence from the assurance review, to do a full-blown audit. The other issue is in regard to the production of documents, including cabinet material. There has always been that issue about whether cabinet-in-confidence documents are available to the Auditor- General or not. This bill clarifies these powers by providing that the Auditor-General may gather evidence that is relevant to the function that they are performing and the head of Department of Premier and Cabinet determines whether the documentation will be released to the Auditor-General. The head of DPC determines whether the information or the documentation that is classified commercial-in-confidence—or in the case of cabinet, cabinet-in-confidence—can be released. We did ask in the briefing whether there would or could be a situation where the head of Department of Premier and Cabinet says, ‘No, these documents will not be available to the Auditor-General’, but the Auditor-General then says, ‘We do believe that the cabinet-in-confidence documents are crucial to a particular investigation’, whether it be a major project or a service contract. What would happen if the Auditor-General is determined to get the documentation and the head of DPC is determined not to release the documentation? The advice that we have received is that it may end up as an issue in the courts. Maybe when the minister is summing up the debate on this bill we could actually have clarification around that particular point, because I could not see any other way around it other than it being a court issue if you have a clash of interpretation between the Auditor-General and the head of DPC in relation to cabinet-in-confidence documents. The bill also quite rightly extends the Auditor- General’s existing powers to override confidentiality obligations when exercising their information- gathering powers, which include obligations under contract. Whether you are in government or whether you are in opposition, the request for documentation and information is always an interesting one, because it is very easy for government to claim it is commercial-in-confidence. But this bill clarifies that the Auditor-General can actually override that confidentiality obligation and can request

BILLS 1216 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019 that documentation, which will form part of the audit that they will perform and at least they will have all the documentation available to them and not be excluded from that. The other issue in regard to the bill and the main points that need to be clarified is the power to enter and inspect premises. This is the follow-the-dollar power. It is something I have personally had a great interest in, having been on a previous Public Accounts and Estimates Committee. The follow-the- dollar power has been a consistent push by the Auditor-General, whether the current one or previous ones, and it is something that I strongly support. But there is some difficulty when you talk about follow-the-dollar power: when the Auditor-General—and I am just clarifying, I do strongly support this point—does go into a building, do they go in with the power to investigate only the issue that they intend to? So, for example, if a company is building a government road, do they go in and just look at and claim documents for that particular road, and what happens in their audit process or their inspection of the premises if they find other documentation? This has always been a difficult position, a difficult area, when we have been talking about follow-the-dollar powers. What happens if inadvertently, whilst they are in there looking at documents for a specific reason and that was their intention for entering the premises, they do find other documentation? So we do need more clarity around that particular part. We should say from the outset that we are supporting this bill. We are not just not opposing, we are actually supporting this bill. Its intent and the fact that the Auditor-General and the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee actually have made these recommendations is the reason why we are supporting it. So whilst I am raising some points around the clarity of it, the fact is that the house should be informed that we are actually supporting this bill. The point we are making is around the issue of entering the premises—we have no issue with that. Our issue is with what information they can actually find and whether it is going to be restricted to a specific government project. For example, hypothetically, if the government is building a dam and a road and rail network, and the Auditor-General moves in to look at information surrounding, for example, the road, but they do find documentation about the dam and the public transport system, do they have the ability to claim that documentation as well? That is something we would seek clarity around when the minister is summing up. The follow-the-dollar power, we believe, is a very good move forward for the Auditor-General and is something that, as I said earlier, has been requested by a number of Auditors-General over the years. The work that the Auditor-General does is something that is respected by Parliament and the general public. The other point is on the information that the Auditor-General can share with other bodies, and that makes sense. We do not have any issues with that. It would be done under the legislation: that is, if the other statutory bodies or integrity bodies in this state are requesting information, then the Auditor-General can assess that information and then make a determination. The bill actually broadens the range of bodies and persons with whom the Auditor-General can share information to include ministers, public bodies, statutory officeholders, integrity bodies, law enforcement agencies and other associated entities. The Auditor-General will not be permitted to share information that is cabinet-in-confidence or subject to statutory secrecy and confidentiality obligations, and we support that. If the Auditor-General is going to receive cabinet-in-confidence documents, then we would expect that those documents would only be used for his or her purposes for that particular audit and that those documents would not be shared with others. We understand that. For example, if IBAC or the Ombudsman is looking for documentation, then they should be able to make an application to have that document released and not rely on the Auditor-General releasing that documentation, because they should not have the ability or the authority to be able to release that. I note that one of the other amendments this bill makes requires annual financial audits of the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, which are an ongoing issue, and performance audits of the Auditor-General and VAGO at least once every four years, and that those changes align with the four-year electoral term and reduce the administrative burden on VAGO. I think I might have been on the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee at the time when we were trying to overlap the performance audits so it

BILLS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1217 actually was deliberately over two different terms of government, whether it be two terms of a Labor government, two terms of a Liberal government or a Liberal and a Labor government, but we have no issue in regards to aligning it with a parliamentary term. They are the main amendments that are in this particular bill. Then we look at the work that the Auditor-General has done. This is important. There is always great excitement in regard to the release of an audit report. Some are more interesting than others. But the issue that I want to talk about is the one that coincidentally affects my electorate very greatly, and that is the east–west link. It is interesting to follow this particular story. It is interesting to see the work by VAGO and its interest in the east–west link contract. We remember quite clearly in the run-up to the 2014 election when the headline in the Herald Sun on 30 September was ‘East West Link contracts are not binding, says Daniel Andrews’. The article reads: Opposition Leader Daniel Andrews has stuck with his promise not to build the East West Link if he wins the November 29 election. It goes on to say:

Mr Andrews disputed whether the contracts signed by the Government with the winning consortium yesterday were legally binding. “There is nothing to walk away from, be very clear about this, the contracts are not worth the paper they’re written on,” Mr Andrews said. “This is not a legally binding contract.” Mr Andrews said he could not discuss compensation clauses without further information from the Government about what was included in the deal. “We haven’t seen the business case and we won’t, we haven’t seen these, what’s called a contract, these alleged contracts, and we won’t.” Despite this he said there could be “some modest compensation”. His comments come in the wake of Victorian taxpayers discovering they will pay $2 billion towards the construction of the first stage of the controversial East West Link project. So that was pretty clear. Then you go to what the Auditor-General said. There were two parts to what the Auditor-General said; there were two concerns about it. One was how much the actual compensation was. The other part was the actual treatment of the amount of compensation being paid and the amount of money that was being paid to the state from the federal government. So in regard to the Auditor-General’s Report on the Annual Financial Report on the State of Victoria, 2014–15, it is interesting to note what the Auditor-General said. The Auditor-General issued a qualified audit opinion on the AFR on 30 October 2015. The qualification related to two areas: the absence of an expense and a liability to recognise the obligation to return the east–west link project funds, and an inability to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence for property, plant, equipment assets at the Department of Education and Training. A copy of the opinion is in appendix 8, which will not be a track I will head down. But under ‘2.2.1 East West Link project’ the Auditor-General says: At 30 June 2015, the state had an obligation to repay the $1.5 billion received from the Commonwealth Government for the EWL project. However, the AFR did not recognise an expense and provision for this obligation. We do not agree with this omission. That is something that the Auditor-General was saying—that he did not agree with this omission. In 2013–14, the Commonwealth Government paid $1.5 billion to Victoria as part of a $3.0 billion contribution to the EWL project. This money was correctly accounted for as revenue in that year in accordance with Australian Accounting Standard AASB 1004 Contributions. Following the state election in November 2014, the EWL project was cancelled. A memorandum of understanding … for the project, signed by both the Commonwealth Government and the state, and the Nation Building Program … under which the money was provided, both detailed what was to occur if the EWL project was cancelled. Specifically, if the project was cancelled in its entirety, any payment

BILLS 1218 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019

made on it would be repayable to the Commonwealth Government. Alternatively, the Commonwealth could withhold future funding for the state for other projects to the same amount. On 12 May 2015, the Commonwealth Government wrote to the Minister for Public Transport and the Minister for Roads and Road Safety requesting the return of all funding previously paid to Victoria for the EWL project. In addition, the Commonwealth accounted for the return of the funding in its 2015–16 Budget. So in other words the state government had it in their budget but the federal government wrote to the state government saying, ‘We want the money back’, and based on those letters they were able to account for that in their budget in 2015–16. So you had two budgets, federal and state, both claiming to have the money. So one was incorrect. If you actually give the money to an entity, in this case the state government, saying ‘We’ll give you the money if you build this, but if you don’t build it then we want the money back’, that would be it. Mr Angus interjected. Mr WELLS: And the member for Forest Hill, being a very good auditor in his day, would strongly agree. So, the auditor went on to say: The cancellation of the EWL project, and a formal request from the Commonwealth Government for the repayment of the funds, means that at 30 June 2015 the state had an obligation to repay the funding. That is what the Auditor-General said.

The correct accounting treatment would have been to recognise an expense, and corresponding liability, for $1.5 billion at that time. Australian Accounting Standard AASB 1004 … requires that a liability and an expense be recorded where the conditions of a grant will not be met and the funds are required to be returned. The recognition of a liability in the form of a provision for the return of the funds would also satisfy the requirements of AASB 137 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets. By not recording the $1.5 billion expense and the associated provision as a liability, the State of Victoria and the general government sector’s net result from transactions is overstated— what a surprise— and liabilities in the balance sheet are understated— another great surprise. Mr Angus: Dodgy. Mr WELLS: Dodgy.

This means that the net result from transactions for the general government sector would change from a surplus to a loss of $286 million … So there may have been that extra incentive to include that $1.5 billion in the budget. They were heading for a massive loss, but the use of that $1.5 billion actually meant that they were able to record a surplus, propped up by a questionable accounting treatment of the $1.5 billion. This would see the government not achieve its key financial measure of having a net resulting transaction of at least $100 million surplus. The issue also resulted in a qualified audit opinion being issued on the financial statement for the year ending 30 June 2015 of the Department of Treasury and Finance (DTF). While the Treasurer has consistently stated the money will not be returned to the commonwealth, this intention does not negate the requirement under the Australian accounting standards to recognise the obligation to return the money. Subsequent to year end, the commonwealth government indicated that it would allow—on a without prejudice basis and under certain specified conditions—the state to treat the funding as a prepayment to fund the commonwealth government’s future commitments to other projects. DTF has sought legal advice, which concluded that the state did not have the present obligation to return the funds. Therefore there was no requirement under the Australian accounting standards to recognise the liability and corresponding expense. This is interesting. DTF’s legal adviser also sought accounting advice in preparing their advice to DTF.

It is our opinion—

BILLS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1219 this is the Auditor-General’s opinion— that an expense, and corresponding liability, should be recognised; a present obligation was created when the Victorian Government discontinued the EWL project and the Commonwealth Government requested the funding to be returned, as set out in the MoU and the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Act 2009. In our view— in the Auditor-General’s view— this satisfies the broader accounting definitions of a contract and, consequently, an obligation for financial reporting purposes exists at 30 June 2015. This is important. One of the key qualitative characteristics of financial reporting is that transactions and balances are to be accounted for or based on substance over legal form. The legal view of the transaction does not override or determine the accounting treatment of the transaction. Our position on the correct accounting treatment for the east–west project funding has been confirmed by pre-eminent independent accounting experts. So it might be a fat lot of good bringing in all the experts from a legal point of view, since it is the accounting experts that need to determine the accounting standards. In other words, DTF tried absolutely everything they possibly could to get the legal advice to be able to prove that what the government was doing was correct, but the Auditor-General, quite rightly, looked at the accounting standards, determined the accounting standards and even got accounting experts to say that the treatment of the grant had to be repaid. If it was not being repaid then it had to be treated as a liability. As I have explained, as part of the Auditor-General’s report, that would have meant that had the expense been treated as an expense, it would have meant that the government would have had a loss of $286 million, but with the $1.5 billion they were actually able to turn that into a surplus. In regard to the amount of money that the east–west link cost, we remember that in the run-up to the November 2014 election the then opposition leader, now Premier, made it very clear that the east– west contract was not binding and was not worth the paper it was written on. So let us just see what the Auditor-General said on 9 December 2015 in his report to Parliament. I will skip down a couple of paragraphs. This is Dr Peter Frost, the then Acting Auditor-General. He says the audit also found the east–west project: … was terminated in June 2015 with more than $1.1 billion paid, or expected to be paid, by the state … This cost includes expenditure on the planning, development, procurement and termination of the project and will be partially offset by future proceeds from the sale of properties acquired for the project which the Department of Treasury & Finance estimates at $320 million. So we have a situation where the Auditor-General, doing what the Auditor-General does, had two significant issues. The first issue was the commonwealth government and the treatment of that $1.5 billion to the state and the state not wanting to return that money, and the second issue that the Auditor-General had was in regard to the cost of the termination of the project. The opposition leader then, the now Premier, was saying that it was not going to cost one dollar, but the Auditor-General found it was $1.1 billion. Can you imagine people around the world wanting to invest in Melbourne, saying, ‘You spend $1.1 billion not to build a road—$1.1 billion not to build a road?’. A member: It would be finished by now. Mr WELLS: Who’s that? Member for where? The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Rowville, do not respond to interjections. The member for Lara! Mr WELLS: Thank you, I had forgotten he was the member for Lara. Sorry about that. But $1.1 billion not to build a road is an absolutely ridiculous situation. Had we started when the previous Napthine government wanted to start, it would probably have been built by now. It will have to be

BILLS 1220 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019 built at some stage and the cost of it is going to be significant. The fact is we are not going to be able to get the $1.1 billion back. On that point, can I just say that the Audit Amendment Bill 2018 has the support of the opposition and we appreciate the work that the Auditor-General does. Mr PEARSON (Essendon) (16:10): I am absolutely thrilled and delighted to be given the opportunity to speak on the Audit Amendment Bill 2018. This is a fantastic piece of legislation. I do want to commend the Special Minister of State for the work he has undertaken in relation to this matter. Now, the member for Rowville did cover off on a few matters. There is one substantive matter I would like to address that the member raised, which hopefully might assist the opposition as they assess the merits of this bill as it goes to the other place. This related to right of entry in relation to follow-the-dollar powers. I am advised that the policy intent is that the Auditor-General will be able to access premises of a private entity carrying out public services or functions to the extent that entity is an associated entity under the legislation, and their premises are assessed by the Auditor-General as being used solely or predominantly for the public service or function. This includes public services or functions such as building a road for the state. The limitation on the types of premises that can be accessed by the Auditor- General is designed to be a safeguard to ensure that the Auditor-General cannot, for example, access premises of a private entity that are not directly related to an audit such as a law firm or a consultancy advising a public body on a PPP. The Victorian Auditor-General’s Office advised during consultation on the development of the bill that it is anticipated that the Auditor-General will rarely need to coercively exercise his power of entry and inspection. VAGO advised that they anticipated the Auditor-General will more likely seek inspecting premises with the consent of the owner or occupier. The bill contains more safeguards in relation to the powers to enter and inspect premises compared to other jurisdictions. Hopefully that addresses the member’s concerns. The member raised the issue of accountancy standards. These are indeed important. I draw the house’s attention to the annual financial report (AFR) for 2012–13, which recorded a surplus of $316.4 million. However, after that AFR was released, the accountancy standards changed. I draw the house’s attention to accounting standard AASB 119, which related to defined benefit superannuation benefits expenses. When you changed the accountancy standard, what you saw was that you did not have a surplus in the general government sector for 2012–13; you actually had a deficit of $316.4 million. This did not have anything to do with the government at the time. It was not recorded as a budget deficit in the true sense that we would know it. But you changed the accountancy standard and the way in which you treated the superannuation liability. That resulted in a budget deficit. The member for Rowville will be delighted. I do not believe he was the Treasurer at the time, so the Leader of the Opposition can carry the can for that. Nonetheless, you changed the accountancy standards and you have these treatments, and therefore it changes. This is an absolute cracker of a bill. I can say this from my experience as the former chair of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC), which was a singular pleasure of mine in the 58th Parliament. It is a joy to be able to serve on the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee. You are given insights into and have visibility of various nooks and crannies within the general government sector, the public non-financial corporations sector and the public financial corporations sector. It is an absolute joy. I must commend the current Auditor-General on the way in which he has embarked upon his journey as the state’s Auditor-General. He has brought a reformist zeal as an approach, and he is looking very carefully at the way in which he can discharge his functions and duties. Given the way that the bill is crafted, it is bringing the Audit Act 1994 into the 21st century. It has been extensively consulted on and looked at, and it has resulted in a really good dialogue engagement between the office of the Special Minister of State with the Auditor-General and VAGO to try and get that balance right, to try and make sure that we get the checks and balances right.

BILLS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1221

An example is that traditionally the Auditor-General has produced 25 performance audits on an annual basis. What this bill enables VAGO and the Auditor-General to do is to provide assurance reviews. For the benefit of the house, a performance audit is usually quite a lengthy and engaged engagement. They tend to be fairly extensive exercises and quite exhaustive. They are relatively expensive. I think probably the average cost for a performance audit might be in the order of half a million dollars. It is to go narrow and deep into an area of public policy. There is a long lead time. The Auditor-General and VAGO will signal their intention. In a particular financial year they will do a performance audit of a particular area of public policy. I draw the house’s attention to the distinction between performance audits and financial audits. Performance audits relate to the way in which an entity discharges its obligations and duties as an entity. It might, for example, be the rollout of information and communications technology, it might be hospital waiting lists and it could be in relation to the way in which the landfill levy is administered—so those broader policy issues. Financial audits are a far more benign instrument. They are just to make sure that there is a fair and reasonable expenditure of public moneys and to make sure that you are not looking at theft, malfeasance or malpractice. The wonderful thing about the assurance review is that it provides a nimble tool by which VAGO can look at and inquire into particular issues. Those reviews are targeted, small scale and time sensitive, and they will have a lower level of risk engagement. They will provide an opportunity, as an issue erupts or emerges, for the Auditor-General to be able to go in and make these inquiries without having to go through the arduous process of putting it in the annual plan, which is provided to the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee for noting and for review, and for that to be tabled. This enables them to act on matters quickly and swiftly. In order to get the checks and balances right, there will be a requirement for these assurance reviews to be provided to the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee on a quarterly basis. This will be quite useful from the point of view of freeing up VAGO to be able to go narrowly and deeply into issues that are of concern, but it will make sure that the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee continues to be engaged. The great honour of being a member of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee is that your colleagues, members of this place and the other place, elevate you to that role. You are required to discharge a duty on behalf of both houses of Parliament in the way in which public money is spent and to manage that relationship on behalf of the Parliament with the Auditor-General. This is a really important point, because you want to make sure that you have got the separation of the office of the Auditor-General from the executive arm of government, but there is a need to make sure that you have got the ability to provide a degree of oversight, a light-handed approach to the way in which the office of the Auditor-General discharge their functions. As we saw in the 58th Parliament, when there are allegations of inappropriate behaviour there is an ability for a body to conduct an investigation. In the case of the 58th Parliament, that was done by the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee. The bill will also make some changes in relation to financial audits and performance audits of the office itself. Again this is a really important function. You look at every four years appointing an accountancy firm which will conduct annual reviews of the way in which VAGO spend public money, making sure that they are behaving fairly and appropriately. But you also conduct a performance audit every four years. I certainly was very pleased with the work that KPMG did in relation to the performance audit of the office. That is a way in which you can try to make sure that VAGO are adopting good practices, that they are conducting themselves well and that they have got a degree of insight as to what is happening in the land of audit—that wonderful land that exists beyond the columns of the Parliament—and that what they are doing actually makes sense, is fair and reasonable and is best practice. It is wonderful to be given this opportunity to speak on this bill. I absolutely loved my time on PAEC. I commend the Special Minister of State for bringing forward this landmark bill. Mr Angus interjected.

BILLS 1222 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019

Mr PEARSON: Am I going back on? No. But nonetheless, it was a joy to be there; it was an absolute joy to be there. Mr Angus interjected. Mr PEARSON: I serve at the pleasure of the Parliament, member for Forest Hill. I think that PAEC is a really great institution. This is a really important piece of legislation. It is long overdue and I commend the bill to the house. Mr D O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (16:20): It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the Audit Amendment Bill 2018. I feel a little bit overwhelmed to be responding after hearing the member for Rowville talking about his excitement about audit reports and the member for Essendon bringing in numbers of—what were you talking about? Mr Pearson: Accountancy standards. Mr D O’BRIEN: Thank you, accountancy standards. It was one of the better contributions you have made. I am only disappointed that the school group that had come in to listen was not around for the entire debate. A member interjected. Mr D O’BRIEN: They were RMIT people from the Labor Party, I believe. Even they were bored. I should not be flippant about this because it is very important, but it is what we might in the general public sphere call the boring but important stuff. I do acknowledge the member for Essendon, who has now just left the chamber. I did enjoy in the last four years on the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee working with him as the chair. I think he did a very good job as the chair. It was quite collegial most of the time, although last year, given the sittings schedule, sitting here in Melbourne for seven weeks in a row with Parliament and estimates did stretch the friendship with the other members of the committee—but also at home, I might add. But anyway, unlike the member for Essendon and the member for Rowville and others, I will be saddling up again, I believe, for the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC) this year and this term. I do look forward to it. It is a good committee, one that does a very important job for the Parliament and the people of Victoria and, from a personal perspective, one that gives a member of Parliament a very good overview of what is going on in Parliament—a helicopter view, if you like— and therefore it is good. With respect to the Audit Amendment Bill 2018, I thank the member for Essendon for the clarification that he gave the Manager of Opposition Business on the matter of rights of entry. That was appreciated. I think that sort of interaction in debate does not happen enough, and I thank the member for Essendon for answering that question. He said he hoped that it would help the opposition take its position forward going into the upper house. Well, our position is clear on this bill, and that is that we support it. That is for a number of reasons—not just because it is boring but important but because it is strongly supported by the Auditor-General. The opposition is very keen to ensure that we maintain the independence of the Auditor-General and support him as much as possible. The Manager of Opposition Business talked about some of the audit reports, and he mentioned comments of the Auditor-General on the east–west link accounting issue with respect to the federal money that came in. I remember being on the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee—I think it was the outcomes hearings—and asking the Secretary of the Department of Treasury and Finance how it was that the department and the government thought it was completely okay to simply reallocate $1.5 billion from the federal government that was earmarked for the east–west link to other projects and indeed bank it and not issue it as a liability even though the Labor government had decided not to go ahead with that project. The explanation was, ‘Well, there was an agreement, we terminated that agreement and therefore the money no longer needed to go to that purpose’. I was astounded by the

BILLS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1223 answer. The Manager of Opposition Business went into this at some length, but I remember thinking at the time, if I had an agreement with the bank for a home loan of, say, $500 000 to build a new house and then I decided, ‘I’m not going to build a new house; I’m going to buy six yachts instead’, I do not think the bank would be okay with that, and indeed the commonwealth government was not okay with that when it came to the funding for the east–west link. Neither was the Auditor-General at the time, and that was pointed out in his qualification of the state budget papers. That is a very good example, I guess, of where the Auditor-General’s work is important. The Auditor-General does do a lot of good work right across the spectrum of government business. The member for Essendon gave us that clarification on the issue of rights of entry, and I thank him for that. I am reminded of a report by the Auditor-General in 2015 on biosecurity and livestock looking at the issues with livestock. I digress for a moment, but on that issue of biosecurity and rights of entry, my constituents in Gippsland are very concerned about the growing incidence of farm invasions by extreme animal activists. Most particularly they are angry at the light sentences or the lack of sentences handed out to people who illegally trespass on farms and put biosecurity at risk. In some cases they have been illegally entering and stealing livestock in the name of some misguided veganism. In particular a recent case of an invasion at the Yarragon goat farm yielded a $1 fine for the removal of electronic ID tags. The biosecurity perspective was what got people very angry, and quite rightly the Weekly Times described it as a joke. This is not okay. This activity has to stop, and the government— the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Police and Emergency Services—must take a lead in ensuring that this activity stops, that the law is fully enforced— Mr Eren: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I think the current member on his feet, in relation to the bill, is way beyond the bill and has strayed really far away from the bill. I hesitate to do this, but he should come back and talk on this very important bill, which is to do with the audit. Mr Wells: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, I think the member for South Gippsland is giving an example of areas that the Auditor-General can investigate. I went through a number of issues where the Auditor-General can investigate—for example, the east–west link—and the member for Gippsland South is giving an example of an area where the Auditor-General may decide himself to investigate. So I think it is a fair point. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the member has strayed a little bit, and I would like to see the correlation between what he is speaking on and the bill. Please come back to speaking on the bill. Mr D O’BRIEN: I indeed was speaking, as I said, directly in relation to parts of the bill with respect to the powers of entry that the member for Essendon clarified for us earlier, but as directed, I will come back to the other issues in this bill. As I said earlier, the Auditor-General strongly supports this bill. I mentioned too my time on PAEC. I found the Auditor-General a very professional person, and I think he has done a good job with the office, which had been through somewhat of a challenging time. I think while we strongly support this legislation—I note that the Auditor-General does too and has encouraged members to support it; that is good—we also need to get the balance right. Parliament cannot simply hand over powers to, particularly, independent officers or any government agencies— whether it is police, whether it is security agencies—just because they ask for it. But in this case we are certainly happy to support it. The bill, as has been mentioned, outlines a number of changes. They are not material changes but largely clarifications, including that right of entry issue that I discussed. The appointments of an acting Auditor- General, a deputy Auditor-General and the office of the Auditor-General’s staff are allowed under the principal act with the amendments through this bill. The bill clarifies how audits may be conducted, including the manner in which they will deal with matters of confidentiality. It contains new provisions allowing the Auditor-General to conduct assurance reviews. The Manager of Opposition Business went to some length explaining how the wider community will benefit from doing those assurance reviews, which are a bit more limited in scope than full audits but provide the office with an alternative mechanism to make more targeted, faster and efficient reviews than full audits.

BILLS 1224 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019

I mentioned the powers of entry again that have been clarified for us. There are elevated penalties for various obstructions of an audit. There is a legislated ability to share information with other jurisdictions. I note that the Auditors-General that I have dealt with and the officers in the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office have done very well in collaborating with other jurisdictions, both the commonwealth and the other states and territories; that is something that is certainly to be applauded and welcomed. There are no particular areas of concern in this bill, and the opposition is happy to support its passage. Mr CARBINES (Ivanhoe) (16:30): I am pleased to make a contribution on the Audit Amendment Bill 2018. In particular I thought that we should perhaps cover some earlier ground and set the context around the value of the role of the Auditor-General; a role which is well-respected on the side of the house. What I want to recall in setting the scene here about some of the work that is outlined in this bill is particularly in relation to the opposition and the opportunities they had when they were in government and to understand how they treated people such as the office of the Auditor-General. We would remember that back in 1997—there are certainly people here who would—Ches Baragwanath was the Auditor-General when the Kennett government sought to set up Audit Victoria. We understand when they sought to do that it was clearly seen by the Victorian public as a way to nobble the powers of the Auditor-General. Of course he sought to hold the Kennett government, a previous coalition government, to account. They chose to try to set up Audit Victoria and undermine the independent office of Auditor-General. Of course there was an uproar in the community in relation to those matters, and not just in the community but also from coalition MPs at the time. We recall that a former member, Roger Pescott, resigned from Parliament, such was his disgust at his government’s attempt at nobbling the then Auditor-General, Ches Baragwanath. Of course that by-election in Mitcham was won by the Labor opposition, at that time led by a man who would become Premier, a former member for Broadmeadows, John Brumby. That goes right to the heart of what we are talking about today, which is standing up for the integrity of the Auditor-General and their office. We know from history that when the coalition has had the opportunity to oversee these officers they have sought to nobble them, they have sought to undermine them and they have not respected them. What is important to understand about the Audit Amendment Bill 2018 in particular is what are the consequences when we do not respect the auditing practices here in the Parliament of Victoria, if we do not respect the office of the Auditor-General? Further to the point I am making, what happens when the Parliament undermines the integrity of the office, or seeks to do that, or governments seek to do that when they are under scrutiny and under pressure by the independent officers set up by this Parliament? What happens? We have seen examples of it. A very clear example of it was the Intergraph royal commission set up by the Bracks Labor government in response to the disgraceful behaviour of a previous coalition government in relation to its attempt to nobble the Auditor-General with Audit Victoria, which they sought to set up. That led to a by-election caused by one of their own MPs resigning, and it was a by- election that set the Labor opposition at that time on the path to government. What we saw with that disgraceful behaviour—when the Auditor-General’s office was trying to look at that previous coalition government, who were seeking to privatise and sell public assets—was that you need an Auditor- General’s office that can scrutinise those decisions to see whether taxpayers are getting full value, to see whether there is any conflict in these sorts of matters being pursued by the government of the day. What we saw with the Intergraph affair, and the royal commission that came out of that, were some very significant findings. I want to touch on those because this is what happens when you undermine the role and the office of the Auditor-General. Tanya Nolan, 28 November 2001, in her PM program on the ABC, and I quote:

BILLS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1225

A Royal Commission into Victoria's ambulance system today found the company behind the Ambulance Emergency Dispatch Service illegally made phantom calls to boost its performance for financial gain. That is exactly what happened. That is what the royal commission found. The 1200-page report says that Intergraph engaged in illegal conduct to improve its statistics for 000 call response times. That is what happens when you seek to nobble the Auditor-General and that office. What happens then is you have coalition governments that then seek to privatise aspects of service delivery in this state. Little side deals—we know how those things come to pass, by not having parliamentary scrutiny or the independent office of the Auditor-General to scrutinise those matters because you are seeking to nobble his powers by setting up Audit Victoria. We find that contracts are let to private companies to provide public services like 000 response times and calls, and we find that they are making phantom calls and dodgy statistics all to try and get greater payments from the taxpayer and the government for a service that was clearly not being provided adequately or appropriately. That led to a royal commission. It is not surprising that once again at the election that has just passed ambulance services and ambulance performance were at the heart of why people chose to reaffirm the re-election of our government. Mr Angus: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I just call your attention to relevance. I do not think the member has really touched on the bill at all. He is giving us a bit of a history lesson, but I think it is about time he came and talked on the bill. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There have been a few members who strayed far and wide from what is a very narrow bill. I do encourage the member to return to speaking on the bill. Mr CARBINES: Thank you for your guidance, Deputy Speaker. I feel I can leave it there. I think I made a very clear case for what happens when some governments choose to nobble the powers, the integrity and the authority of the independent office of the Auditor-General. A case in point is the Intergraph royal commission and what leads to these issues when you do not have an independent office of the Auditor-General to audit, assess and hold governments to account. Further on the Audit Amendment Bill 2018, and some of the aspects that I think we should touch on in the remaining few minutes that I have, I particularly want to touch on some key points. Of course the bill does restructure and modernise the Audit Act 1994 to make it more accessible, effective and efficient for the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO) and audit entities. It clarifies the Auditor- General’s jurisdiction, better aligning it with the jurisdiction of other integrity bodies. It of course allows the Auditor-General to conduct assurance reviews of authorities in targeted and low-risk contexts and to report to Parliament on these reviews. Further, it strengthens and modernises the Auditor-General’s information-gathering and disclosure powers, including providing the Auditor-General with the power to enter and inspect premises for the purposes of an audit, subject to appropriate safeguards. People have asked me to come back to some of these matters. Just clarifying, I think it is an important matter that the Auditor-General may override confidentiality obligations under contracts, where requiring information or documents be produced subject to appropriate safeguards. They are some of the important aspects of the detail of some of the proposals in the bill. Further to some of that, I want to touch on the fact that the bill allows the Auditor-General, in more detail, to undertake these assurance reviews of public bodies and to report to Parliament on those reviews, which I know is important to all members. But particularly public bodies and associated entities will not be consulted as extensively on reviews. The bill provides several safeguards, which I think are important to outline to the house. There is a requirement that the Auditor-General perform assurance reviews in accordance with Australian auditing standards and report to the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee on these reviews. There

BILLS 1226 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019 is also a prohibition against the Auditor-General exercising the proposed power to enter and inspect premises for an assurance review. I think they are some matters that are commendable in the bill. Further, the bill does strengthen the Auditor-General’s information-gathering and disclosure powers, and in particular there are some other safeguards in relation to that. There are restrictions and offences that will apply to prevent inappropriate disclosure or publication of confidential information by VAGO. Also a person providing information or documentation in compliance with the act will not be subject to any civil legal proceedings as a result of complying with it. So they are some of the other safeguard aspects that are important to cover off. At the moment of course the Auditor-General can require the production of any document, including cabinet material, for any function they are performing, even if not directly relevant or necessary for the function that they are performing. In my concluding remarks I have sought to outline to the house what can happen when governments do not respect the independent office of the Auditor-General and when they seek to legislate contrary to best practice in relation to providing that independent oversight and accountability of governments and the Parliament. An example of what can happen when those issues are not taken seriously, as we saw, is the Intergraph royal commission. (Time expired) Mr RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (16:40): It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Audit Amendment Bill 2018 and to follow my colleagues the members for Ivanhoe and Essendon, who gave different perspectives on why the Auditor-General’s powers and this bill are so important. It goes to the heart of the Andrews Labor government’s strengthening of our integrity and oversight bodies. It comes on the back of the work that we have done in relation to the Independent Broad-based Anti- corruption Commission, which I was on the parliamentary committee for with the member for Rowville, the lead speaker for the opposition, and also now the work we are doing with the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO). This bill is modernising the practices of the Auditor-General. Just as with the amendments to the bills that affect the IBAC Commissioner’s remit, there has been consultation. The bill has been widely canvassed and it underpins the work of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee in acquitting those recommendations and responsibilities of investigating VAGO’s remit. I was very interested to hear the contribution of the member for Rowville and the comments about the east–west link. It is some 1700 days later, but we are still seeing this come up in the Parliament—the 59th Parliament. There were a number of sections that the member for Rowville raised, and if we are talking about accountability and auditing and the important work that the Auditor-General does, there were various points raised and referred to that go to the heart of the integrity of the Auditor-General. Back at the end of December 2015 the Auditor-General’s office, in their release of their overview of the east–west link project, soundly talked about the fact that: The audit found that the EWL business case did not provide a sound basis for the government’s decision to commit to the investment and that key decisions during the project planning, development and procurement phases were driven by an overriding sense of urgency to sign the contract before the November 2014 state election. That goes to the heart of the work that our auditing bodies do and the fearless and frank advice they provide. The government of the time in the 57th Parliament was driven by their own agenda and not by the best interests of the Victorian taxpayer and the constituents that we all serve in this place. It goes on to say that:

Advice to government in the lead up to signing the contract did not sufficiently assess the benefits of delaying contract signing to mitigate risks posed by the unresolved legal challenge to the project planning approval decision. Signing the contract in these circumstances was imprudent and exposed the state to significant cost and risk. When you have a conclusion like that on that project, when you have a business case that talks about the dollar-for-dollar losses that we would make over the project’s lifetime, you then see the important functions of getting to the truth of the issue. That is where our auditing authorities are so very critical.

BILLS Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1227

No-one can refute the evidence that was laid before the Parliament when this report was handed down about how rushed this process was and how substantially bad the outcome would have been if we had proceeded with it. That advice comes from having strong institutions. It comes from having very clear support for our auditing authorities. I think the member for Ivanhoe summed up the Labor government’s approach to supporting the Auditor-General’s functions, and how sometimes through history that has been undermined. We should be proud of our institutions and the work that is done in auditing in Victoria and the system of governance and overview that we have. The Victorian Auditor- General, or its reincarnations through time, is one of the longest serving and oldest institutions for public sector accountability, going back to 1851. It is an extraordinarily proud thing that all Victorians can have confidence in this office that has been running for nearly 200 years. For an extraordinary amount of time the Auditor-General or its derivatives have been providing that trust and confidence to Victorians with frank and fearless advice. Sometimes that comes at the expense of government goodwill and fortune in the electorate, but it is an important function and we need to strengthen, bolster and modernise the processes—and that is what this bill does. It gets to the heart of modernising the Audit Act 1994 after a couple of decades in operation, and it does so based on current settings and circumstances in a modern digital world. I think about some of the things that have been reflected on and talked about by others in this place. In particular the ability to enter premises in this space is really important. That is a very limited power if you go through how it will be applied. The bill strengthens and increases that power and remit and provides the necessary safeguards. While maintaining that it should be of last resort, it requires procedural fairness and obligations, five business days notice and the protection of privacy of occupiers. It will be an infrequent, if not rare, power, but if various companies or bodies are interacting with significant government contracts there is an ability to not restrict that important auditing function. What I am really interested in—and I think this is a really sound amendment—is the assurance reviews. One thing we have found, which is a synergy with the IBAC Commissioner’s remit as well, is just how long these investigations and processes take. The member for Essendon and former chair of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee said that the reviews and investigations number about 25 per year. Given the substantial state budget of more than $70 billion each year now, that represents a significant amount of public funds and there needs to be accountability in our system of government. Whether it is monitoring and auditing our bureaucracy or government performance or a range of different service providers in education, health, transport—the works—there is a very important role there. So 25 reports is a huge amount of work to undertake and to provide to the Parliament, but I am sure that more could be done. Those assurance reviews provide the flexibility to allow the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office to do more immediate and pressing inquiries or reviews, not to the point of calling a formal review but going through those processes and procedures and practices to really make those assessments. I think that is a really sound and sensible change. While others have reflected that this bill might be a bit dry, I disagree with that summation. I think it gets to the heart of the respect and the trust placed in the Westminster system, in our system of government and the separation of powers and how important the integrity regime is for Victorians and then more broadly. When you look at the suite of integrity systems that we have in our state, from the Auditor-General’s office, the Ombudsman’s office to the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, we have a high level of transparency and auditing that is required of government and of members of Parliament. I think that is a really important principle. We can contrast that to the federal example where they do not have that system-wide approach. One thing that is greatly lacking is an overarching federal independent anti-corruption commission. There is a gaping hole in the protection of Australian taxpayer resources. That will be corrected in the future, hopefully if the Morrison government sees sense to implement that, or the incoming Labor government implements that higher integrity standard. We need all those suites of powers and tools to give Victorians the confidence and trust in their institutions and in the system. Some of those reports

BILLS 1228 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019 and reviews have been critical. My constituents are always interested in the performance of our hospitals and our school sector, local government, and across the board. That is so critical. It is a very important bill. While some have reflected that it might be a bit dry, the member for Rowville got to 30 minutes on it. He gave a blistering defence again of the east–west link, despite missing the fact that two-thirds of the findings on the east–west link were very problematic and rushed and undermined the trust that Victorians place in us. This audit bill is very critical to the trust and integrity of our system. I commend the bill to the house. Mr EREN (Lara) (16:50): Following the very intelligent contributions from this side I join with the wonderful members who have made such great contributions in relation to how important this audit bill is. I am speaking on the Audit Amendment Bill 2018, and I join with my colleagues in highlighting the importance of bills such as this. I think it is important to understand that hardworking Victorians expect that their governments expend their money in an appropriate way. That is why through elections we take to the people, so to speak, how we will expand their hard-earned dollars in terms of the taxes they pay to ensure they get a government they deserve. Of course the Auditor-General does a great job in making sure we expend the money in a way that is obviously appropriate. The Andrews Labor government—this side of the house, the newly elected second-term government—is very conscious of the fact that we need to be open, transparent and accountable. We are all accountable to the people who vote governments in. We have a bill before the house that is so important, and I want to take issue with some of the comments made by the member for Rowville in relation to the east–west link. We made it very clear that we had an alternative proposal, which was to remove those dangerous railway level crossings. We went to the election with what was almost a mandate. The opposition took the east–west link to the election and of course we took an alternative view in relation to what the expectation of the community was. Certainly when you consider that we won the election, the east–west link issue should not have dragged on. The member for Rowville thinks it is still an important issue after losing two elections on the very important issue of public transport and road infrastructure. This bill has been consulted on with a wide range of stakeholders. It is the wish of the Auditor-General to have more and stronger powers to ensure that the office can investigate appropriately how we expend as governments, regardless of the colour of the government, the hard-earned taxpayer dollars, and therefore this bill before the house is a very important one. Some of the reforms that will take place include streamlining the Auditor-General’s follow-the-dollar powers to ensure that they can better scrutinise the use of public funds given to non-government bodies, which is so important. It will better clarify the Auditor-General’s jurisdiction over public sector bodies to bring it into line with Victoria’s other integrity agencies, providing new powers to the Auditor-General as requested. This is a great bill. I know the opposition is supporting it. We wish it a speedy passage through the upper house. It is fantastic to see that such an open, transparent government as the Andrews Labor government is getting on with making Victoria an even better place. Mr CARROLL (Niddrie—Minister for Crime Prevention, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice, Minister for Victim Support) (16:54): I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day.

COMMITTEES Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1229

Committees PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES Membership Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure) (16:54): By leave, I move:

(1) Ms Allan, Ms Hennessy, Mr Merlino, Mr Pakula, Mr Smith (Warrandyte), Mr Walsh and Mr Wells be members of the Dispute Resolution Committee. (2) Ms Addison, Mr Blackwood, Ms Connolly, Mr Eren, Mr Rowswell, Ms Ryan and Ms Theophanous be members of the Economy and Infrastructure Standing Committee. (3) Mr Cheeseman, Mr Fowles, Ms Green, Mr Hamer, Mr McCurdy, Mr Morris and Mr Smith (Kew) be members of the Environment and Planning Standing Committee. (4) Mr Bull (Gippsland East), Ms Crugnale, Ms Edwards, Mr Fregon, Ms Sandell and Ms Staley be members of the House Committee. (5) Mr Halse, Mr McGhie, Mr Rowswell, Mr Taylor and Mr Wells be members of the Integrity and Oversight Committee. (6) Ms Couzens, Ms Kealy, Mr Newbury, Ms Settle, Ms Suleyman, Mr Tak and Mr Tilley be members of the Legal and Social Issues Standing Committee. (7) A select committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon complaints of breach of privilege referred to it by the house, right of reply applications referred under SO 227 and any other matter referred to it by the house; and Ms Allan, Mr Guy, Ms Hennessy, Mr McGuire, Mr Morris, Ms Neville, Mr Pakula, Ms Ryan and Mr Wells be members of the Privileges Committee. (8) Mr Hibbins, Mr Maas, Mr O’Brien (Gippsland South), Ms Richards, Mr Richardson, Mr Riordan and Ms Vallence be members of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee. (9) A select committee be appointed to consider and report upon the standing orders and practices of the house; and the Speaker, Ms Allan, Ms Edwards, Ms Halfpenny, Ms McLeish, Ms Sheed, Mr Staikos, Ms Staley and Mr Walsh be members of the Standing Orders Committee. Mr WELLS (Rowville) (16:56): We understand with the negotiations that have been going on for a couple of weeks now that we have not been able to reach agreement on the Electoral Matters Committee— The SPEAKER: I might come back to the Manager of Opposition Business. Does the Leader of the House wish to address the motion? Ms Allan: No. Mr WELLS: I just make the point that we obviously agreed to all the Assembly committees and the joint committees. The one committee that is outstanding is the Electoral Matters Committee. I am hoping that can be resolved by budget day and that we can implement it on budget day or thereabouts to ensure that the electoral matters joint committee gets up and running. Motion agreed to. Bills AUDIT AMENDMENT BILL 2018 Second reading Debate resumed on motion of Ms HENNESSY: That this bill be now read a second time. Mr STAIKOS (Bentleigh) (16:57): It is such a great and unexpected honour to speak on the Audit Amendment Bill 2018. It is going to be my greatest performance in this chamber yet. It is a bill that acquits the government’s commitment to the former Auditor-General to rewrite and modernise the

BILLS 1230 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019

Audit Act 1994 to make it more accessible, more efficient and more effective. The bill will improve the Audit Act to ensure that the Auditor-General can effectively audit the expenditure of public funds and performance of public sector activities while setting out clear, effective rights and obligations for audited entities. The bill also addresses concerns about the Audit Act raised by the Auditor-General and other key stakeholders in response to the government’s discussion paper on the role of the Auditor- General released in early 2016, another step in how this government is all for more transparency, more integrity in Victoria and Victorian government administration. The bill delivers reforms that include restructuring and modernising the Audit Act to make it more accessible, effective and efficient for the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office and audited entities; clarifying the Auditor-General’s jurisdiction and better aligning it with the jurisdiction of other integrity bodies; allowing the Auditor-General to conduct assurance reviews of authorities in targeted and low-risk contexts and to report to Parliament on these reviews; strengthening and modernising the Auditor-General’s information gathering and disclosure powers, including providing the Auditor- General with the power to enter and inspect premises for the purposes of an audit subject to appropriate safeguards; clarifying that the Auditor-General may override confidentiality obligations under contracts when requiring information or documents— Ms McLeish: On a point of order, Speaker, I think I am saving the member for Bentleigh here, but I did notice that the member for Burwood was out of order as he passed in front of the table. The SPEAKER: Order! I did not notice that occurrence, but I do remind members not to pass in front of members speaking. However, the time set down for consideration of items on the government business program has arrived, and I am required to interrupt business. Motion agreed to. Read second time. Third reading Motion agreed to. Read third time. The SPEAKER: The bill will now be sent to the Legislative Council and their agreement requested. OPEN COURTS AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL 2019 Second reading Debate resumed on motion of Ms HENNESSY: That this bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Read second time. Third reading Motion agreed to. Read third time. The SPEAKER: The bill will now be sent to the Legislative Council and their agreement requested.

ADJOURNMENT Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1231

ESSENTIAL SERVICES COMMISSION AMENDMENT (GOVERNANCE, PROCEDURAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPROVEMENTS) BILL 2019 Second reading Debate resumed on motion of Mr SCOTT: That this bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Read second time. Third reading Motion agreed to. Read third time. The SPEAKER: The bill will now be sent to the Legislative Council and their agreement requested. MAJOR TRANSPORT PROJECTS FACILITATION AMENDMENT BILL 2019 Second reading Debate resumed on motion of Ms ALLAN: That this bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Read second time. Third reading Motion agreed to. Read third time. The SPEAKER: The bill will now be sent to the Legislative Council and their agreement requested. Business interrupted under sessional orders. Mr Wells: On a point of order, Speaker, yesterday we had a situation where a member of Parliament was able to quote words which were unparliamentary. You quite rightly gave a ruling just before the adjournment last night. The question is now—and I seek your guidance and your ruling—that on pages 105 and 106 of the daily Hansard those words still remain. I understand that they are a quote. There was a misunderstanding and there has been an apology, but what now happens to the record of Hansard with that unparliamentary language? The SPEAKER: I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for raising that point of order. From a Presiding Officer’s point of view, changes to the record of the Parliament are quite a serious matter and obviously something that I would have to seek advice on from the manager of Hansard and the clerks, and I will do that and report back to the house. Adjournment The SPEAKER: The question is: That the house now adjourns.

MANSFIELD SECONDARY COLLEGE SPORTS STADIUM Ms McLEISH (Eildon) (17:02): (408) My adjournment matter today is for the Minister for Education, and the action that I seek is for the minister to provide the required funding so that the

ADJOURNMENT 1232 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019 stadium being built as part of stage 2 of the Mansfield Secondary College modernisation project include an additional court. It needs to be a dual-court stadium; it needs to meet tournament standards for basketball. The stadium that is currently proposed will not meet those standards, and this is a great concern to the town. It is seen as a wasted opportunity. No doubt the minister’s attention would have been drawn to this critical sporting infrastructure need, which is very strongly supported by the community, during his very recent visit to the secondary college. The minister should be in no doubt that I have been a passionate advocate for the redevelopment of Mansfield Secondary College. I have spoken about the redevelopment in this Parliament on eight separate occasions since 2014. Prior to the recent election the coalition committed $3.5 million and the government also showed support for the project. When a member for Northern Victoria Region in the Council who is now the Minister for Regional Development visited the school, she was quoted as saying:

It’s a no-brainer for your community … I’m confident about this. The cost needs to be determined … But we are right behind it—our job is to push it. My opponent at the election said: If we are around—which I’m hoping we will be—we will stick with this project. So the government is on the record as having given support for this project, but the funding needs to be provided now, not in 12 months. We cannot allow the stadium to be completed and then to try and do an add-on. Mansfield itself is a growth pocket. The town’s population is expected to reach 10 000 by 2031. There is increasing demand for indoor court spaces across the town’s schools and local sporting groups. Basketball is a rapidly growing, year-round sport in Mansfield with more than 350 playing members registered across 12 months of competition. The current design for the school’s gymnasium does not meet training and competition standards. A full stadium will be able to provide opportunity for a range of educational and community users, not just limited to sport. The Mansfield indoor sports stadium will be able to cater for school events and community functions. It will be a place for sport and recreation, teaching and learning, and community health and wellbeing. The community use for the facility is well supported, and typically that has been the basis for a policy to be adopted by government. It makes sense for us to continue with this approach. Supporting the project now makes total sense, and I urge the minister to get on board and support the Mansfield community. SUBURBAN RAIL LOOP Mr FOWLES (Burwood) (17:05): (409) My adjournment matter is directed to the Minister for Transport Infrastructure. The action I seek is for the minister to update the house on the importance of the Suburban Rail Loop in improving Melbourne’s connectivity and in providing flexibility for where our citizens work and live. The Andrews Labor government has set out the most ambitious infrastructure plan in Melbourne’s history with record investment across our public transport and road networks—record investment, needed investment and in many cases overdue investment. Our plan will create 21st century infrastructure for the best city on earth, and the Suburban Rail Loop is a key piece of the puzzle. For my electorate of Burwood the Suburban Rail Loop will be critical in allowing residents the flexibility to travel to all corners of Melbourne quickly and efficiently. No-one should have to move house for a job on the other side of the city if they do not want to. Indeed physical mobility oils the engine of social mobility and inclusion. We can only ever expect citizens to make transport decisions using the same criteria they have always used: convenience and affordability. This project delivers in spades on both

ADJOURNMENT Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1233 measures. The most convenient way to get from Burwood to the city—the cheapest way to get from Burwood to the city—rail; and the cheapest way to get from Burwood to the airport—rail. The Suburban Rail Loop is a big and ambitious project, even for this ambitious government. But our track record of delivering on promises and getting things done speaks for itself. Victorians have resoundingly endorsed the Andrews Labor government’s plans for a Suburban Rail Loop, and I am proud to say we will deliver it. I thank the minister for her commitment to this project and look forward to her response. HIGH STREET ROAD–FONTEYN DRIVE, WANTIRNA SOUTH Mr WAKELING (Ferntree Gully) (17:07): (410) The matter I wish to raise on the adjournment is for the Minister for Roads and Minister for Road Safety and the TAC. The action that I am seeking is for the minister to request that VicRoads investigate the intersection of Fonteyn Drive and High Street Road in Wantirna South and to identify what potential solutions can be provided to upgrade and improve this intersection. I have been contacted by residents in Wantirna South who access this intersection via Fonteyn Drive and they are deeply concerned about the current state of the intersection. They believe the intersection is both badly designed and very dangerous. Fonteyn Drive intersects with High Street Road, which at that point is an 80-kilometre-per-hour dual- lane road. It is located adjacent to a very busy strip shopping centre. There is an adjacent pedestrian crossing. Nearby there is a petrol station, and it is also near the entrance to EastLink and Stud Road. Also in the morning and the afternoon it is heavily congested due to Waverley Christian College parents dropping off and picking up their children. In addition to that, there is significant through traffic that comes down High Street Road from Boronia. It is a major through road, and it is certainly a very busy intersection. Traffic banks up on both sides of High Street Road, making it almost impossible during peak hours for residents to exit from Fonteyn Drive onto High Street Road. Residents have identified various solutions that could be considered. This includes the painting of keep clear signs at the intersection, the potential removal of the current pedestrian crossing on High Street Road and replacing it with traffic lights at Fonteyn Drive, and potentially looking at a reduction in the speed limit from the current 80 kilometres an hour. It is imperative that the government takes action to investigate this intersection. It is important for my residents in Wantirna South, who have identified concerns about the current operation and effectiveness of this intersection. The action I am seeking is for the minister to instruct VicRoads to take action by requesting that VicRoads investigate the intersection and identify potential solutions to improve the safety of residents who are entering or exiting Fonteyn Drive to enter or exit High Street Road. MACEDON ELECTORATE SCHOOLS Ms THOMAS (Macedon) (17:10): (411) The matter I wish to raise is for the attention of the Deputy Premier and Minister for Education, and the action I seek is that the minister join me in my electorate to officially open one or all of the major school upgrades that are nearing completion. The Andrews Labor government has worked hard to make Victoria the Education State, and I am proud to be part of a government that has made major investments in schools in my electorate a priority. Indeed the Andrews Labor government has invested more than $53 million already in schools in my electorate. Minister, you visited Daylesford Secondary College back in 2015 to announce $10 million for the school. It would be great to have you back to see how the school has been transformed, with a new music room, new science and technology facilities, a new resources and learning centre, and a refurbished VCE centre. Education in Kyneton has been revitalised by this government. I drive past the secondary college nearly every day, and while the years 7 and 8 learning centre is now complete, I am still enjoying watching the training and innovation hub come to life. Minister, you have been to the school many times, but you would be welcome again to see the hub in action. Another project nearing completion is at Woodend Primary School. At Woodend the refurbishment and conversion of the

ADJOURNMENT 1234 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019 multipurpose room to a physical education facility, the construction of a new music centre and extensive redevelopment and landscaping works in the outdoor areas have revamped the education spaces. Minister, I look forward to welcoming you to my electorate. You will be warmly welcomed by teachers and students, who I know look forward to showing you how these new facilities are transforming education in my electorate. WASTE AND RECYCLING MANAGEMENT Mr NEWBURY (Brighton) (17:11): (412) My adjournment matter this afternoon is for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, and the action I seek is for the minister to provide a written update to me on what concrete plans the state government has to deal with Victoria’s recycling future. As you know, there has been a recycling crisis gripping Victoria. The clock started ticking when China decided that it would no longer accept our recyclable waste. Despite the increasing urgency, we did little at a state level to develop infrastructure and prepare ourselves for the inevitable crunch. That crunch hit in February. In February the stockpiles of recyclable material became dire. As a result the government authority charged with environment protection ordered that recyclable stock be thrown into general landfill. Victorians are champions of sustainability. That is why it is a national disgrace that the state government has sat on its hands and done little to develop infrastructure that could support the sustainability of recyclables. As at 12 March, I am advised, Port Phillip council had diverted almost 658 tonnes of recyclables to landfill at a cost of $79 000. Elwood, which falls into Port Phillip council, is part of my electorate. Elwood residents are incredibly concerned about the environment and are leaders in sustainability matters. The remainder of my electorate falls into Bayside council. Although they are not affected, I understand that Bayside currently collects, on average, 210 tonnes of recyclables per week. With the landfill levy at $64.30 per tonne, a similar diversion would cost Bayside approximately $13 500 per week. In addition to the landfill levy, fees of $18 000 per week would also be payable by Bayside to dispose of recyclables to landfill. Residents across my electorate are overwhelmingly frustrated by the recycling crisis. They want to know how we as a state will get ourselves out of this mess. I am yet to hear a whimper from the government that sounds even remotely like a solution. Residents in my community want to know that their policymakers value sustainability. Residents constantly ask me what the government is doing to invest in waste-to-energy technologies. They have also asked me repeatedly why the Premier has trialled initiatives in other policy areas but does not support trialling environmental policies, like a container deposit scheme, that would help sustain our environment. These are valid questions from my constituents. Some $500 million has been paid by Victorian households and businesses as a bin tax to increase recycling and reduce waste to landfill—money that just sits in the government’s bank account. It is time to do something. It is time to move forward and plan for a sustainable future. I look forward to the minister’s response. STRATHAIRD FAMILY AND COMMUNITY CENTRE Mr MAAS (Narre Warren South) (17:14): (413) The adjournment matter I wish to raise is for the attention of the Minister for Local Government and concerns the Strathaird Family and Community Centre redevelopment. The action I seek is that the minister join me for the opening of the centre in Narre Warren South on 27 March. The Strathaird Family and Community Centre redevelopment will create additional space for kindergarten children and expanded maternal health facilities. This is much needed as population growth in our community continues. The Andrews Labor government contributed $1.4 million

ADJOURNMENT Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1235 towards this project. This investment, through the Growing Suburbs Fund, means $7.74 million has been contributed across seven projects in the area. The expansion of the community centre will increase the number of four-year-old kindergarten places from 90 to 135, providing more opportunities for families to access their local family and community centre. The centre will also offer more services, such as first-time parent groups, dads programs, sleep settling groups and a playgroup too. It will gain a new, large multipurpose room with modern audiovisual equipment, a brand-new courtyard and a much-needed kitchen. On the afternoon of 27 March the redevelopment of the Strathaird Family and Community Centre will be officially opened. I hopefully look forward to the Minister for Local Government coming to Narre Warren South to attend the event with me. GIPPSLAND COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP PROGRAMS Mr NORTHE (Morwell) (17:16): (414) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Regional Development in the other place. The action I seek is for the minister to provide $11 million in funding over the next four years to ensure that regional community leadership programs can continue to be delivered across regional Victoria, and that includes the very successful Gippsland Community Leadership Program (GCLP) in my electorate. In 2015 the government announced that they would provide funding for four years for regional leadership programs. Obviously it is 2019 now, and I understand there is no news on further funding for these programs. In my own electorate in the Gippsland region the Gippsland Community Leadership Program is Australia’s longest running community leadership program. It was established in 1996. It is currently auspiced by the Committee for Gippsland, and that was in response to some substantial change in our region, particularly in the industry sector back at that time with the privatisation of the SEC et cetera. Importantly, the GCLP is supported and funded by the Gippsland community, whether that is through corporate assistance, business assistance, external foundations, local government, scholarships or in-kind support. It is important to remember that it is not only funded by the state government through Regional Development Victoria but also supported substantially by the community. It provides mentorship for future leaders to improve leadership outcomes right across the Gippsland region through education, exchanging ideas and opportunities to participate in various community forums. All the applications are vetted and interviews completed, and an evaluation of the potential participant’s ability to contribute to the course is conducted. It is recognised as an immensely beneficial program, and those participants speak so highly of the program. In fact I have not had one person say to me that the GCLP has not been of great benefit. In the Gippsland region there have been over 550 graduates of the program, and there have been 3700 overall across the state. From a Gippsland perspective Ken Lay, the former Chief Commissioner of Police, undertook GCLP. Current Senator in the federal government Bridget McKenzie is also an alumna, and people right across the spectrum in our region have participated. So I am calling on the minister and the state government to fund not only GCLP over the next four years but all 10 regional community leadership programs across Victoria. To do that would require $11 million of funding over that four-year period. BAYSWATER ELECTORATE ROADS Mr TAYLOR (Bayswater) (17:18): (415) I wish to raise a matter for the Minister for Roads in the other place. The action I seek is that the minister visit my community to view the condition of our local roads and traffic conditions. This government has done more than any other when it comes to road infrastructure and traffic flows right across this state. The proposed and desperately needed north- east link alone will radically transform the way we drive in the east forever, providing a direct link to the airport and our northern suburbs. It is a game changer; there are no two ways about that.

ADJOURNMENT 1236 Legislative Assembly Thursday, 21 March 2019

Locally in Bayswater this government has been busier than ever. We have made passage through the Heathmont shops on Canterbury Road safer by lowering the speed limit and reviewing signal timings, upgraded the roundabout in The Basin opposite The Basin Primary School and installed a signalised intersection at Armstrong Road and Canterbury Road in Heathmont, to name a few. This is of course not to mention the Mountain Highway and Scoresby Road level crossing removals in the heart of Bayswater, proudly funded and fully delivered by this Andrews Labor government. However, as always, more must be done to keep pace with our ever-growing and dynamic community in Bayswater. Particularly I would like the minister to see just how busy and at times dangerous Dorset Road in Boronia is, as well as other local roads in the area. Schools, kinders, community groups and the elderly alike at times run the gauntlet along these stretches of road, particularly during peak hour, given Dorset Road is the only major north–south link in that community. This government does not waste a moment when it comes to road improvements. I want to finish by thanking the minister for her consideration on this as well as for the hard work she and this government have been doing in getting on and making sure Victorians get home more quickly and safely. BUS ROUTE 788 Mr MORRIS (Mornington) (17:20): (416) I raise a matter this evening for the Minister for Public Transport. The action I seek from the minister is that she agree to the provision of an additional bus service on the 788 route to run in scheduling terms just immediately after the current 7.50 a.m. service southbound from Frankston. I have spoken on many occasions in this house about the impact of population growth on the Mornington Peninsula and drawn the contrast between the expansion of the metropolis into greenfield sites and the provision of new services, and we all know they do not always keep pace. But the difference with that type of population growth in an established area like the peninsula and in particular Mornington is that, because those areas already have existing services, they are rarely expanded to accommodate the additional demands that are placed upon them. Certainly there was a bus service review in 2008, and there were some infrastructure and service improvements proposed. I am pleased to say that under the Baillieu-Napthine governments the infrastructure improvements including the bus interchange in Mornington itself were in fact implemented, but unfortunately with Labor in power for 16 of the last 20 years we have not had improvements in the services to keep pace with the demands that are being placed upon them. Beyond the general issue of public transport services, the specific issue is the 788 bus service. There is a great degree of congestion on the southbound service in the morning and the northbound service in the afternoon, and it has become a particular problem at school times, particularly for students travelling beyond Mornington—hence the reference to the 788 service, which goes beyond the Mornington area. It is worse in the mornings, but it is a problem in the afternoons as well. We are not talking about a shortage of seats or a bit of squashing up; we are talking about large number of students who are being left behind. I have spoken to schools about this and I have spoken to Ventura Bus Lines about it, and they both agreed that while overcrowding is often a problem at the start of the year, this year it just has not backed off. Ventura have advised me that they are now in a position, subject to government agreement, to provide an additional service, which would be designated the 788S, and that would largely solve the problem. Such a service would of course benefit not just the electorate of Mornington but also the electorate of Frankston and the electorate of Nepean as it travels south through Rosebud. So I seek the assistance of the minister in authorising the provision of this additional service on the route. It is long overdue, and I urge the minister to support it. MERCY COLLEGE, COBURG Ms BLANDTHORN (Pascoe Vale) (17:23): (417) I appreciate the opportunity to raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Education. The action I seek is that the minister provide me with

ADJOURNMENT Thursday, 21 March 2019 Legislative Assembly 1237 an update on the building project at Mercy College in Coburg. This project was provided with a $1 million grant in 2016 through the Victorian government capital grants program for non-government schools. Mercy College in Coburg is a great local secondary school for girls in my electorate, and it certainly is doing a fabulous job in educating the young women of our community. The school is led by principal Lila McInerney, who is a strong and innovative leader and who continuously supports and encourages the girls at the school to achieve their full potential. At the end of 2016 it was very exciting for Mercy to receive this $1 million, and to be able to give them that news was a great privilege. They were successful, obviously, in the grant process, and that has enabled them to refurbish specialist spaces and 22 general learning areas. Last October the minister accompanied me on a visit to the school to have a look at where the works were up to, and I am keen to receive an update from the minister to find out how the project has so far progressed. RESPONSES Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine—Minister for Water, Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (17:24): There were a range of issues raised by a number of members, and I will refer those matters on to the relevant ministers. The SPEAKER: The house now stands adjourned. House adjourned 5.25 p.m. until Tuesday, 30 April.