PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

(HANSARD)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

FIFTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT

FIRST SESSION

TUESDAY, 5 FEBRUARY 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, Ms Suleyman, Mr Tak and Mr Tilley.

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.

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: Mr Hibbins, Mr Maas, Mr D O’Brien, Ms Richards, Mr Richardson, Mr Riordan and Ms Vallence. Council: Mr Dalidakis and 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

ANNOUNCEMENTS Acknowledgement of Country ...... 101 CONDOLENCES James Edmund McCabe ...... 101 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Building Cladding ...... 101 TAFE Funding ...... 102 State Building Inspector ...... 104 New Schools ...... 104 Drought Relief ...... 106 Transport Infrastructure ...... 106 Regional and Rural Development Funding ...... 107 Employment ...... 108 Member Conduct ...... 109 Bushfire Preparedness ...... 109 BILLS Victorian Independent Remuneration Tribunal and Improving Parliamentary Standards Bill 2019 ...... 111 Introduction and first reading ...... 111 Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2019 ...... 111 Introduction and first reading ...... 111 Parliamentary Committees Amendment Bill 2019 ...... 111 Introduction and first reading ...... 111 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Notices of Motion ...... 112 MEMBERS Acting Speakers ...... 112 COMMITTEES Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee ...... 112 Alert Digest No. 1 ...... 112 DOCUMENTS Documents ...... 112 BILLS Audit Amendment Bill 2018 ...... 114 Guardianship and Administration Bill 2018 ...... 114 Integrity and Accountability Legislation Amendment (Public Interest Disclosures, Oversight and Independence) Bill 2018 ...... 114 Appropriation ...... 114 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Standing and Sessional Orders ...... 114 Program ...... 115 MEMBERS STATEMENTS Australia Day Awards ...... 117 Australia Day Awards ...... 118 Australia Day Awards ...... 118 Rural and Regional Rail Services ...... 119 Violet Town Rail Accident ...... 119 Boronia Heights Primary School ...... 119 Energy Supply...... 120 Essendon Community Gardens ...... 120 National Australia Bank ...... 120 Sarah Wals ...... 120 David and Eileen Pearson ...... 120 Bunjils Marroun ...... 121 Environment Policy ...... 121 Broadmeadows Revitalisation Board ...... 121 Welcome Stranger ...... 121 Hon. Gordon Scholes ...... 122 Student Petition ...... 122 Macedon Electorate Firefighters ...... 122 Cummeragunja Walk-Off ...... 123 Hon. Gordon Scholes ...... 123 Geelong Rainbow Festival...... 123

Australia Day Awards ...... 124 Chanukah in the Park ...... 124 Anti-Semitism ...... 124 Coburg RSL Centenary ...... 124 Australia Day Awards ...... 125 St Albans Lunar New Year Festival ...... 125 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Sessional Orders ...... 125 BILLS Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) Amendment Bill 2018 ...... 158 Statement of compatibility ...... 158 Second reading ...... 160 Transport Legislation Amendment (Better Roads Victoria and Other Amendments) Bill 2018 ...... 162 Statement of compatibility ...... 162 Second reading ...... 168 Safe Patient Care (Nurse to Patient and Midwife to Patient Ratios) Amendment Bill 2018 ...... 171 Second reading ...... 171 Integrity and Accountability Legislation Amendment (Public Interest Disclosures, Oversight and Independence) Bill 2018 ...... 187 Second reading ...... 187 Third reading ...... 199 Safe Patient Care (Nurse to Patient and Midwife to Patient Ratios) Amendment Bill 2018 ...... 199 Second reading ...... 199 Third reading ...... 199 ADJOURNMENT Charlton Park Community Hub ...... 200 Gordon Geelong City Campus ...... 200 Lindenow Valley Irrigators ...... 200 Ashley Park Primary School ...... 201 Aussie Farms ...... 202 Yarra Valley Water Ivanhoe Site ...... 202 Princes Highway–o’neil Road, Beaconsfield ...... 203 Acacia Avenue Preschool ...... 203 Albury Wodonga Health ...... 204 Glenroy West Primary School ...... 205 Responses ...... 205

ANNOUNCEMENTS Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 101

Tuesday, 5 February 2019

The SPEAKER (Hon. Colin Brooks) took the chair at 12:03 p.m. and read the prayer. Announcements ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY The SPEAKER (12:04): Order! We acknowledge the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land on which we are meeting. We pay our respects to them, their culture, their elders past, present and future, and elders from other communities who may be here today. Condolences JAMES EDMUND MCCABE The SPEAKER (12:04): I wish to advise the house of the death of James Edmund McCabe, member of the Legislative Assembly for the district of Lowan from 1964 to 1967 and 1970 to 1979. I ask members to rise in their places as a mark of respect to the memory of the deceased. Members stood in their places. The SPEAKER: Thank you, members. I will convey a message of sympathy from the house to the relatives of the late James McCabe. Questions without notice BUILDING CLADDING Mr M O'BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (12:06): My question is to the Premier. Premier, the Victorian Cladding Taskforce report of 2018 noted that orders have been issued to owners of 12 buildings for urgent works to make those buildings safe for occupancy and a further 43 buildings have been found to be in a high-risk category. Your minister told the media yesterday that all owners’ corporations of these highly flammable buildings have been notified by the Victorian Building Authority that their buildings are not safe. What steps have you taken to guarantee that these owners’ corporations have informed all their residents, including tenants, that their homes are dangerous? Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (12:07): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. He refers to the bipartisan cladding task force that we established following the terrible events at the Lacrosse building fire and indeed other tragic events in other cities across the world. I think we have been proven as a Parliament, and all of us have been proven wise, in setting this matter aside and having both former Premier Ted Baillieu and former Deputy Premier John Thwaites have a thorough look at this issue. There were recommendations; we are working through each of those faithfully and with a sense of urgency but also with the need to get this done properly. The Minister for Planning updated the media, and therefore the community, yesterday. I can further add to his comments in answer to the Leader of the Opposition’s question in that each and every one of those buildings that are considered to be at potential high risk are being individually case managed around the responsibilities of owners’ corporations, owners and their obligations to tenants as well as those who have equity in that particular building. We take these matters very seriously. I would hope that there is no need for us to be having a political argument about these matters; they are very serious. They have been dealt with in a bipartisan way to this point. One would hope that that bipartisan spirit could remain intact—even in light of the serious events in Spencer Street on Sunday night and into Monday morning. The investigation of that fire is not yet complete.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 102 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019

Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, my question was specific: what steps have you taken to guarantee that the owners’ corporations have informed all their residents, including tenants, that their homes are dangerous? The Premier made reference to case management; he has not actually answered the question. It is about what steps have been taken to guarantee that the residents, including tenants, are aware of the safety status of their homes. The SPEAKER: I do not uphold the point of order. The Premier is being relevant to the question that was asked. Mr ANDREWS: Thank you, Speaker. The notion of case management is very important and not one that I think should be seen as in any way irrelevant to this matter. Case management around these issues—the risks, the strategies put in place to mitigate those risks—is incredibly important. What is more, though, the reason we set up a process was to deal with an issue that is very, very significant, but also there are other processes within government that are about filling gaps and changing policy where it is needed. Let me give you an example, Speaker, and through you to the Leader of the Opposition. Under our comprehensive reforms to residential tenancies arrangements, obligations on owners of buildings, landlords, to inform their tenants of exactly this sort of information are a feature of our reforms to residential tenancies. I would not want to disparage those opposite, but I think it is fair to say our support for those reforms is very clear. The position of others on those reforms is perhaps less clear. However, on safety, as the member for Frankston makes the point, particularly in relation to this issue, which is a challenge that spans different governments and is one that is in fact a national and international challenge, I would hope that we could spare those who are impacted by this—not least of whom firefighters, who so very effectively responded to that blaze in Spencer Street just a couple of days ago—the indignity of this becoming a political football. In conclusion might I make the point that the Minister for Planning will later this week join with national colleagues—interstate and commonwealth colleagues who have got responsibility for regulating the construction and building industry, so building ministers—and hopefully they will see that there is a need to act at a national level. There has been some resistance to act at a national level. This is a national challenge and one that we— Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, the Premier is now clearly debating the question and he still has not answered the question: do the residents know? Do the residents know about the safety of their homes? The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier is relevant to the question. Mr ANDREWS: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his guidance in these matters. I am attempting to provide a comprehensive answer to his question. If he is not happy with that— A member interjected. Mr ANDREWS: Well, it would seem to me the Leader of the Opposition is listening about as carefully to the answer as he has been in reading the report that Mr Baillieu and Mr Thwaites presented. I am happy to organise a briefing for the Leader of the Opposition and any other honourable member who would like to be better informed—those who particularly need to be perhaps better informed—on these issues. But let us not go down that road. Let us have a bipartisan approach to a very serious and real challenge, one where the Victorian government has led the way at a national level. TAFE FUNDING Mr EDBROOKE (Frankston) (12:12): Premier, I was glad to visit with you and the acting Minister for Training and Skills over summer to meet some of the students who have commenced free TAFE training at Chisholm, which is the absolute flagship of TAFE in the south-east. My question is: how is free TAFE benefiting students, and what impact is it having on enrolments across the state?

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 103

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (12:12): I thank the member for Frankston for his passionate advocacy on behalf of vocational education and training and particularly TAFE in his local community. The honourable member for Carrum joined us as well, and it was great to be there at Chisholm to celebrate record enrolments, particularly in those courses which are now free courses. Funnily enough, although some perhaps will not necessarily accept this argument, if you invest in TAFE—so free courses, more courses, and do not padlock campuses but instead open and upgrade, so open new ones and upgrade existing ones—if you value TAFE, people enrol in TAFE and people get the skills they need for the job they want, and what is more, the jobs that we as a community and an economy need more and more Victorians to be doing. We had a federal budget some time ago where there were cuts made to TAFE. We had numerous state budgets before our election to office where there were savage cuts made to TAFE. And nothing sends— A member interjected. Mr ANDREWS: It’s a lie, apparently. That is two elections now, and they have learned nothing. If you cut TAFE, you hurt the kids of working Victorians and you send a message that you do not care about infrastructure in road or rail, hospitals or schools, because the people who are removing level crossings, building the Metro Tunnel, getting on with the north-east link, delivering the regional rail revival, upgrading 1400 schools, building the hospitals we need for the future—I tell you what, they are TAFE qualified. We say thank you to those men and women, and we say that we will always support a strong TAFE system and a well-resourced TAFE system—one that all of us can be proud of and one that they will have access to not just for themselves and their working life, that pathway of productive contribution, but also we say thank you in a broader sense because these are the skills we need today and into the future. You can have great plans for infrastructure, but if you have not got the people to deliver it, you just finish up a Liberal basically, talking about infrastructure instead of delivering it. We do not cut TAFE courses or close campuses. We do not sack TAFE teachers. We instead are not only repairing the damage done to TAFE but we are making TAFE better than it has ever been, and TAFE students are showing us just how clearly— Mr M O’Brien interjected. Mr ANDREWS: Well, they are the facts, Leader of the Opposition, rewriter of history. The SPEAKER: Order! Through the Chair! Mr ANDREWS: There were no cuts to TAFE apparently. There were no cuts to TAFE. Well, if it is the facts you want, here are the facts. At Chisholm TAFE 1000 people have commenced enrolment in free TAFE courses since January. If you, being mindful of the facts, compare that to the same period a year ago, how many do you think— Members interjecting. Mr ANDREWS: Before it was free, how many might you think? Whilst it is more than the number of parliamentary representatives over there, you would not settle for 91. You would always strive to do better. And that is why with free TAFE it has gone from 91 students in those priority courses— those now free courses—to around 1000 students. So we are always happy to have a debate, a discussion, about the facts on TAFE, vocational education, pathways for working people and the infrastructure that gets built by those highly skilled Victorians. We are not just about repairing the damage done by those opposite, who would deny their record, we are about making TAFE better than it has ever been. That is what we are delivering, and we will continue in that vein, even if those opposite seem, well, not particularly interested in vocational education, jobs, infrastructure or working people.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 104 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019

STATE BUILDING INSPECTOR Mr T SMITH (Kew) (12:17): My question is to the Minister for Planning. Minister, on 1 December 2017 you issued a media release stating that to take action on cladding the government would: Appoint a State Building Inspector—a leading expert to provide the very best technical knowledge Given it is now February 2019, and noting the importance to community safety of making safe dangerous flammable cladding, I ask: Minister, on what date did you appoint a state building inspector, and who is it? Mr WYNNE (Richmond—Minister for Housing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Planning) (12:17): I thank the member for Kew for his interest in cladding and building more generally. I note that he will be having a full briefing this afternoon to get himself up to speed with a number of elements pertaining both to building and cladding more generally. But can I say that in relation to the question that the member has asked, we have been involved in very extensive negotiations not only around the question of a new building inspector but the Victorian Building Authority (VBA) of course have been actively engaged in addressing the very significant issues that pertain to cladding more generally. I simply remind the member that that work is continuing and I would hope, Speaker— Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: The member may resume his seat. Order! The member for Warrandyte! On a point of order, the member for Kew. Mr T Smith: On a point of order, Speaker, the minister has had 14 months to appoint this inspector. Can he just be honest with the house and say he has not done it yet. The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr WYNNE: So the responsibilities of the VBA are such that they have been actively engaged obviously in the cladding audit process— Mr Walsh interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals! The minister has the call. Mr WYNNE: But I can assure the member that the Victorian Building Authority is actively considering that question, and when we— Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! Members on my left will come to order. Mr WYNNE: And when we have resolved those questions, I will advise the member accordingly. NEW SCHOOLS Mr STAIKOS (Bentleigh) (12:20): My question is to the Minister for Education. Can the minister provide an update on the rollout of the Andrews Labor government’s commitment to deliver 100 new schools, including the delivery of the second— Mr R Smith interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Bentleigh will resume his seat. The member for Warrandyte is warned. I need to be able to hear the member asking his question.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 105

Mr STAIKOS: My question is to the Minister for Education. Can the minister provide an update on the rollout of the Andrews Labor government’s commitment to deliver 100 new schools, including the delivery of the second campus of McKinnon Secondary College? Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education) (12:20): I thank the member for Bentleigh for his question, and particularly for his relentless advocacy on behalf of his local community regarding education. I am delighted— Ms McLeish interjected. Mr MERLINO: ‘Pork-barrelling’, says the shadow Minister for Education. Pork-barrelling. Oh, my goodness! Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the minister to direct his comments through the Chair and for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to cease interjecting across the table. Mr MERLINO: I am delighted to update the house about the rollout of new schools across Victoria. You will recall, Speaker, that during our last term we delivered an unprecedented $3.8 billion to build new schools and upgrade 1300 schools across our state. We opened 21 new schools in 2017 and 2018. But we know that there is so much more to do. During the election campaign last November we promised to build and open 100 new schools across Victoria over the next eight years. Nine of those 100 new schools have now opened—Aitken Hill Primary School in Yuroke, Ashley Park Primary School in Yan Yean, Burnside Primary School in Kororoit, Dohertys Creek P–9 College in Tarneit, Pakenham Primary School in Bass, Prahran High School in Prahran, Preston High School, Saltwater P–9 College in Altona, South Melbourne Park Primary School in Albert Park—and beyond those new schools, yesterday we officially opened the brand-new academic building for Richmond high. Construction has also started on nine of the 11 schools that we will open in 2020, with the builders to begin works on the remaining two shortly, and beyond that, 12 new schools in 2021 and 13 new schools in 2022. Members interjecting. Mr MERLINO: Yes, that is pork-barrelling. Do not worry about the jobs, do not worry about the students. As the member for Bentleigh pointed out, one of those exciting projects in 2022 is the new McKinnon Secondary College campus. This commitment that we made builds on the $9 million we delivered to the school for their new VCE centre at their existing campus and the $4.1 million we provided for design of the second campus. And it needed funding because it did not receive one cent from the previous Liberal government. Indeed, the last time a Liberal government funded any permanent building at McKinnon Secondary College was under Henry Bolte, when they matched funding pound for pound. They matched the funding pound for pound. And true to form, just like out of the mouth of the shadow minister today, they would not even match our commitment to the second campus during the campaign last November—and last November the community responded in kind. This new campus will help meet the demand for education in the area. In fact, this new school campus is situated not far from the old Murrumbeena high school. What happened to the old Murrumbeena High School? It was closed down under the Kennett Liberal government back in the 1990s. Speaker, some things do not change. Labor invests in education; the Liberals cut and close. I thank the member again for his question, and I look forward to working with him as we deliver the new campus for McKinnon Secondary College.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 106 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019

DROUGHT RELIEF Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (12:25): My question is to the Premier. The situation for dairy farmers in northern Victoria is dire. Murray Dairy is now saying that a third of dairy farms in northern Victoria will close. The perfect storm of drought and industry downturn has led to low milk prices, high feed costs and high water prices. Premier, will your government provide shire rate relief and payment of fixed water charges to help these struggling farmers in northern Victoria and drought- affected farmers in Gippsland? Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (12:25): I thank the member for his question. What I would say in response is that we are more than happy to sit down and work with leaders in every sector of our agribusiness sector, whether it be dairy farmers or others that might speak on behalf of them— local councils and others that are affected by what is, as the member says, in some respects that perfect storm of challenges all presenting at the same time. We have provided significant support for drought-affected communities, primary producers and farmers across the north and in East Gippsland. We do not for a moment rule out doing more. I am more than happy to receive representations from the member. Indeed, I know the Minister for Agriculture in the other place has been in communication with many different interested parties, including stakeholders and people who are affected most directly by those challenges—the lack of rainfall, high water prices, the fodder situation and other challenges that have been with the dairy sector for some time. I am more than happy to sit down and receive representations from the Leader of the National Party and any other member who wants to speak to me about that. But I would make the point that there has been significant support provided to this point. We do not rule out doing more, and I know that the Minister for Agriculture, who also has regional development responsibility, has been engaging with those communities and will continue to do so. Mr Walsh: On a point of order, Speaker, on the issue of relevance. I acknowledge the commitment from the Premier to talk, but the situation is dire. Shire rates are due now for those people who are paying them annually and the number of accounts in arrears for Goulburn-Murray Water, particularly of dairy farmers, is increasing all the time and the length of arrears is increasing as well. So I urge the Premier to put a time frame on how he might actually do something to help those farmers. The SPEAKER: I thank the member for that point of order. The Premier to continue. Mr ANDREWS: As I was saying, there is a fair bit going on at the moment. The Minister for Water could speak to a number of different things in relation to local water providers—Goulburn- Murray Water being the leader in relation to the community that the member has asked about. They have worked with the Minister for Agriculture, as well as what she is doing in relation to her responsibilities as regional development minister. We have responded. We do not for a moment rule out doing more; we may well do more, and I am genuinely happy to sit down with the member and talk about these issues. I would hope that was seen as an act of good faith, that we might be able to come up with some ideas to provide further support for those who are doing it very, very tough. TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE Ms SPENCE (Yuroke) (12:28): My question is for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure. At the election last year Victorians voted for the Andrews Labor government to keep getting on with building the transport infrastructure our growing state needs. Can the minister update the house on how the government is not wasting a single day and outline the work that has already been undertaken on major transport infrastructure projects across the summer? Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure) (12:28): I would like to thank the member for Yuroke for her question, and I look forward to working with her in her capacity as the Parliamentary Secretary for Road Infrastructure. She is going to be very busy.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 107

During the last four years Victorians saw with their own eyes how the Andrews Labor government was undertaking the biggest transport infrastructure program in Victoria’s history. What we also saw was they voted for us to keep going, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are absolutely getting on with it, not wasting a day on this important program. What we have seen over the last few weeks is that we have taken advantage of the quieter summer period to undertake a road and rail construction blitz. On the Cranbourne, Pakenham and Frankston lines a massive upgrade to power and signalling was undertaken. This was important because this is all about getting those lines ready for the high-capacity metro trains that will start running on our network later on this year. At the same time, on the Metro Tunnel project at the Metro Tunnel entrance at South Yarra construction really cranked up on that site. What we saw as a result of these works was that this did result in significant line closures during the December and January period. This is Melbourne’s busiest rail corridor, and over the summer we had 1 458 297 passengers travel on replacement buses. That gives you a sense of both the size and the scale both of the works but also the importance to the number of people who use the network. Also in regional Victoria, as we get on with upgrading every single regional passenger line in regional Victoria, there was work on the Gippsland line, the Ballarat line and the Bendigo, Swan Hill and Echuca lines, with replacement buses operating on all of those lines. I would like to thank the passengers for their patience during this program of works, and I would also like to thank the thousands and thousands of workers who worked around the clock over this summer period. While others were enjoying a holiday, they were working around the clock on this big construction blitz. It was not just our rail network that saw this construction blitz. It extended to our road network as well. There is a massive construction site right on the edge of the city as workers dig out, right now, the northern entrance for the West Gate Tunnel project. In just a few months this will be the site of the first of our tunnel boring machines, Bella, that will be launched and ready for action. Yan Yean Road was also closed for a period of three weeks as works continued on this much-needed duplication for this growing area of Melbourne. We are getting on with the projects Victorians voted for. Here is a quick snapshot of what they are: the Melbourne Airport rail link; the Suburban Rail Loop; another 25 level crossing removals, with 75 to be gone by 2025; new electrified train lines to Melton and Wyndham Vale; duplications of the Hurstbridge and Cranbourne lines; and high-speed rail to Geelong and Ballarat, with 54 new V/Locity trains as well. We are not wasting a single day as we get on and do the works that we have already committed to. Planning and construction is underway on all of these projects—the projects that Victorians voted for. REGIONAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT FUNDING Ms SHEED (Shepparton) (12:32): My question is for the Premier. Premier, it is my understanding that Victoria’s $500 million Regional Jobs and Infrastructure Fund is due to expire on 30 June this year, and so I ask: what steps will you take to ensure that regional Victoria continues to be funded from a dedicated funding stream? Regional Victoria has benefited significantly from the program, and in my electorate alone there have been enormous contributions to a range of initiatives that have led to jobs and growth. Booths Transport in Strathmerton received $8 million, delivering 77 new jobs. Katunga Fresh in Katunga and Murphy Fresh in Tatura have benefited from $10 million, creating 92 new jobs, and we had a $10 million contribution towards the new Shepparton Art Museum. During last year’s election campaign the coalition promised $1 billion for a decentralisation and regional development program. It was disappointing to see no such commitment come from your government during the election campaign, and I just wonder what plans you have in relation to a dedicated fund. Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (12:33): I thank the member for Shepparton for her question. It is well known and well understood in this place, certainly in terms of every member of the

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 108 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019 government, that the member for Shepparton is a passionate and very effective advocate on behalf of her community. I am in no way surprised that she would again be advocating for greater support, not just for her part of regional Victoria but indeed for all of regional Victoria. If you look at the record of investment in the Shepparton electorate—the hospital, the rail upgrade, four brand-new schools under construction, the biggest regeneration of secondary education in Shepparton and the Goulburn Valley’s history—I would respectfully point out to the member for Shepparton that I do not think any of those investments were funded from a dedicated fund. They were part of proactive decisions that we made based, in the main, on representations from the member for Shepparton and her passionate and effective advocacy on behalf of her local community. Those investments in the hospital, the rail upgrade, schools and many, many other things form part of a record investment right across regional Victoria—some of which did come from a dedicated fund, but the vast majority of which came from record investments in health, education, road and rail. The government has made significant commitments in each and every one of those four areas and many beyond it. The member for Shepparton will see in the budget to be delivered by the Treasurer in just a few weeks time a continued effort in delivering on our commitments and supporting regional Victoria, and it will be far in excess—far in excess—of any promise or any commitment that might have been given by those who were unsuccessful at the election. It will instead be a continuation of our record investment in TAFE, in kinder, in schools, in hospitals, in roads, in rail and in job-creating investments that bring new businesses to regional Victoria, continuing in the same vein that saw us bring payroll tax down to half the rate in regional Victoria. All of those outcomes are great for regional Victoria, but we know there is more to be done there. That is why we have laid out a positive, optimistic and very broad agenda for regional Victoria, and you will see us continue to invest in all of those areas and many more. Some of those investments may come from a dedicated fund. For instance, I would inform the member for Shepparton that we made commitments around the Regional Health Infrastructure Fund. It will be a matter of certainty, given that it is only eligible to be spent on regional hospitals and health services, that that dedicated fund will see many hundreds of projects funded and completed for the benefit of patients and indeed the benefit of staff who work in those health services. So some of our investments may well be attributable to a dedicated fund. Others may simply be attributed to the fact that we keep our promises, we live our values and we get things done. EMPLOYMENT Ms EDWARDS (Bendigo West) (12:36): My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer update the house on the latest job numbers in Victoria, especially the latest job numbers in regional Victoria? Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (12:36): I thank the member for Bendigo West for her question and also for her continued advocacy for jobs in her local community. And might I say, those efforts and many others are developing a real sense of momentum in the state. Speaker, the Andrews Labor government has broken yet another record when it comes to job creation. The unemployment rate in regional Victoria is now at 4.3 per cent. This is the lowest regional unemployment rate, well below the other states, who sit on an average of about 5 per cent. This is the lowest regional unemployment rate since records commenced for the state of Victoria. Speaker, this record low is also in stark contrast to the regional rate of 6.6 per cent that we inherited from the Leader of the Opposition when he was Treasurer. Over 58 000 regional Victorians have found a job since Labor was elected in 2014, and 80 per cent of those roles were full-time jobs. Think about that: not only are we creating jobs but we are creating jobs that have substance and a long-term future to them. Eighty per cent of those 58 000 jobs in regional Victoria are full-time jobs. Now the member for Bendigo West—and I am sure also the member for Bendigo East—will be well aware

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 109 that the Bendigo region has seen an increase of 5300 jobs under this government. Speaker, since we were elected what we have seen is 438 000 jobs created right across this state. And when you think about the full-time jobs that have been created, 290 000 of those jobs are full-time jobs. Our statewide unemployment rate now sits at 4.2 per cent, well below the atrocious level of 6.7 per cent that we inherited from those opposite. This is the lowest unemployment rate in 10 years. It is the equal best on record—the equal best on record—and it is the lowest in the nation. Under the coalition nearly 70 000 additional Victorians found themselves unemployed and only 39 000 of the jobs created were full-time jobs hat was the entire term. We are not talking a year or a month; we are talking their entire term. In fact the only thing those opposite outperformed Labor on was growing the unemployment queues. Our economy is growing strong; make no mistake. Our average GDP as a state has been 3.7 per cent compared to 2.2 per cent under those opposite in the long, lost years of the coalition. CommSec has rated Victoria the best performing economy in the nation for the third straight quarter. It is a bit unfortunate that we had to share it with New South Wales, but I suppose the nation functions best when Melbourne and Sydney operate effectively. Maybe it was an act of charity—I do not know. We will continue to invest in Victorian jobs through our new hospitals, through our record transport infrastructure spend and through our upgrades to almost 1300 schools. In fact the government has almost doubled the coalition’s investment in regional Victoria. All of these things do not happen by chance; they are part of a well-structured plan and a government that lives its values daily, produces its priorities, identifies them, clarifies them to the community and gets on and delivers them. All these actions grow our regional economies, but more importantly they ensure our regional communities are at the forefront of our growing state’s prosperity. We will not waste one single day. MEMBER CONDUCT Mr M O'BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (12:41): My question is to the Premier. Premier, in relation to your Labor MPs under investigation over the red shirts rorts you previously assured Victorians that everyone should cooperate and everyone will, yet not one of them did. Premier, why have you appointed to your cabinet a number of ministers who have not only refused to cooperate with a police investigation but have defied your instruction? Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (12:42): The Leader of the Opposition is in no place to make claims such as he has. He is off to rather a poor start following the lead of someone else who did not get too far pursuing this sort of brand of politics. In any event these are ongoing matters, and it is completely inappropriate for me to comment. I would just say the Leader of the Opposition is in no place to make the assertions he has made, and he would do well to set a different course. BUSHFIRE PREPAREDNESS Ms THOMAS (Macedon) (12:42): My question is to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Minister, over the weekend Hepburn Springs and surrounding communities in my electorate faced a bushfire in 28 hectares of difficult terrain perilously close to people’s homes. The response of the community was brilliant. Good preparation and responsiveness to emergency warnings saw people leave early and ensured our firefighters could concentrate on containing the fire, which they successfully did with tenacity and courage. As we know, climate change means more intense and longer fire seasons. Minister, can you now update the house on how this government is working with our emergency services to ensure we continue to be prepared for the remainder of the fire season? Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine—Minister for Water, Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (12:43): Can I thank the member for Macedon for her question and also thank her for the support she offered to her community on what was a very tense Saturday, early Sunday morning, Sunday and Sunday evening.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 110 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019

This fire season has been exceptionally busy for our emergency services. We have experienced in Victoria over 2100 grassfires and bushfires since 1 December. In fact just in the last week we have had over 500 starts. Unfortunately around 250 of those fires have started from campfires—completely avoidable fires—and over 300 have been the result of lightning strikes. The east of the state has been particularly impacted by those lightning strikes, and we do have further predictions over this summer of dry lightning strikes, particularly in the east of Victoria. This has put a lot of pressure on all our fire services and our emergency services, but they have remained very focused and very busy and they are working very closely together to ensure that they get on top of these fires. And I must say they have done an extraordinary job. I do not think there would be many Victorians or even many people in this house who would be aware that we have had over 2100 fires since 1 December—just an amazing job. Where we stand currently is that we have six ongoing fires, three of which are of significance. They are the Walhalla, Thomson and Timbarra fires. I think one of the extraordinary things this summer has been just the success of our aircraft program and using aircraft very early as fires start. Really that combination of aircraft and on-the-ground support has seen our fire services able to stop the start of fires in the overwhelming majority of those cases and do so very quickly and to minimise property and life loss. We have got over 100 aircraft on call. Last weekend we used 69 of those aircraft in fires right across the state. As the member for Macedon mentioned, on the weekend we had the communities of Hepburn Springs and Daylesford facing a real threat of serious property loss. We had a number of residents evacuated early on Sunday morning. This was also a fire started by lightning. On the weekend we had over 160 firefighters on the ground in very difficult conditions and terrain, from all agencies. We had three dozers, 18 trucks and 12 aircraft. Those aircraft did an extraordinary job and really played a big part in getting that fire not just contained but actually now completely under control. So we are very hopeful that that fire will remain so. In terms of the weekend, we also had the Grantville fire. On Friday, as I was coming back from Gippsland, that fire started from lightning. Again, there was an extraordinary job from our firefighters, with a number of emergency warnings, but no property loss because of their efforts. In terms of our three remaining fires, over the weekend we had over 1000 firefighters, 300 trucks, 60 bulldozers and more than 25 aircraft out on those three fires. That meant that the Thomson was limited in its spread, which is great news, particularly for the next high fire spike day. We saw minimal asset loss in Walhalla. That fire grew from 450 hectares to 8500 hectares, but we lost only two huts and two houses during that fire. The Timbarra fire is now at 20 000 hectares, but again we were able to minimise the loss to fencing and caravans. These fires are in very difficult terrain and they will be in the landscape for those communities in Gippsland for a long time to come. The bureau is predicting a much drier, much hotter summer right up until about April. We have got fuel curing at about 100 per cent of the state and 80 per cent for the remainder—we are really, really dry out there, so it is very early days in our fire season. What I do know is that our emergency services, all of them, are absolutely prepared and they are working closely together. We have seen firefighters from the CFA, volunteer and career; we have seen firefighters from the MFB—they took over responsibility for the Grantville fire on Friday and Saturday; and we have seen our forest firefighters out in this difficult terrain, with everyone working hand in hand together. I have been at the incident control centres, I have been at the State Control Centre. They are an extraordinary group of skilled people. I have absolute confidence that they are managing and are on top of these fires this particular season. On behalf of this Parliament and the government, I want to thank them for the work they have done so far this summer. We are with them for the rest of this summer.

BILLS Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 111

Bills VICTORIAN INDEPENDENT REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL AND IMPROVING PARLIAMENTARY STANDARDS BILL 2019 Introduction and first reading Ms HENNESSY (Altona—Attorney General, Minister for Workplace Safety) (12:48): I move:

That I have leave to bring in a bill for an act to reform the current system relating to salaries, allowances and standards for members of Parliament by establishing the Victorian Independent Remuneration Tribunal and making amendments to the Parliamentary Salaries and Superannuation Act 1968, the Members of Parliament (Register of Interests) Act 1978 and the Parliamentary Administration Act 2005, and to make related amendments to the Public Administration Act 2004 and consequential amendments to certain other acts and for other purposes. Motion agreed to. Read first time. Ordered to be read a second time tomorrow. JUSTICE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (POLICE AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL 2019 Introduction and first reading Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine—Minister for Water, Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (12:49): I move: That I have leave to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Bail Act 1977, the Confiscation Act 1997, the Corrections Act 1986, the Crimes Act 1958, the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, the Firearms Act 1996, the Magistrates' Court Act 1989, the Protected Disclosure Act 2012, the Road Safety Act 1986, the Second-Hand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act 1989, the Sentencing Act 1991, the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004, the Sex Offenders Registration Amendment (Miscellaneous) Act 2017, the Surveillance Devices Act 1999, the Victoria Police Act 2013 and for other purposes. Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (12:50): I ask the minister for a further explanation of the bill. Ms NEVILLE: This is the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Bill 2019, absolutely identical to the one that was introduced into the Parliament last year and passed by the Legislative Assembly. It provides for changes to DNA laws, second-hand dealing laws, firearm protection and police harm laws. Motion agreed to. Read first time. Ordered to be read a second time tomorrow. PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES AMENDMENT BILL 2019 Introduction and first reading Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure) (12:51): I move: That I have leave to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003 to abolish certain Joint House Committees, to amend the Parliamentary Salaries and Superannuation Act 1968 in relation to additional salaries and expense allowances to which certain members of the Parliament are entitled and to make a statute law revision to a provision of the Integrity and Accountability Legislation Amendment (Public Interest Disclosures, Oversight and Independence) Act 2019 that consequentially amends the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003 and for other purposes. Mr WELLS (Rowville) (12:52): I ask the minister for a brief explanation.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 112 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019

Ms ALLAN: As is often the case at the commencement of a new Parliament—and it has happened on a number of occasions that I have been a member of this place—the government of the day makes some changes to the structure of the parliamentary committees that members of the Parliament participate in. This bill will facilitate some of those changes. I believe there may have been some discussion already. If not, I am confident there most certainly will be following the introduction of this bill. It also makes some proposed changes to, as I indicated in the long title, the salaries of particular officeholders of the Parliament. Motion agreed to. Read first time. Ordered to be read a second time tomorrow. Business of the house NOTICES OF MOTION Notices given. Members ACTING SPEAKERS The SPEAKER (13:00): I wish to advise the house that under standing order 20 I have tabled my warrant appointing the following members to preside as Acting Speakers whenever requested to do so by the Speaker or Deputy Speaker: Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Steve Dimopoulos, Tim Richardson, Ros Spence and Vicki Ward. Committees SCRUTINY OF ACTS AND REGULATIONS COMMITTEE Alert Digest No. 1 Ms KILKENNY (Carrum) (13:01): I have the honour to present to the house a report from the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, being Alert Digest No. 1 of 2019, on the following bills:

Audit Amendment Bill 2018 Guardianship and Administration Bill 2018 Integrity and Accountability Legislation Amendment (Public Interest Disclosures, Oversight and Independence) Bill 2018 Justice Legislation Miscellaneous Amendment Act 2018—House amendment Safe Patient Care (Nurse to Patient and Midwife to Patient Ratios) Amendment Bill 2018 together with appendices. Ordered to be published. Documents DOCUMENTS Tabled by Clerk: Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability—Report 2017–18 Financial Management Act 1994: Reports from the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change that she has received the reports 2017–18 of the: Alpine Resorts Co-ordinating Council, together with an explanation for the delay

DOCUMENTS Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 113

Barwon South West Waste and Resource Recovery Group, together with an explanation for the delay Gippsland Waste and Resource Recovery Group, together with an explanation for the delay Goulburn Valley Waste and Resource Recovery Group, together with an explanation for the delay Grampians Central West Waste and Resource Recovery Group, together with an explanation for the delay Gunaikurnai Traditional Owner Land Management Board, together with an explanation for the delay Loddon Mallee Waste and Resource Recovery Group, together with an explanation for the delay North East Waste and Resource Recovery Group, together with an explanation for the delay Report from the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change that she had not received the reports 2017–18 of the: Dhelkunya Dja Land Management Board, together with an explanation for the delay Yorta Yorta Traditional Owner Land Management Board, together with an explanation for the delay Gambling Regulation Act 2003—Report of Independent Review Panel—Gaming Machines Licensing Process: allocation—Ordered to be published Legal Services Council and Commissioner for Uniform Legal Services Regulation—Report 2017–18 Murray-Darling Basin Act 1993—Amendments to the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement under s 28 Planning and Environment Act 1987: Infrastructure and Development Contribution Levies—Report 2017–18 Notices of approval of amendments to the following Planning Schemes: Alpine—GC114 Benalla—GC114 Cardinia—C231, C252 Casey—C221 Part 1, C228, GC116 Glenelg—C89 Greater Geelong—C368 Greater Shepparton—GC114 Hume—C207, C208, GC116 Indigo—GC114 Kingston—C181, C182 Loddon—C40 Macedon Ranges—C124 Mansfield—GC114 Mitchell—GC55, GC116 Moira—C87, GC114 Moorabool—C90 Moreland—C173 Mornington Peninsula—C215 Mount Alexander—C82 Murrindindi—C62, GC114 Port Phillip—C154, C159 Stonnington—C288 Strathbogie—GC114 Towong—GC114

BILLS 114 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019

Wangaratta—GC114 Warrnambool—C200 Whitehorse—C214 Whittlesea—GC55 Wodonga—GC114 Statutory Rules under the following Acts: Children, Youth and Families Act 2005—SR 3 Gambling Regulation Act 2003—SR 1 Subordinate Legislation Act 1994—SR 2 Subordinate Legislation Act 1994—Documents under s 16B in relation to the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983—Conditions under s 220D Victorian Plantations Corporation—Report 2017–18. Bills AUDIT AMENDMENT BILL 2018 GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION BILL 2018 INTEGRITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURES, OVERSIGHT AND INDEPENDENCE) BILL 2018 Appropriation The SPEAKER (13:03): I have received a message from the Governor recommending appropriations for the purposes of the Audit Amendment Bill 2018, the Guardianship and Administration Bill 2018 and the Integrity and Accountability Legislation Amendment (Public Interest Disclosures, Oversight and Independence) Bill 2018. Business of the house STANDING AND SESSIONAL ORDERS Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure) (13:03): By leave, I move:

That so much of standing orders, and sessional orders if any, be suspended to allow: (1) the order of business tomorrow to be: formal business statements by members government business question time at 11.00 a.m. 2009 Victorian bushfires anniversary motion under paragraph (2); (2) the Premier to move the 2009 Victorian bushfires anniversary motion tomorrow, without leave or notice; (3) members to speak on the 2009 Victorian bushfires anniversary motion for a maximum of 15 minutes; (4) members who have not yet made their inaugural speeches to speak on the 2009 Victorian bushfires anniversary motion without that speech being considered their inaugural speech; (5) at the conclusion of the 2009 Victorian bushfires anniversary motion, the house to immediately adjourn; and (6) for 2019, a debate on the question ‘That grievances be noted’ to take place on the second sitting Wednesday and every subsequent third sitting Wednesday. I want to briefly acknowledge the cooperation of all members of Parliament in facilitating the appropriate recognition by this place tomorrow of the 10th anniversary of the bushfires that wreaked

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 115 havoc on our state in 2009. This motion is the enabling procedural motion for that to take place tomorrow. Mr WELLS (Rowville) (13:05): The opposition will be supporting this motion. This is something that is very heartfelt and has affected a lot of Victorians, and a lot of MPs have been involved in this over a number of years. We think it is appropriate, and as a result of that we will be supporting the motion. Motion agreed to. PROGRAM Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure) (13:05): I move: That, under standing order 94(2), the orders of the day, government business, relating to the following bills be considered and completed by 7.00 p.m. today: Safe Patient Care (Nurse to Patient and Midwife to Patient Ratios) Amendment Bill 2018 Integrity and Accountability Legislation Amendment (Public Interest Disclosures, Oversight and Independence) Bill 2018. In talking to the motion I have just put before the Parliament, again I want to acknowledge the cooperation that occurred on the first day of sitting in 2018 of this Parliament which enabled two bills to be first and second read so that we could have debate on those two bills—the nurse-to-patient and midwife-to-patient ratios and integrity and accountability bills—this week. Both those bills were introduced in the previous Parliament and remain substantially the same. However, it is appropriate that members of this Parliament be given the opportunity to contribute to those bills, and we look forward to their successful passage over the course of this week. This week is quite a different week to our normal sitting week. As all members of the house are aware, we are sitting for only two of the normal three days, and I have previously mentioned to the house and just put to the house a motion by leave to facilitate a condolence motion tomorrow to acknowledge the 10th anniversary of the Victorian bushfires. For many people in this place I am sure tomorrow and this week and this time is a difficult time, and it is appropriate, whether we are representing our communities, whether we are representing our friends and loved ones, whether we are representing the people from the emergency services, the welfare agencies or whoever had some role in the fires of 10 years ago, that we take the opportunity in this place to acknowledge that and mark that here in the Legislative Assembly. Again I do appreciate the cooperation that has gone into setting up that process. As a consequence of that, the guillotine on our government business program will come into effect at 7 o’clock this evening, given that we are not sitting on Thursday and that the motion for the condolence tomorrow will see the house adjourn at the conclusion of that debate. We felt it was easiest procedurally to have the guillotine in place today so that we can be very clear about what will take place tomorrow. In addition to the debate on the motion on the Victorian bushfires that will take place tomorrow, two inaugural speeches will take place, one from the member for Northcote and one from the member for Brunswick. I would also like to indicate to all of those members, particularly the member for Mildura and the remaining members of the government team, who are keen to make their inaugural speeches that we look forward to facilitating as many of those as possible over the coming sitting weeks. I think we have still got 16 inaugural speeches to have the joy of listening to over the coming few sitting weeks. We will endeavour to schedule as much time as we can for that to take place, but again I appreciate the patience of the new members as they wait their turn to make their mark on the Parliament. As I said, I put this government business program to the house. It is an unusual one, reflecting the different arrangements we have put in place for this week. I again want to convey my appreciation to

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 116 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019 non-government members who have assisted in the facilitation of both this government business program and the other procedural actions that need to be taken to enable this week to take place. I commend the motion to the house. Mr WELLS (Rowville) (13:09): It is an unusual week, with only two sitting days. We thank the manager of government business, because we have been well briefed on the process of what is going to happen this week. On Tuesday obviously we have question time and government business and we will then debate the sessional orders. We have a number of members who wish to speak on the sessional orders because we have some concerns about them. I hope, Speaker, that you have been well briefed on the sessional orders because we have some concerns about how you will rule on some of the sessional orders that have been put forward. As I said earlier, we strongly support the condolence motion on the anniversary of the 2009 Victorian bushfires. We acknowledge that there will be two bills debated. I just make the point that the guillotine is coming down at 7.00 p.m. and as we are under standing orders at the moment, there is the suggestion maybe that the sessional orders will be passed— Ms Allan: I’m optimistic. Mr WELLS: So the house will adjourn at 7.00 p.m. rather than at 10.00 p.m. under the standing orders. With that aside—not that we would anticipate the result of any debate or the outcome of those debates—we understand that the reason for the guillotine today is to allow us to be able to debate in full the 2009 Victorian bushfires anniversary motion and then adjourn at the conclusion of that condolence motion. We support the motion before the house. Mr PEARSON (Essendon) (13:11): I am delighted to make a very brief contribution on the government business program motion, and I rise to support the Leader of the House. This is an important business program motion before the house because it enables the Parliament to acknowledge the traumatic impact that the Black Saturday fires had on many parts of our state. I think it is important that members and the institution of the Parliament stand with those communities as they remember what is really unimaginable for the many of us who were not touched by those traumatic events that occurred 10 years ago. The Leader of the House has crafted a very fair and reasonable program. It enables the house to discharge its duties to pass those two bills, based upon the sessional orders coming into play at 7.00 p.m. tonight. It also enables this place to recognise and acknowledge those very traumatic events of 10 years ago. I commend the motion before the house. The SPEAKER: The member for Gippsland South. I have spent so much time learning the new members’ faces that I have almost forgotten some of the old ones. Mr D O'BRIEN (Gippsland South) (13:12): Thank you, Speaker, for that awesome vote of confidence in my performance in the last term of Parliament. I am glad to speak on motions like this. I am sure I will forget your name at some stage between now and the next election. Thank you for the opportunity to speak briefly on the business program, which, as the Manager of Opposition Business has noted, the opposition is not opposing. There are two bills today. I note that the two bills are both pieces of legislation that were before the last Parliament, which suggests the government does not exactly have a huge agenda that it wants to get going with here in the first couple of days. We look forward to debating those, particularly the IBAC bill. It was interesting to be a member of the IBAC Committee in the last Parliament under the Manager of Opposition Business, who was a fine and wonderful chair. We put forward some interesting reports for the government, and some of those are reflected in this legislation. We look forward to debating that shortly, as well as the safe patient care legislation, which obviously was a significant commitment of the government. We will also debate those issues shortly. The sessional orders motion is the first to be debated, and it is perhaps another sign of the emerging arrogance of this government. In particular I refer to the section on ministers statements, which effectively allows ministers to get up and say whatever they like. There is no tie to their portfolios at

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 117 all under the revised sessional orders that will be proposed. We will have more to say on that as well, but I think it sends a message as to what we are going to see from the government, with their increased numbers, how they are going to go about things and how they use the Parliament for oblique political purposes. With the motion on the 2009 bushfires we in this house all support the opportunity to reflect, to remember and to give thanks to all those who worked so hard, whether they were in the firefighting services, whether they were volunteers or whether they were the people that helped with the recovery or indeed the many thousands, and probably hundreds of thousands, of people around the world who provided support and donations. I note that while a lot of the focus is very obviously on Black Saturday, one of the first fires that year was in fact the Delburn fire, which started right on the edge of the Gippsland South electorate and burnt up towards Mirboo North. I look forward to the opportunity of having more to say on that. I commend the government, the protocol department and all those involved from the Parliament as well on the commemoration service last night at the exhibition building. It was quite moving, but it was very simple and solemn and indeed a good opportunity for all of us, and for all of those in the community, to remember the 2009 fires. I look forward to debating the rest of the government program. Mr McGUIRE (Broadmeadows) (13:15): It is an honour and a privilege to be part of the 59th Parliament of Victoria. I want to commend the government business program. Anyone who was at the state memorial service to mark the decade of time that has passed since the bushfires, the worst natural disaster in Australia’s history, that caused the death of 173 people, would know and understand the significance of this motion and the fact that the Parliament should actually address it and give the chance to everybody to make a contribution. These are moments when the Parliament absolutely counts. I want to also just comment on some of the statements that were made about the other pieces of legislation that the government is putting on the agenda this week. These go to the point of the values of the Andrews Labor government and what we are doing to fight the issues that need to be addressed. The accountability legislation goes to increasing scrutiny, accountability and compliance. That is at the heart of this piece of legislation. It is incredibly important that these reforms expand and clarify the types of public sector inappropriate conduct that a person can disclose, increase the pathways for making disclosures and simplify confidentiality obligations. I am surprised that the opposition took a shot at that. If you go to the other bill that will be reintroduced, it is about patient care and saving lives. I want to put this in some context as well. This is about Victorians fighting cancer, women giving birth to some of our most vulnerable babies and the elderly getting better care and the care that they need under these new, stronger nurse-to-patient ratios and midwife-to-patient ratios. For too long nurses and midwives have been forced to trade away their own pay and conditions to guarantee ratios which make sure that they have enough time to be with their patients and to provide the necessary care. That is the context of this bill. That is what this bill does. That is its significance and its importance. This bill will help save lives. I want to make those points in support; this goes to the character, nature and values of this government. That was why this government was re-elected. I want to support the government business program and actually redress and reframe this in the minds of the opposition on why these things matter. This is what the Victorian population actually expects us to be addressing. I commend the government business program to the house. Motion agreed to. Members statements AUSTRALIA DAY AWARDS Ms EDWARDS (Bendigo West) (13:19): I would like to congratulate and acknowledge the people across my region who were recipients of awards at recent Australia Day events. Senior Citizen of the

MEMBERS STATEMENTS 118 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019

Year in Bendigo is Kevin Cail, and while not from Bendigo West he is very well known. Kevin is described as Mr Kamarooka. He is a long-time Kamarooka resident and caretaker and vice-president of the Kamarooka Recreation Reserve. He is an exceptional volunteer who proudly continues a Cail family tradition of maintaining the recreation reserve, a role that has been passed from one generation to the next over many years. Our Young Citizen of the Year is Sam Kane. Sam is 20 years old and is very respected in the Golden Square community for his dedication and interest in helping others. He has been volunteering at the Golden Square Swimming Pool since he was 14, supporting fundraising efforts, working bees and marketing and promotion. Last year he became president of the pool committee, and he leads a passionate group of approximately 50 volunteers. In the Mount Alexander shire, Citizen of the Year was Ken Maddern. Ken is a passionate supporter of junior sport, and for nearly two decades he has advocated on behalf of user groups for access to first-class sporting facilities. His hard work and the effort of many other volunteers has brought his vision to life with the redevelopment of the Wesley Hill Recreation Reserve. Senior Citizen of the Year was Brian McCormick. Brian has worked tirelessly over many years to establish the Castlemaine Men’s Shed, and it has been a pleasure to work with him. He negotiated with government departments and Mount Alexander Golf Club to secure the land and applied for grants and sought donations. As president of the Castlemaine Men’s Shed he continues to dedicate a lot of his time to the community. Our Young Citizen of the Year in Mount Alexander shire— (Time expired) AUSTRALIA DAY AWARDS Mr MORRIS (Mornington) (13:20): I rise to extend my congratulations to a number of local citizens who were honoured in the Australia Day list. John de Wijn, QC, and now AM, has served the scouting community since 1970—currently as national vice-president and formerly as chairman of the Victorian branch executive committee. He has held many roles in Victorian scouting, including 18 years as the group leader at Baden Powell Park. John has also been active in Rotary and in his local church. Sonya Loader, OAM, was honoured for her service to scouting. Sonya has been an active member of the 1st Ranelagh Scout Group since 1982, rising to group leader in 2006. The 1st Ranelagh Scout Group are an active and successful scouting group and are highly regarded in the Mount Eliza community. Jeff Weir, OAM, is passionate about marine conservation. In 1991 he was the founding director of the Dolphin Research Institute, and he became executive director in 1997. Jeff was instrumental in achieving amendments to the Wildlife Act 1975 to protect marine mammals and in the creation of the award-winning I Sea, I Care marine ambassador program. Dr Bronwyn Hughes, OAM, is an artist and art historian represented in a number of major Australian collections. Currently the chair of GLAAS Inc., Dr Hughes was co-founder of the Duldig Studio, Malvern. The City of Frankston and the National Trust of Australia have also benefited from her expertise. Ms Judith Pettitt is a former Victorian public servant who has worked in senior roles across the sector in areas including education, disability services and natural resources. She is a former state vice- president of the Australian Human Resources Institute and a long-term supporter and former chair of the Mirabel Foundation. My congratulations to all awardees. Their recognition is well deserved. AUSTRALIA DAY AWARDS Ms WILLIAMS (Dandenong—Minister for Prevention of Family Violence, Minister for Women, Minister for Youth) (13:22): I rise to congratulate all those who were recognised by the Order of Australia in this year’s Australia Day honours, in particular the many Victorian women.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 119

There were 146 Victorian women recognised with an honour—an increase of 135 per cent on last year. Across our state women received about 40 per cent of this year’s honours—up from just 30 per cent in 2018. This historic increase has been thanks in part to the Andrews Labor government’s support for a dedicated awards officer whose role is to identify women whose contributions deserve to be recognised with our nation’s highest honours. The awards recognised remarkable women like Pauline Gandel, who with her husband, John, has donated over $100 million to philanthropic and charitable causes over the last 40 years; women like Muriel Bamblett, a Yorta Yorta and Dja Dja Wurrung woman who has given a lifetime of service and advocacy for Victoria’s Aboriginal communities, in particular Aboriginal children; women like Professor Melanie Wakefield and Professor Catriona McLean, whose research has contributed to advancements in the way we treat cancer and dementia; women like the Honourable Jennifer Coate, whose work on the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse shone a light on some of the most dark and shameful acts in our nation’s history and in doing so finally allowed so many to access justice. This is about valuing the work women are leading across our state. Every week thousands of Victorian women give their time and energy in the service of others. I am proud to be a part of a government that is ensuring Victorian women are given the recognition they so greatly deserve as volunteers, as advocates, as philanthropists— (Time expired) RURAL AND REGIONAL RAIL SERVICES Ms RYAN (Euroa) (13:23): January was a frustrating time for passengers on the Seymour line— frustrations which are continuing into February. Services are being replaced by buses due to works on the metropolitan network, and whilst no-one begrudges those disruptions if the network is being improved, it is hard to stomach it when all of the money is being poured into Melbourne and regional passengers are seeing none of the benefits. We need new trains on the Seymour line. It is just unacceptable that Labor refuses to invest in new rolling stock. On 23 January Warrick Harvey from Kilmore was stuck on the 7.35 a.m. service from Wandong to Southern Cross due to faulty brakes. The train arrived at Southern Cross 30 minutes late. Mr Harvey said, ‘We need new trains. This is absolutely stupid’—a sentiment that I wholeheartedly agree with. VIOLET TOWN RAIL ACCIDENT Ms RYAN: This week the community of Violet Town will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Southern Aurora rail disaster. On 7 February 1969 the Southern Aurora, an overnight express service between Melbourne and Sydney, collided at 110 kilometres an hour with a northern bound freight train. Nine people were killed in the crash and 117 were injured. Bruce Cumming was a teenager at the time, and he has been instrumental, along with Gary Abley and a number of other locals, in organising a program of commemorative events, one of which will be a dawn vigil on Thursday morning to remember the lives of those lost and the extraordinary community of Violet Town. BORONIA HEIGHTS PRIMARY SCHOOL Mr TAYLOR (Bayswater) (13:25):Of course students at Boronia Heights primary will soon benefit from the more than $8 million of works set to be completed in the coming months. This includes more modern classrooms, a new competition-grade gym and a performing arts centre, all of which are being delivered by the Andrews Labor government. The Education State is not just a slogan; it is a reality and it is happening each and every day right across my electorate and across this great state. We know the opportunities that come from a quality education. My own pathway to this Parliament is a testament to that. As I have said in this house in the past, I am a fierce advocate for improving the lives of people in my community through access to education. I am incredibly proud that our hardworking Minister for Education, our Premier and indeed this government share my passion. I would like to thank the Premier for his time in coming out to Boronia

MEMBERS STATEMENTS 120 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019

Heights primary. It is a fantastic local school, and I look forward to continuing the hard work with all the schools across the Bayswater district to ensure we are giving students— (Time expired) ENERGY SUPPLY Mr WELLS (Rowville) (13:27): This statement condemns the ongoing failures of the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change and her attempts to deceive Victorians about the capacity of the electricity system to cope with summer weather conditions. On 24 January on 3AW during the 5.00 p.m. news, the energy minister stated ‘We are absolutely confident’ that the state’s power supply will manage during the rest of Thursday and Friday’s forecast for above-40-degree weather conditions’. The next morning, after a third maintenance issue during the evening of 24 January, she was still claiming that ‘blackouts are something that will absolutely not be a feature of today, or a possibility’. Ninety minutes later Victorians were experiencing rolling blackouts. You have to question the minister's understanding of the actual problem and her capacity to give sound advice to Victorian residents. It was grossly irresponsible of her to make false assurances to the community given the extreme forecast conditions of the day. On Friday, 25 January, at the weather station in Scoresby the temperature reached 43.5 degrees. From midday nearby residents in Rowville and Lysterfield lost power as part of the rolling blackouts, which affected 200 000 households, yet the Victorian government provided no warning to residents that they would be without power on the hottest part of the hottest January day in five years. Confusion and anger were utmost in the minds of residents when they called my office on the day on behalf of elderly residents without power. ESSENDON COMMUNITY GARDENS Mr PEARSON (Essendon) (13:28): I was delighted to attend the 40th anniversary of Essendon Community Gardens last year. A big shout-out to local legend John Rerakis for all his efforts in putting on this great event and ensuring Philhellene, the restaurant he runs with his wife Susie, has the very best fresh fruit and vegetables grown from the garden. NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK Mr PEARSON: The Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry has uncovered some appalling actions and behaviours by some of our big banks. It is certainly not easy to be working in banking at the moment, but I did want to single out the NAB for their good work in working with the African-Australian community through their ongoing support and involvement with the African-Australian inclusion program. This program is a joint initiative with Jesuit Social Services, and its outcomes have been nothing short of spectacular. There have been more than 340 participants, more than 80 per cent of whom have found ongoing employment after their completion of the program and 50 per cent of whom are still with NAB. I do want to personally thank the CEO of NAB, Andrew Thorburn, for his leadership and support for this program, including attending graduation ceremonies in the past. His strong support has ensured that hundreds of African Australians have been given a go. Well done, Andrew. SARAH WALS Mr PEARSON: A big shout-out to Sarah Wals, a sometime Ascot Vale resident, who joined the illustrious Spartans Club last year as a result of completing 10 Melbourne Marathons. As you would appreciate, joining this club is no easy feat and men often dominate the membership, but I was so pleased to learn that Sarah had joined this elite club. Well done, Sarah. DAVID AND EILEEN PEARSON Mr PEARSON: Congratulations to my parents, David and Eileen, who celebrated 50 years of marriage on 9 November 2018. They have been a wonderful partnership and have shown me the value and purpose of having a strong and resilient marriage.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 121

BUNJILS MARROUN Mr PEARSON: On Australia Day the City of Moonee Valley held its very first healing ceremony, called Bunjils Marroun. The healing ceremony was at the Babepal Paen-mirring ceremonial rock circle at Five Mile Creek Reserve, Essendon. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the City of Moonee Valley for having the foresight— (Time expired) ENVIRONMENT POLICY Ms SANDELL (Melbourne) (13:30): Right now, as we all sit here, thousand-year-old forests in Tasmania burn—forests that have never burnt before. In past months alone we have seen a million fish killed in the Darling River due to negligence, mismanagement and, frankly, corruption. We have seen tens of thousands of flying foxes literally fall out of trees and die due to heatwaves. Our natural world is under pressure like never before. We are on the brink of ecological collapse, but amidst these crises people across Victoria, Australia and the world are waking up. They are demanding that we do better. Yet our governments are wilfully making matters worse. Despite extreme drought conditions the Andrews Labor government chose to open the cruel duck hunting season this year. Just a few weeks ago, under pressure from the racing and gambling industries, this Labor government changed the law to allow hundreds of racehorses to train on public beaches, trampling the habitat of the endangered hooded plover. And we saw this Andrews Labor government go to the election with no plan at all to halt the logging of our native forests. When will the major parties realise that when the health and future of the environment are on the line so too is the future of our economy and our society? It is time to change tack. A truly progressive government would have acted decades ago to prevent these crises, but the second-best time to act is now. BROADMEADOWS REVITALISATION BOARD Mr McGUIRE (Broadmeadows) (13:31): My call is for a whole-of-government response to the strategies I have provided to save billions of dollars and provide affordable housing; deliver a city deal for Melbourne’s northern and western suburbs, which will soon both have higher populations than Adelaide; provide jobs and prevent crime in the state’s poorest communities with the highest rates of unemployment and crime, especially those struggling through deindustrialisation; and coordinate priority precincts for communities that need such initiatives most. My recommendation is to expand the Broadmeadows Revitalisation Board to coordinate these initiatives locally and to help deliver business plans and budget submissions for economic and cultural development. Last year’s board included representatives from the previous departments of suburban development, industry and employment, and the City of Hume. Now is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to deliver the cultural, generational and systemic change required. Proposing and pursuing a city deal for Melbourne’s north and west adds the overarching architecture. It aggregates assets and develops opportunities anchored on two $15 billion nation-defining projects that have unity tickets: the long- awaited rail link to Melbourne Airport and the missing link in Melbourne’s road network, the north- east link. Such a city deal offers the greatest opportunity and value in Australia. Combined gross regional product of Melbourne’s north and west is almost $80 billion. A city deal would also redress inequality and the tale of two cities in the Australian government’s infrastructure disparity between Sydney and Melbourne. WELCOME STRANGER Ms STALEY (Ripon) (13:33): Today marks the 150th anniversary of the discovery at Moliagul of the Welcome Stranger. The Welcome Stranger is the largest alluvial gold nugget ever found. It was unearthed by prospectors John Deason and Richard Oates and found just 3 centimetres below the surface. For a while they kept it secret. The men covered it in dirt and left it in the ground until that evening, when they brought the dray and collected it. It weighed 72 kilograms, but there were not any scales capable of weighing it so it was broken into three pieces by anvil and taken to the London

MEMBERS STATEMENTS 122 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019

Chartered Bank of Australia in Dunolly, where it was weighed. They were paid £9381 for their nugget, which is about $3.8 million in today’s gold prices. There is a replica of this nugget in the corridor. However, no cast of it was ever made and there was never a photograph of it. The replica was based on a sketch that itself was drawn from memory. However, this is a key part of Victoria’s history. It was instrumental in the gold rush and in that area. I met with their descendants last week. (Time expired) HON. GORDON SCHOLES Mr CARBINES (Ivanhoe) (13:34): I rise to give thanks for the life of the Honourable Gordon Glen Denton Scholes, AO, who died aged 87 on 9 December 2018. I was pleased to be able to attend his memorial service in Highton, along with other members in this place, including the member for Geelong. Gordon was the MHR for Corio from 1967 to 1993, Speaker of the House of Representatives from 1975 to 1976 and minister in the first two Hawke governments from 1983 to 1987. He was a former Victorian amateur heavyweight boxing champion, in 1949; a past president of Geelong Trade Halls Council and a Geelong city councillor, starting out his working life as an engine driver. We heard great tributes from the former member for Geelong, Ian Trezise, and my old boss at the Geelong Advertiser, the former editor-in-chief, Darrell McClure. They gave glowing tributes to Gordon’s work in the community, particularly his work to establish Deakin University in Geelong in his time serving the Whitlam government. He was very highly respected in the community. From working on the 1999 campaigns in Geelong and Geelong Province with both Ian Trezise and Elaine Carbines, I certainly know Gordon was always there as an advocate for working people and those Labor Party members who sought to represent them in our Parliament. I pay tribute to not only his work but the legacy he left to be carried on by future and ongoing representatives across the Geelong region. Well done, Gordon Scholes. STUDENT PETITION Mr BATTIN (Gembrook) (13:36): I have been approached recently by a constituent in my electorate, Rahmana, who is a local student at Beaconhills College in Pakenham. Rahmana came to us in relation to a petition and a discussion around the intersection of Toomuc Valley Road, one that is getting increasingly busy with the amount of students that are there, new facilities, new housing and a retirement village, all growing through Pakenham. It is a concern that she has raised and seen with her own eyes in relation to the safety of crossing at that particular intersection, not just for students but also for drivers travelling in and out to the school. She wants to get this petition tabled in Parliament, so we have been working with her in relation to this petition to ensure we can get as many people and businesses as possible to sign it and obviously to have it tabled for the government to look at it and review this intersection as it gets more dangerous over time. When we were approached it was quite disappointing to learn that this student had already approached a Labor member of Parliament in relation to this to try and get the petition up, but the petition was returned to her with the member saying, ‘Just use this petition; that should be fine’. However, it was a petition that could not be tabled in the Parliament. It is quite disappointing that someone from the Andrews government would go to the extremes of ensuring a student would have a petition that could not be tabled in Parliament and therefore could not be used against the government. They wanted to hide the issue and put at risk the students using that intersection and the safety of other people in my community. MACEDON ELECTORATE FIREFIGHTERS Ms THOMAS (Macedon) (13:37): I rise to commend the many CFA volunteer firefighters from across the Macedon electorate who have responded to two significant bushfires over summer that threatened communities in Benloch and Hepburn Springs. I specifically want to acknowledge the Benloch, Bolinda, Carlsruhe, Darraweit Guim, Kyneton, Lancefield, Malmsbury, Metcalfe, Newham,

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 123

Pastoria, Romsey, Spring Hill, Springfield, Taradale and Tylden brigades for responding so effectively to the Benloch fire. I also acknowledge the Hepburn, Daylesford, Franklinford, Fryerstown, Glenlyon, Kyneton, Leonards Hill, Malmsbury, Musk, Porcupine Ridge, Spring Hill, Taradale, Trentham and Tylden brigades for responding to the Hepburn fire that threatened the township over Saturday and Sunday. Of course I also want to acknowledge the teams from Forest Fire Management Victoria, Parks Victoria and the local SES volunteers for their work. Although firefighters are still on the ground in Hepburn, that fire is now controlled. The volunteers have done a tremendous job, and I want to congratulate them. Importantly no properties or lives have been lost in these fires. On behalf of our community I say thank you not just to our firefighters but to all emergency services workers, to Department of Health and Human Services and council staff and to the Red Cross and Victorian Council of Churches volunteers. Your work is truly appreciated, and on behalf of my community I say thank you. CUMMERAGUNJA WALK-OFF Ms SHEED (Shepparton) (13:39): The 80th anniversary of the Cummeragunja walk-off was celebrated at Cummeragunja last weekend. This is an important part of the history of the Yorta Yorta people. Cummeragunja is located in southern New South Wales and is just across the Murray River from Barmah in the north of my electorate. It was established in 1888 to house displaced Aboriginal families from many areas of Victoria as the dispossession from land took place. Managers appointed by the New South Wales government under the 1909 Aborigines Protection Act controlled the lives of residents, and the living conditions by 1939 were dreadful, despite petitions to government for improvements. Elders tell stories of big black cars coming into Cummeragunja and how parents would tell their children to run away and hide so as not to be removed from them. To escape the harsh conditions approximately 200 Aboriginal people left their homes and crossed the Murray River to Victoria. Most moved to the flats at Mooroopna, finding work picking fruit and shearing. Two prominent Aboriginal men, Jack Patten and William Cooper, became spokesmen for the dispersed Aboriginal communities. Patten is said to have received a jail sentence for his part in inspiring the walk-off, and both have since been honoured for their contribution and sacrifice. Congratulations to all of those involved in the recent commemorations of this most important event in the lives of the Yorta Yorta people. And while I could not be there in person, I walk with you. HON. GORDON SCHOLES Ms COUZENS (Geelong) (13:40): I also want to acknowledge the recent passing of the Honourable Gordon Scholes, AO. Gordon served in the House of Representatives from 1967 to 1993, representing the Labor Party in the seat of Corio. He was the Speaker of the House of Representatives from 1975 to 1976 and then a minister in the Hawke government from 1983 to 1987. Gordon joined the Australian Labor Party in 1955. He was president of the Geelong ALP branch, president of the Geelong Trades Hall Council and a councillor of the then Geelong City Council. Gordon was a greatly respected politician, held in high regard by the Geelong community. I will miss his words of wisdom and support. Vale, the Honourable Gordon Scholes. GEELONG RAINBOW FESTIVAL Ms COUZENS: On another matter, congratulations to the Geelong Rainbow team for their work on the Geelong Rainbow Festival to be held this coming weekend. I am proud that the Andrews Labor government has provided funding for this event. The festival will include many activities, such as an official opening on Friday night at the fantastic Geelong Piano Bar. The Geelong Pride March is on Sunday morning, followed by a festival fair in Johnstone Park. I am proud to support the Geelong LGBTIQ community, and I am looking forward to a great weekend. The festival activities will showcase the diversity of the Geelong community.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS 124 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019

AUSTRALIA DAY AWARDS Ms SPENCE (Yuroke) (13:41): Last month I once again had the pleasure of attending Hume City Council's annual Australia Day Awards and citizenship ceremony. Craigieburn resident Val Price was named Citizen of the Year in recognition of her involvement in a number of community groups and sporting clubs, including the Craigieburn Netball Association, Craigieburn Little Athletics, Hume Relay for Life and Craigieburn Primary School. My thanks to Val for her many years of hard work, and congratulations on this much-deserved award. Congratulations also to Sunbury resident and disability access advocate Stephanie Challis, who received the Young Citizen of the Year award, and the organisers of the Sunbury Agricultural Show, who received the Community Event of the Year award. The national Australia Day honours also saw Craigieburn's Drew Jessop awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia. Drew has served as a councillor for 22 years and as mayor twice, but his involvement in the community extends well beyond local government. Drew has made an immense contribution in a vast number of leadership roles, including the Merri Creek Management Committee, the Craigieburn War Memorial and Remembrance Committee, Craigieburn Education and Community Centre and the Craigieburn Festival committee—just to name a few. Personally, having known Drew for a number of years, including serving with him on Hume City Council between 2008 and 2012, I am delighted that his passionate dedication to both Craigieburn and Hume has been recognised. Lastly, congratulations to all of the new citizens who participated in the Australia Day ceremony and the citizenship ceremony. They are greatly welcomed by our community. CHANUKAH IN THE PARK Mr DIMOPOULOS (Oakleigh) (13:43): It was a real pleasure to join the Chabad Carnegie community for their Chanukah in the Park in December at Packer Park. They had a joint festival with the Chabad Bentleigh community. It was an incredible festival not only celebrating Hanukkah but also celebrating Jewish tradition and thousands of years of civilisation. I really enjoyed meeting the community in a more fulsome way. I then also caught up with Rabbi Yisroel at the Chabad Carnegie facility. He showed me not only the spiritual nourishment he provides to this community through the synagogue but also the social support that he and the community provide to young Jewish people and also to the elderly. I commend the community and the Rabbi for the work they do in my community. ANTI-SEMITISM Mr DIMOPOULOS: I am disturbed by the reports of the recent rise in anti-Semitic attacks, including the one on the three boys who caught a bus from Chadstone to Oakleigh, and I think it is incumbent on all of us to condemn those attacks. An attack on one community is effectively an attack on all of us. I think there is a correlation between the rise of the extreme right and these kinds of attacks. They are happy to wave the Australian flag and rejoice in the First Fleet, but do they recognise how many Jewish people were on the First Fleet? Do they recognise that the first Australian-born Governor- General was Jewish? One of our greatest generals, Sir John Monash, was Jewish. Our first female Governor of Victoria was Jewish. Prominent people in the arts and academia are Jewish. They have made an incredible contribution to this community, and I will always stand by that community. COBURG RSL CENTENARY Ms BLANDTHORN (Pascoe Vale) (13:45): I am very pleased to rise today and advise the house that over the break I attended the centenary of the Coburg RSL. The centenary of the Coburg RSL makes it one of the oldest metropolitan RSLs in Victoria, if not indeed the oldest. I believe it is a disputable title that a couple are claiming, but nonetheless the honour is that they have been basically serving the veterans community in the district that I represent for over 100 years. It was a super-hot day when we had this celebration, and we walked from the Coburg town hall, where the original RSL

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 125 was, to its new home in Sydney Road. We stopped along the way and viewed the other places that the Coburg RSL had been in that 100-year time period. Can I pay special tribute to Michael Pianta, the current president. I know Michael would say that the work he does in our community for the members of the Coburg RSL extends across the community and is on behalf of and certainly is a representation of the work that has been done by all of those who have gone before him. While I have the great pleasure to work with people like Michael and Godfrey and Kerri and Geoff and Justine and many, many others at the Coburg RSL, there has been an amazing team there that for many, many years—for, well, 100 years—has served our community. AUSTRALIA DAY AWARDS Ms GREEN (Yan Yean) (13:46): I rise to commend the recipients in my local community who have been recognised by the receipt of various Australia Day awards. Two dear friends, Val Simpson of Mernda and Helen Coleman, were awarded the Order of Australia Medal for services to local government and many, many other community groups. I have been pleased to celebrate personally with both of them since the receipt of their awards. Jane Hayward spoke at the magnificent state memorial service last night. She is the principal of Strathewen Primary School. She was awarded the Public Service Medal in addition to the Member of the Order of Australia that she received a few years ago for her services to her community since Black Saturday. I was pleased to attend Jenny Macklin’s hosting of her final Jagajaga Australia Day awards as federal member. I was delighted to see Ruth King, Stephen Gaunt, Cathie Murphy, Amanda Gibson, John Chenhall and Leigh Marshall receive awards, all worthy recipients. The Nillumbik Australia Day Award recipients were Leon Higgins, Citizen of the Year; Glen Ferrarotto, Volunteer of the Year; Barry Backman, Senior Citizen of the Year; and Cameron Sibeijn, Junior Volunteer of the Year. The Diamond Creek Opportunity Shop, which has raised millions of dollars for the Austin Hospital, was the Community Group of the Year. Gillian Borrack was the Citizen of the Year in the City of Whittlesea. All of these people are worthy recipients and I commend them very much. ST ALBANS LUNAR NEW YEAR FESTIVAL Ms SULEYMAN (St Albans) (13:48): I rise first of all to commend the St Albans Business Group Association for again hosting the St Albans Lunar New Year Festival this year, in January. We saw more than 80 000 people attend this annual event, experiencing many activities and fantastic family events during the day. I also want to acknowledge the Quang Minh Temple for an incredible night last night as we called in the Lunar New Year. Even more special is the Andrews Labor government’s commitment to fund over $4 million to construct the first Vietnamese cultural museum in the west. I would like to commend the Vietnamese community, particularly in my electorate of St Albans, for their contribution in every way of life—from our St Albans traders to our Sunshine traders, to our restaurants, teaching and business. Their contribution has been enormous. As today they celebrate the Lunar New Year, may it be a very successful opportunity this year, the Year of the Pig, bringing in hopefully much more investment in the west— (Time expired) Business of the house SESSIONAL ORDERS The SPEAKER (13:49): Before calling the Leader of the House to move her motion 1, I would like to make a statement about how the debate on the sessional orders will be conducted. Because the motion is long and there may be amendments to it I have decided that, in accordance with past practice,

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 126 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019 we will treat the debate like a bill being considered in detail. If members wish to move amendments, I ask them to announce them and request that they be circulated after the Leader of the House has moved and spoken to her motion, as is the case when circulating amendments during a second-reading debate. Members with amendments will then need to formally move the amendments when speaking to the motion, but all members may speak to the motion and amendments once circulated. After the general debate has been concluded the house will deal with each proposed sessional order. As each is called on I will put the question for any relevant amendment to the motion. I will then put the question for each of the sessional orders moved by the Leader of the House. When all the orders have been called on, considered and dealt with I will put the appropriate question that the motion be agreed to or that the motion as amended be agreed to. Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure) (13:50): I move:

That the following sessional orders be adopted, to come into operation with effect from the next sitting day— 1 Days and times of meeting Unless otherwise ordered, the House will meet each Tuesday at 12.00 noon, and each Wednesday and Thursday at 9.30 am. 2 Interruption of business for adjournment Standing Order 32 be suspended and the following to apply: (1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the Speaker will interrupt the business before the House at: (a) 7.00 pm each sitting Tuesday and Wednesday; (b) 5.00 pm on any other sitting day. (2) If a division is taking place when the time for the interruption arises, the division will be completed and the result announced. If the division is on a closure motion, and the motion is agreed to, the question or questions then required to be put to close the issue before the House will also be dealt with. The Speaker will then interrupt business. (3) If the time for the interruption arises: (a) at the same time as the completion time set by the government business program; or (b) after the interruption for the completion time of the government business program, but before all business on the program has been dealt with— all business on the government business program will be completed first. The Speaker will then interrupt business for the adjournment. (4) After the interruption: (a) before a motion for the adjournment is proposed by the Speaker, a minister may move that the sitting be continued. That motion must be put immediately without amendment or debate. If it is agreed to, the House will resume debate at the point at which it had been interrupted; or (b) if a motion is not moved, the Speaker will immediately propose the question 'That the House now adjourns'. Any business under discussion and any other business not concluded at the time of the adjournment will be listed on the notice paper for the next sitting day. Any member speaking at the time of the interruption may, when debate resumes, continue his or her speech. 3 Order of business (1) So much of standing orders as provide for question time to be held at 2.00 pm on sitting days other than Tuesdays is suspended to allow for question time to be held at 11.00 am on those days. (2) In Standing Order No 55, for ‘2.00 pm’, wherever occurring, read ‘11.00 am’. (3) So much of Standing Order Nos 36, 38, 39 and 41 be suspended so as to enable the following order of business on: Wednesdays Formal business Disallowance motions

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 127

Statements by members Statements on parliamentary committee reports Government business Question time (11.00 am) Government business continued Matter of public importance or grievance debate (2.00 pm) Government business continued General business Thursdays (and Fridays) Formal business Statements by members Government business Question time (11.00 am) Government business continued General business. (4) So much of Standing Orders 38 and 39 be suspended so as to enable: (a) at 2.00 pm on Wednesday, unless a division is taking place, the Chair interrupts the business before the House and the bells are then rung for one minute; (b) if a division is taking place at 2.00 pm: (i) it will be completed without interruption and result announced; (ii) if the division is on a closure motion, and the motion is agreed to, the question or questions then required to be put to close the issue before the House will also be dealt with; (iii) business is then interrupted following the procedure in sub-paragraph (a); (c) the Chair announces the grievance debate or matter of public importance, whichever the case may be; (d) any business under discussion and not completed at the interruption will be resumed immediately at the end of the grievance debate or matter of public importance, whichever the case may be, and any member speaking at the time of the interruption may then continue his or her speech. (5) In Standing Order 39(9) for ‘statements on parliamentary committee reports under Standing Order 41’ read ‘government business’. 4 Answers to questions on notice A reply to a question on notice delivered to the Clerk under Standing Order 54(3) must be submitted within 30 days. 5 Who may ask oral questions without notice Only non-government members may ask questions without notice under Standing Order 55. 6 Supplementary questions without notice (1) At the conclusion of each answer to an oral question without notice, the questioning member may ask the responding minister a supplementary question to elucidate or clarify the answer. (2) Supplementary questions must actually and accurately relate to the original question, must relate to or arise from the answer and must not be a separate question on the same topic. 7 Ministers’ statements After each oral question without notice and any related supplementary questions, any minister may seek the call to make a statement of up to two minutes.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 128 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019

8 Constituency questions (1) At the conclusion of oral questions without notice and ministers’ statements, five government members and five non-government members may ask one oral question each to ministers relating to constituency matters. (2) Replies to constituency questions must be given in writing within 30 days by delivering a reply to the Clerk. The Clerk must give the response to the member who asked the question and electronically publish the response. 9 Duration of question time Standing Order 55(2) is suspended and the following to apply: Question time will last until five oral questions and related supplementary questions have been answered, up to five ministers’ statements have been made and up to ten constituency questions have been asked and where a question is ruled out of order it is, for the purposes of this sessional order, deemed to have been answered. 10 Time limits on answers and questions (1) The time limit for each oral question, supplementary question and constituency question is one minute. (2) The time limit for the answer to each oral question is three minutes, and for the answer to each supplementary question is one minute. 11 Content of answers Standing Order 58(1)(a) is suspended and all answers to questions must be direct, factual, succinct and relevant. 12 Chair ordering member to withdraw—application during oral questions without notice and ministers’ statements Where: (a) a member is ordered to withdraw from the House under Standing Order 124 during oral questions without notice or ministers’ statements; and (b) the time for oral questions without notice and ministers’ statements ends before the end of the suspension period— the member may return to the Chamber after the time for oral questions without notice and ministers’ statements but must serve the remainder of their suspension during the next question time, subject to Standing Order 124(2). 13 Time limit for lead speakers For the purposes of Standing Order 131, and subject to any agreement to the contrary, additional time provided for the lead speaker of any other party does not apply where such a party has advised the Speaker that it is in a coalition arrangement with another party. 14 Notices of motion Standing Orders 140(1) and 141 be suspended and the following to apply: (1) A member may only move a motion to discuss a subject if he or she has given notice of that motion on a previous sitting day. (2) Copies of all verbal notices must be provided to the Clerks at the table before notices are called on by the Speaker. (3) Copies of all written notices must be provided to the Clerks at the table before the conclusion of formal business. (4) All notices given by ministers must be verbal. (5) Verbal notices must be read to the House. They can only be given before the House proceeds to the business of the day as set out in the notice paper. (6) All notices, except notices given under paragraph (7) given by members who are not ministers, must be given in writing. Members may give notice by lodging a copy with the Clerks in accordance with paragraph (3). (7) A motion by a member expressing no confidence in the Premier and ministers, in the terms set out in s 8A of the Constitution Act 1975, may only be given verbally.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 129

(8) The Clerk must notify the Speaker of a notice of a motion by a member to disallow a statutory rule to which Standing Order 151 applies, and the Speaker will report details to the House at the first convenient opportunity. 15 Procedure for a division Standing Order 164(1) is suspended and the following to apply: When a division is requested, the Clerk will ring the bells for four minutes as indicated by the timer. 16 Operation of Acts—Proclamations Copies of proclamations of the Governor in Council fixing dates for the coming into operation of Acts, as published in the Government Gazette from time to time will be tabled by the Clerk. Given the length of the motion I am sure the house will appreciate me just moving straight to the debate rather than re-reading it into the record given it is in everyone’s hands on today’s notice paper. I referenced some of this in the government business program debate a short while ago in this place, but it is customary for a government, whether they are a returned government or a new government, at the start of every new Parliament to review the previous Parliament’s sessional orders, look at them against the longstanding standing orders that have been in place and consider any amendments or changes. For those who have been in the Parliament for quite some time, like the Manager of Opposition Business and I both have been, we have been through— A member interjected. Ms ALLAN: Well, I put us both in that basket. We have both been through a few iterations of changes to the standing orders. I remember the great debate of 2003 when there were some substantial changes to the standing orders at that time, and there have been other changes that have been made over the course of a number of years. What I am flagging is that we are making today some very modest changes in these sessional orders. They are modest. There is no great retrofitting or renovation to the practice of this place. They pick up on some elements that worked well in the previous Parliament and also pick up on some of the reflections you made, Speaker, in your comments following your installation as Speaker on the first day of sitting last year in seeking for this place to consider how we can improve standards. I will come to that a bit more in a moment. I am wanting to say, I guess particularly for non-government members who get particularly excited and perhaps on occasion a little twitchy about sessional order debates and changes, that these are quite modest changes. As I said, they pick up on what has worked previously and how we can also continue to look at ways to modernise the Parliament. In that spirit we will be with these sessional orders continuing the practice we had in the previous Parliament’s sessional orders of keeping in place sitting hours that are a bit more family and community friendly than the sitting times that are outlined in the standing orders. This is something that the Premier committed to before the 2014 election, and we put that in place. I know we are used to it now after four years, but I have had many members over the past four years reflect on how these hours are better—again, whether it is from a personal health and wellbeing perspective or for the fact that the metropolitan members get to go home and perhaps get to see their kids before they go to bed or are able to go and participate in other community activities. It has made some improvements on that front, so we will be continuing with those sitting hours with these new sessional orders. Moving through—I will not go line by line through the sessional orders; as I said, they largely replicate what was there previously—I do want to call to attention and note the comments that were made in the government business program debate by the Manager of Opposition Business and the member for Melbourne that they have got some amendments and some potential concerns. On that point I should have mentioned at the outset that the speaker following me, who I believe is the member for Essendon, will be moving an amendment to my motion to facilitate the immediate implementation of these sessional orders. Should they successfully pass the Parliament, they will come into effect immediately. That amendment will be moved by the member for Essendon. I particularly noted the comments from the member for Gippsland South. He was ascribing some ulterior motives to the government’s actions

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 130 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019 in making some of these sessional order changes. I would encourage, as I said, members opposite not to read too much into these changes and encourage members of the house to note one of the reforms that we made in the previous Parliament to question time, which was to bring supplementary questions into this place for the first time during question time. We will be keeping that practice that we started in the previous Parliament. I acknowledge other parliaments are a bit ahead of us and have had it for a while, but we are keeping supplementary questions and indeed also constituency questions. I highlight that this provides more opportunities than ever before, particularly for non-government members, to question and scrutinise the government. So we are not wanting to reduce that scrutiny, by any stretch. In fact we introduced additional scrutiny in the last Parliament, and we are keeping that practice with these changes to the sessional orders by retaining the constituency questions and also the capacity for members to ask supplementary questions. I am asking, as I said, for a little bit of a tick, perhaps, from non-government members that we are continuing that opportunity for them to scrutinise the government. We have the amendment that we have made in relation to ministers statements, and I will address this matter very directly, because I know that it is something that is a feature of the amendments that may be coming forward from the opposition and the Greens political party. Again, ministers statements need to be seen in the context of the other changes we made to question time—introducing supplementary questions and introducing constituency questions, which provide for that additional scrutiny. We have reduced the time. We have all just sat through a question time under the old system, where there were no time limits for questions. I think we all witnessed the length of question time, and we should be feeling very happy that under the proposed sessional orders ministers statements go for no more than 2 minutes. In that vein, in keeping ministers statements sharp, short and to the point, we have tightened up what ministers statements can be about. Obviously ministers statements will be ministers addressing matters in their portfolio. I also point out the fact that they only go for 2 minutes, and obviously every alternate opportunity is given to non-government members: those non- government members get the opportunity to ask a question and a supplementary question as well. The final area that I wanted to touch on this afternoon in moving this motion, in seeking the support of all members of the chamber, is proposed sessional order 12, which is a step towards how we can improve the standards in this place. It looks at standing order 124, which gives you, Speaker, the power to remove a member from this place for unparliamentary behaviour, or behaviour that is not appropriate in this place, and it is to toughen the penalty by having that period of suspension be served across question times. I think this will help members to just reflect before they act. Do they want to sit out that question time and perhaps a subsequent question time, or do they want to participate in some of the debate that goes on during question time? I think again, as I said earlier, this reflects the comments that you made to this place back on the sitting day in December, Speaker, and it certainly does not preclude any other steps that members may want to take towards other amendments to the sessional or standing orders to improve standards. But this is a first step, if you like, on that pathway. Also, as I was explaining earlier to one of my newer colleagues, sessional orders give us the chance to do a bit of a try before we buy. We can see how things run through sessional orders before they are formally made into standing orders. Of course what goes with that is a more formal process through the Standing Orders Committee. There may be the opportunity for that to happen over the course of this Parliament, but we did want to, at the outset, establish the sessional orders that will govern the operation of this Parliament. As I said, that does not preclude any other changes that may be made over the next four years. With those observations, I will just repeat that, as I said, this is not wholesale change. It is modest change. It is tightening up in some areas, it is retaining the capacity for non-government scrutiny of the government substantially in others and it is also a step along the path of encouraging us all to think about how we can lift our own standards and behaviour in the chamber. With those comments, I commend the motion to the house. Mr WELLS (Rowville) (14:00): I ask that my amendments be circulated.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 131

The SPEAKER: I invite members to circulate their amendments. Ms SANDELL (Melbourne) (14:01): I ask that my amendments be circulated. The SPEAKER: Those amendments will be circulated. Mr PEARSON (Essendon) (14:01): I ask that my amendment be circulated. The SPEAKER: Are there any further amendments to the motion? We will just pause while those amendments are circulated. Mr WELLS: I move:

Sessional Order 6 1 Omit ‘(1)’. 2 Omit paragraph (2). Sessional Order 7 3 Omit ‘After each oral question without notice and any related supplementary questions, any minister’ and insert ‘Immediately before statements by members each sitting day up to five ministers’. 4 After ‘minutes’ insert ‘to advise the House about matters related to their portfolio’. Sessional Order 9 5 After ‘until’ omit ‘five’ and insert ‘10’. 6 Omit ‘, up to five ministers’ statements have been made’. Sessional Order 11 7 Before ‘Standing’ insert ‘(1) ’. 8 After ‘relevant.’ insert the following new paragraphs— ‘(2) The Speaker may determine that an answer to an oral question without notice or supplementary oral question is not responsive to the question, and may accordingly direct the minister to provide a written response to the question and lodge it with the Speaker by 11.00 am the next sitting day. The Speaker will forward the written response to the member who asked the question and the Clerk must publish the response electronically. (3) The Speaker will determine the adequacy of a written response to a question provided under this sessional order. The Speaker may determine that a written response does not appropriately answer the question and may direct that the minister provide another written response by 11.00 am the next sitting day. The Speaker will forward the written response to the member who asked the question and the Clerk must publish the response electronically.’. Sessional Order 12 9 Omit this sessional order. Sessional Order 14 10 Omit ‘Standing Orders 140(1) and 141’ and insert ‘Standing Order 140(1)’. 11 Omit paragraphs (6) to (8) inclusive and insert— ‘(6) A maximum overall total of 10 general business verbal notices may be given each sitting day, five from government backbenchers collectively, and five from non-government members collectively. Non-government notices will be apportioned between members on a pro-rata basis, according to the non-government representation in the House. (7) In addition to notices given under paragraph (6), members may give written notice by lodging a copy, labelled as a written notice, with the Clerks in accordance with paragraph (3). Members are not entitled to also give such notices verbally. (8) A motion by a member expressing no confidence in the Premier and ministers, in the terms set out in s 8A of the Constitution Act 1975, may only be given verbally. (9) Except where a member has given notice under paragraph (6), the Clerk must notify the Speaker of a notice of a motion by a member to disallow a statutory rule to which Standing Order 151 applies, and the Speaker will report details to the House at the first convenient opportunity.’.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 132 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019

New Sessional Order 12 Insert the following sessional order after sessional order 3— ‘A Questions to ministers So much of Standing Order 53(1) be suspended to allow non-government members to ask ministers questions without notice on any matter.’. I rise to join the debate on sessional orders. I have to say, firstly, that I am a little disappointed because I was hoping the Speaker would remain in the chair during this very important debate. There would be difficult times coming up over the next four years if the government and the Assembly were to adopt these sessional orders. I note that the Leader of the House said that they are only modest changes, and she referred especially to ministers statements, saying that they are going to be to the point. We have a very, very different view to that interpretation of ministers statements. I make the point that when the Andrews government came to power in 2014 they made a big deal about improving parliamentary standards. They made it very public that it was an election commitment that they were going to raise the standards of parliamentary debate. But when we look at what they have actually done and what they have actually promised the Victorian people, we see that they are two completely different things. We all remember when Labor was in opposition from 2010 to 2014 and what parliamentary standards were all about. The undermining of Speaker Ken Smith was absolutely constant, and the way that the Labor opposition ran around with the member for Frankston in those days does not put them in good stead when it comes to parliamentary standards and lecturing other people about improving the standards of parliamentary behaviour. Now we have new sessional orders, which the Leader of the House introduced on 19 December last year. We were very keen to look at these new sessional orders to ensure that whatever standards and whatever sessional orders the government brought in would be an improvement on the sessional orders they brought in at the start of 2015 and to ensure that the standards continue to improve. There are some sessional orders that we will be keen to support, and the Leader of the House mentioned some of those. But as we go through these proposed sessional orders I am afraid there are some that we just cannot support and will have to oppose. In fact looking at the overall sessional orders and the impact they are going to have on parliamentary standards, we will be opposing the sessional orders overall. My amendments to the sessional orders have been circulated, so what I will do now is go through the sessional orders as they appear on the notice paper. Sessional order 1 we have no issues with, so we will support it. Sessional order 2, the interruption of business for the adjournment at 7 o’clock on Tuesdays and Wednesdays we support, as we support going to the adjournment debate at 5 o’clock on Thursdays. In regard to sessional order 3 and changes to the order of business, we support that as well; we have no issues in regard to that. But we will be moving a new sessional order, sessional order 3A. I will come to that later because the reasons will become apparent as we go through the sessional orders sequentially. Sessional order 4, ‘Answers to questions on notice’, is straightforward. We do not have an issue with sessional order 5 about who may ask oral questions without notice. Sessional order 6, ‘Supplementary questions without notice’, raises an issue with the addition of some words. Subsection (1) we have no issue with. It is in subsection (2) that words have been added. The sessional order used to read: Supplementary questions must actually and accurately relate to the original question and must relate to or arise from the answer. But now the words ‘must not be a separate question on the same topic’ have been added. So we will be moving an amendment to ensure that the words after the word ‘answer’ are deleted. In fact what we will do is delete subsection (2) completely. The big issue that we have, obviously, is the issue that the Leader of the House mentioned, which is ministers statements. Sessional order 7 reads as follows:

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 133

After each oral question without notice and any related supplementary questions, any minister may seek the call to make a statement of up to two minutes. To make a statement of up to 2 minutes. From an opposition point of view, we ask: a statement on what? This, Deputy Speaker, is going to put you in a very difficult situation if a minister can get up and talk about any matter on any issue. Standing order 53 says:

Questions may be asked of: (1) Ministers on matters relating to public affairs … which over the years has been defined as public administration relevant to the office or the portfolio that they hold. They are the standing orders. Under these sessional orders we will now have a situation where the minister can seek the call to make a statement of up to 2 minutes. The reality of that is that it puts the opposition in a difficult position. But it also puts you, Speaker, in a very difficult position, because if you were going to say—and we will be strongly opposing this—that you can make a statement, the question will be, ‘What can the minister make a statement about?’. Then obviously, from an opposition point of view, does that mean that we can ask the minister any question that we like? If the minister is going to get up and make a statement on any topic, then surely, as the opposition, we can get up and ask that minister any question about any matter, otherwise there is going to be a gross inconsistency between what the minister can say as part of a statement and what the opposition can ask as part of a question. It just seems to be coincidental that running up to a federal election, this particular sessional order means that a minister can get up and talk about any issue. I wonder what the issues would be. The minister could get up and talk about, maybe, the Greens losing so many members over the last 12 months—not part of their portfolio. They might be able to talk about children on Nauru. They might be able to talk about asylum seekers in immigration detention. They might be able to talk about the private lives of any politicians. They might be able to talk about the banking royal commission. They might be able to talk about changes to federal superannuation law, changes to negative gearing or changes to franking credits that the federal Labor Party wants to bring in in government. They might want to talk about a federal by-election, federal preselections, federal leadership changes or the blatant promotion of Bill Shorten in the run-up to the May, June or July federal election. That just opens it up so wide. So I would ask, Speaker, how can you actually be in a position to rule on the relevance of a particular ministers statement if the sessional order is going to be agreed to by this house? As I said, it puts you in an impossible situation because it clearly says ‘to make a statement of up to 2 minutes’. It is not ‘make a statement of up to 2 minutes which is relevant to the portfolio or relevant to public administration’. That is just simply not the case. As I said, we would be expecting—and we expect you to be acting fairly in regard to this—that if a minister does make a particular statement, then the opposition can ask any question in relation to what that minister has said. That is what we would be expecting from you as Speaker to be able to rule that question in order. So if the minister gets up and speaks about the promotion of Bill Shorten, for example, hypothetically in the run-up to the election, then we should be able as an opposition to get up and ask any question to that minister about the proposed promotion of Bill Shorten. If they have mentioned that as part of the statement, we would expect you to rule that question in order, and if you do not, then there are two sets of rules. The minister can make any statement on anything, but when it comes to the opposition, we have to confine our questions only to the portfolio, so there is a contradiction. There is a blatant contradiction. Sessional order 7 cannot be allowed to pass. It is too broad, too wide and will not work in practice, because what will happen is that there will be a long line of points of order, pulling you up or questioning you as Speaker in your adjudication in regard to the contradiction between unlimited, unfettered statements and confining what we can ask that particular minister. So that is one of the significant issues that we have with this bill, and there will be other speakers that will be wanting to speak on this particular issue.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 134 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019

In regard to the next sessional order we have concerns about—with 8, ‘Constituency questions’, we are fine—on ‘Duration of question time’, sessional order 9, one of the issues that the member for Box Hill raised when he was Manager of Opposition Business in February 2015 was the concern around the grandstanding by government ministers in regard to making their statements. The view of the opposition is that those statements should be made at the start of the day. They do not need to be taking up valuable question time when question time is for the opposition to be able to ask our questions— Ms Allan interjected. Mr WELLS: I tell you what, I have to hand it to the Leader of the House; we do need consistency, and we are doing our very, very best to put forward to you, Speaker, and to the house how we can make this workable over the next four years. That is what we are after. What we are after is just fairness with regard to question time. It should be about the opposition gaining information from a minister, and I guess one of the other reasons that we are also wanting this is that it allows statements to come under closer scrutiny if they are at the start of the day and we are able to work through that. That is one of the issues. In regard to sessional order 11, ‘Content of answers’, Speaker, this again reduces your influence and your power, with the greatest respect, because what used to happen is that if we asked a question and we were not satisfied with the answer, a member of the opposition could stand up and say, ‘We don’t think that that is relevant to the question that has been asked’, and you were then able to request that minister to provide a written response. It worked pretty well. Sometimes the responses we got back were not that great. When the response should have come back, then we were able to at least look at the response when we did receive it and the information that was presented in answer to the question. Now this has been deleted. It is just disappointing that we now have to rely on you as Speaker to say the question is relevant or the question is not relevant so we can call a number of points of order. It again puts you in a difficult position because when the question was nowhere near relevant in the past we were able to call a point of order for you to direct the minister to give a written response. That is no longer the case. So I am not sure, if we are talking about an improvement in parliamentary standards, why that part of the old sessional orders has been removed and there has been no replacement put in its place. That is incredibly disappointing. When the next member of the government gets up and speaks, maybe we can get an explanation of the government’s reasoning for reducing that ability of the opposition to be able to call on the Speaker to direct a written response. In regard to sessional order 12, which orders a member to withdraw, the issue, very clearly, as we understand it, is that if there is an hour-long question time, hypothetically, and at 30 minutes through question time you as Speaker remove an opposition member from the chamber, that person leaves for 30 minutes—they serve 30 minutes of their 1-hour suspension; they do not serve the full 1 hour—and then has to serve 30 minutes during the next question time. If it happens on Thursday, then the person misses out on the following Tuesday’s question time, and we think that is a double punishment. They are missing not just 30 minutes of one question time; they are missing part of two question times to add up to 1 hour, and we think that is just grossly unfair. The current system seems to have worked reasonably well—that is, if you were going to be thrown out for 1 hour, you would serve your full hour and you would have to face the consequences of being missing during constituency questions at times or during members statements at times. They were certain things you would be missing out on. Under this system you are missing possibly two question times, and we just think that is blatantly wrong, so we will be moving amendments to that. Sessional order 14 proposes that notices of motion be put into sessional orders, and we have no issues with that. Sessional order 15 proposes a procedure for divisions, and we have no issues with that. Sessional order 16 refers to the operations of acts—proclamations. We have no issues with that because we understand that if there is a start date of a particular act, then it allows for that act to be gazetted and for the clerks to be able to table that in Parliament so that we are able to do that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 135

In regard to notices of motion, we have seen under the standing orders that these work very, very well. In regard to what happened today where there were a number of notices of motion, getting rid of that particular part of notices of motion does not allow the member to stand up and put a notice of motion. With all the technology now, that is going to have a far bigger impact on the community group that may have asked that particular member of Parliament to move the notice of motion, and compared to the way the system is at the moment under the old sessional orders they would not be able to do that. We will be moving a number of amendments, and we want to do this in what we believe is good faith to actually make it more worthwhile. Regarding the way that the sessional orders have been written, I know that the Leader of the House has said that there are going to be greater improvements in parliamentary standards, but we just do not see it. We simply do not understand how that can occur. I will leave my comments at that, and then when we move through the amendments we will speak further to the amendments. Mr PEARSON (Essendon) (14:21): I move: That the words ‘effect from the next sitting day’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘immediate effect’. I ask that my amendment be circulated. The SPEAKER: That amendment has been circulated. Mr PEARSON: I rise to join the debate on the sessional orders. I will first of all speak to my amendment, which has been circulated for the benefit of the house. The purpose of the amendment is to enable the house to go on the adjournment debate at 7.00 p.m. tonight and for the two bills that are before the house to be dispatched. As covered in the government business program debate, this will enable this place to reflect upon the legacy of the Black Saturday fires from 10 years ago and to pay due respect to the affected communities. By moving this amendment we are able to guillotine those two bills to ensure that they can be transmitted to the other place and ensure that tomorrow this place conducts itself in an appropriate way, as you would expect. I refer now to some of the proposed changes in relation to the sessional orders. If I could begin with sessional order 12, which relates to suspensions of members being carried over from one question time to another. Speaker, you talked about this when we resumed in December last year in relation to trying to improve the standards in this place. I think your reflections in this place in part came from those valedictory speeches given by party members who ended their service in this place at the conclusion of the 58th Parliament. I particularly refer to the former member for Brighton, who was a member I knew when she represented Monash Province in the other place. I was a very young staffer at that stage. I think the former member for Brighton was a person who was well regarded and well respected by all members of this place, and I paid careful attention to the contribution that the member for Brighton made, which, to paraphrase, was that we could be speaking a lot better about each other and that we could treat each other with more courtesy and respect in this place. The member referred to the dilution of standards over the course of her tenure as a member of the Parliament of Victoria. The Manager of Opposition Business I think absolutely nailed it on the head in his contribution. By ensuring that a suspension is carried over from one question time to another, I think it is an appropriate punitive measure that you, Speaker, have at your disposal to ensure compliance with the sessional orders and to try to ensure that members behave appropriately, fairly and reasonably. I say that not just as a member of the government benches but as a regular offender in the previous Parliament, where I was regularly asked to leave the service of the chamber for a period of time. I know that when you indicated that you were proposing these changes late last year, it struck me. It might be one thing to be asked to leave this place for a portion of one question time, but to have that suspension carried over to the immediate following question time made me pause and reflect upon my behaviour and my conduct and whether I would like to miss not just one question time but a portion of a second. I think it will have that natural impact on members thinking about the consequences of their behaviour. It is a very good and welcome change that the Leader of the House is moving.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 136 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019

I refer to sessional order 11, content of answers, which the Manager of Opposition Business referred to. I will draw the attention of the member to the fact that answers must be direct, factual, succinct and relevant. Speaker, ultimately at the end of the day you have the power to determine whether an answer is direct, factual, succinct and relevant. It puts an onus on ministers answering questions to ensure that their answers comply in that way or you will draw them back to answering questions asked by a member. I think that the proposed sessional order does ensure a degree of rigour in the way in which answers are provided to this place by members. The Manager of Opposition Business also mentioned toward the end of his contribution some concerns about notices of motion. He gave an example of community groups wanting to ask a member to put something on the notice paper. I can appreciate for some groups that might seem to be something decorative, something nice—‘The member has raised my issue in the Parliament and there it sits on the notice paper’. But in all likelihood it will not be debated. What I would say to the member for Rowville is that there are plenty of opportunities for hardworking local members—as the member for Mordialloc most certainly is and as the member for Sunbury is—to be able to use the forms of this place to raise issues that are relevant to their electorates and to their communities through, if you are a member of the government benches, the constituency questions, the adjournment debate or by raising a particular note in a members statement or giving a shout-out to a local community representative. Or indeed if you are a member of the opposition and you feel particularly strongly about a certain issue that is occurring in your electorate, then you have the liberty of raising that in question time with the minister. So I do believe that there are those opportunities for members to be able to express themselves in that way. Finally, the Manager of Opposition Business did talk about grandstanding in question time. Speaker, I have not been here as long as you. I am not quite sure where the Manager of Opposition Business has been but I have seen plenty of shadow ministers using question time to grandstand as they seek to make their point. It is entirely appropriate that a minister of the Crown be afforded the opportunity of informing this place of those matters that are relevant to their portfolio and the discharge of their duties, and I think that by ensuring that we continue with the abolition of Dorothy Dixers but that we allow ministers to provide a statement to this place, that is indeed a good use of the Parliament’s time. With those brief comments, I commend the Leader of the House’s motion as well as the amendment that I have moved in my name. Ms RYAN (Euroa) (14:28): I welcome the opportunity to speak today on the motion regarding sessional orders. It is of course a very important debate which will set the tone of what happens in this place over the next four years. I strongly recall that before the 2014 election we heard a great deal from those opposite about open, transparent and accountable government and the benchmarks that they were supposedly going to uphold, and I just wanted to remind the house of this comment:

Under Labor, ministers will no longer be able to hide under behind stuffy rules, waste time grandstanding or sneak through changes in the dead of night … And also this one:

Labor will end this secret state and open our doors to the public, because we … deserve to know the details that affect our lives. Under Labor’s changes, no future government will ever be able to keep a crisis a secret. No more hiding, no more excuses … They are comments that were made before the 2014 election by the former Attorney-General in the last government, the current Minister for Jobs, Innovation and Trade. I think particularly when we look at these sessional orders, and we look at what is being put forward by the government, it is pretty clear that those commitments to transparency have very, very quickly fallen by the wayside. Indeed if we look at the behaviour in the last Parliament around things like the investigation into the red shirts affair and the repeated refusal of ministers to even answer questions, it is very clear that those lofty

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 137 and grand statements that were made by those opposite before the 2014 election were indeed very quickly packed away once they won government. These proposed sessional orders which are now in front of us reflect yet again that they are taking a further step away from those statements. In fact when I look at a number of these sessional orders I think they reflect a government that is now dripping with arrogance. The Premier and the Leader of the House clearly believe that governing this state is a right, is their birthright, not a privilege, and you can see that through a number of the changes. There are some things in these sessional orders that we do support, and I think we would have liked to have come into this house actually being able to vote with the government and support them on their sessional orders. We wish that we could take a bipartisan approach to it, but the reality is, as the Manager of Opposition Business has outlined, we have a number of really serious concerns. I think it was really interesting listening to the manager of government business in her contribution talk about the fact that she believes that the changes are modest, but, as we all know, a word here and a word there in rules that are as important as this can have a very long-reaching, far-reaching impact, and that is what the government is seeking to do here. They would like the broader public to believe that the changes they are making are insignificant, but they quite simply are not. That is why we have sought to move a number of amendments, as outlined by the Manager of Opposition Business. Perhaps most significantly, our concern does revolve around sessional order 7, ministers statements. Nowhere is the hubris of those opposite on display more than in the changes in this sessional order and the change to ministers statements. It will no longer be a requirement for ministers to actually speak on a topic within their portfolio. That is the reason why we have a question time. It is so that those who are given the honour and the privilege of serving within cabinet are accountable to the broader public and the Parliament for the issues within their portfolio. It is just arrogance in the absolute extreme to say that they will take away that requirement, therefore creating scope for them to talk about absolutely anything that they choose to talk about. I think the Manager of Opposition Business was quite right in his comments earlier when he said that you can just imagine, for example, them getting up and slagging off the federal government every single question time. That was quite a common tactic that we saw in the previous term of Parliament, where whenever things got too hot in here, whenever there was an issue bubbling away—perhaps they were under pressure over questions around what they did with their electorate office budgets and how they expended money and whether perhaps they were rorting the taxpayer—they would always very quickly turn things back to the federal government and would blame the federal government for anything that they possibly could. So this is basically yet another tactic to ensure that when things get a bit hot in here they have got their little breaks to make sure that they can completely diffuse the situation and talk about something that is completely irrelevant to the Victorian Parliament and to our operation. And this is not a slight against us; it is a slight against the Victorian public. It is the Victorian public who we come here to represent, and it is the Victorian public who deserve answers in question time. We are raising issues today, for example, about cladding, which are of great meaning and a great topic of inquiry for many people who are living in those apartment blocks at the moment. Those ministers who are making decisions within that portfolio have an obligation not to us, as the opposition asking these questions, but to the Victorian public and to actually be responsive in their answers. We have very, very strong concerns about sessional order 7. We also have concerns around the content of questions and the fact that ministers can no longer be directed to provide a written response. I think back to the last term of Parliament when the former minister for tourism and sport was facing some really tough days and some really tough questioning around his involvement in the red shirts affair, and he refused point blank to answer any of those questions. On a number of occasions, Speaker, if I do recall, you directed him to provide a written response because he was not being at all responsive to the question. The government is seeking to take

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 138 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019 that away, to protect its ministers and to erode its accountability to the Victorian Parliament and to the Victorian people. I particularly have concerns around the removal—again, in these sessional orders—of oral notices of motion. I think that is stifling the ability of MPs to actually raise issues dealing with their constituencies. I think all of us here struggle to get the time that we would like to be able to raise constituent issues—and I think constituency questions have been useful in that way—but I do not see why you would limit another important avenue for people to raise issues that their constituency wishes them to raise. We all come to this place to represent our constituents and to raise issues that are of importance to them. Notices of motion, particularly oral notices of motion—because people wish to see us stand up in Parliament and represent their issues—give us the ability to do that. Perhaps the Leader of the Government wishes to reduce the opportunities for her own members to run off the rails and create issues for her cabinet. Maybe that is her reason for removing oral notices of motion, but I do not think that that really affords people adequate opportunity to raise issues. I want to give a tangible example in the very limited time that is remaining to me. In recent weeks I have had residents across my electorate who have been severely affected by power outages. If we had oral notices of motion, that would be one way that I could actually raise my concerns with the government and with the house about how those businesses and those people have been impacted. Mr Carbines interjected. Ms RYAN: Instead, as the member for Ivanhoe points out, I am raising that issue now because I do not have the opportunity in other parts of government business to actually raise it. I have got Michelle Wilkinson in Avenel who lost more than $100 000 through a recent power outage and who now may very well have to close her amazing business because she does not have security of supply. They are issues which I would like to raise on an ongoing basis through oral notices of motion. Finally, we also have concerns around ordering a member to withdraw. As my time has expired, I ask for an extension of time, Speaker. I am the lead speaker for The Nationals. The SPEAKER: We are not yet under new sessional orders, and without having the ability to quickly look at the precedents under standing orders, I will allow the lead speaker for The Nationals a further 10 minutes to take her to 20 minutes. Ms RYAN: Thank you, Speaker. It is very generous of you. I do appreciate it, and I do hope this sets the tone for this term of Parliament going forward. We do have concerns about the Speaker being able to order a member to withdraw, and the new sessional order—which no doubt was dreamt up somewhere in the government’s backroom by their strategists—to make that carry over from one question time to the next. To me, when I look at that, the ultimate hypocrisy here is the fact that that does not apply to other orders on the daily program. For example, if someone got kicked out during constituency questions or during members statements or during a bill debate, that would not carry over subsequently to another bill debate. I think that ultimately shows that yet again the government is seeking to use its numbers to exercise its power and to limit the effectiveness and the ability of the opposition to hold the government to account. It really is yet another display of arrogance that we are seeing from those opposite, that they would seek to limit, particularly, opposition MPs. I note that the member for Essendon again referenced a number of the valedictory speeches that we had in the last term of Parliament, and particularly referred to the member for Brighton, who called for standards in this place to be elevated. That is a sentiment that I wholeheartedly support, but the government has to demonstrate that as well. We all know that these sessional orders are going to pass; we all know the government does not need to give consideration to the amendments that are moved by the opposition. But if we wish to lift the standards in this place, then a very good start would be for the government to actually introduce sessional orders which are fair to both sides of the chamber. Perhaps by actually adhering to those

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 139 statements and those commitments that they gave before 2014 they would be more transparent, more open and more accountable to the Victorian public. In short, these sessional orders do not deliver on that aim. They are aimed at restricting debate, reducing the effectiveness of the opposition and giving the government and government ministers a sweet run-through. They aim to avoid the scrutiny of things, like the red shirts affair, which we still have as an ongoing matter in this Parliament. Collectively, as a house and as a chamber, we are poorer for that, and more importantly the Victorian public are poorer for that. Mr RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (14:42): It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the sessional orders debate. Goodness me! I note the virtuous nature of the contributions by those opposite, who now lecture us about standards and practices in this house. How extraordinary it is after their conduct over four years, their undermining of the sessional orders, their lack of respect in this place, particularly during question time when it looked like people pumped themselves up in a mirror to come in here, only to act like absolute thugs and hooligans and be booted out for an hour—rightly so—for them to not reflect on 160, 170 years of practice and showing respect for the Chair and the Speaker of this house. We saw a deterioration of standards and practices in here the likes of which have not been seen in here for many years, so the notion that we are now being lectured about standards and practices is interesting, to say the least. But we do hold out hope. The member for Euroa and the member for Rowville—the Manager of Opposition Business—have set out a new standard. Hopefully this lasts for more than a week, which was the case under the previous Leader of the Opposition. I had to chuckle though about the oral notices of motion discussion. There are members in this place— and I will not name and shame them—who are shown, from a quick search of their contributions during the 58th Parliament, to be like tumbleweeds rolling through. There are some in this place who barely averaged a speaking spot once every three months. It is extraordinary. Now I, on occasion, have been stuck in here on chamber duty, and when that happened I would go for a bit of a search and have a bit of a look. If you aim to speak on maybe a bill every week, maybe a bill every fortnight, you will get your numbers up. You might be getting up on the adjournment once; you might be getting up on members statements. People have wandered in here and asked for oral notices of motion when half of their crew barely averaged a single speech on a bill or on substantive business and did not put their name down to speak on the adjournment. The member for Euroa does not miss an opportunity to speak on a members statement or an adjournment. She might very quickly pass by the member for Murray Plains because of how active she is. But some of them on that side barely averaged a speech every three months. They were here, because we were watching them across the chamber and watching their contributions. They would not speak. So the notion that you need a verbal notice of motion, which will only be a filibuster— Members interjecting. Mr RICHARDSON: The member for Murray Plains is pumping up his tyres over there. But there would be no need. It would be grandstanding, because half of those opposite do not even get up on the adjournment let alone for members statements. It is a bit rich to come in here and say, ‘We want these notices of motion; we want more speaking opportunities’, when some of them start work just after the grievance debate on a Wednesday. I mean, it is extraordinary; it is a bit rich, hearing that. The notion of ministers statements I think was a wise and smart move in practice. There is nothing worse than seeing the grandstanding happening in the federal Parliament now when the Dorothy Dixer question is asked. It is absolutely extraordinary. We acknowledge that this is an update to the house and not a government member asking a predetermined question, as we have done in the first two sitting periods here. That is an embarrassment to our constituents, because we know what is going on. So call it out for what it is. It is a ministerial update. It is a break in proceedings. It allows the opposition to get their questions in order and then to carry on. It is the right of the government to update the community through a ministers statement or through a media press conference. It has worked well.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 140 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019

The notion that those opposite can make a judgement on ministers statements and their quality is extraordinary. I sat in the back stalls up here and was told by a few that I was on the fifth row; I managed to make it down to the third one here. I was told consistently that ministers statements were not useful or that they were not this or they were not that. Half the time they did not listen. It was clearly a strategy that they conjured up after looking at each other and pepping each other up to say, ‘Just ignore the answers to questions. We don’t value them; we don’t think they’re appropriate’. Ms McLeish: On a point of order, Speaker, the member on his feet, the member for Mordialloc, has strayed a long way from this motion, and I ask you to bring him back. Mr J Bull: On the point of order, Speaker, this has been a wideranging debate, and therefore I ask you to rule the point of order out of order. The SPEAKER: I do not uphold the point of order, but I do ask the member for Mordialloc to make sure that he stays within the remit of the debate before the house. Mr RICHARDSON: Thank you, Speaker. In talking to point of reference 7, which is about the conduct of ministers statements in the previous Parliament, I do not think I could be any more relevant. The notion that shadow ministers and MPs would chatter away and not listen to ministers statements is irrefutable. You just have to watch the footage. It was clearly a tactic to not respect the minister on their feet and to chatter away. We would have a giggle about it and say, ‘Look who’s talking; they’re not listening’, and then they would jump up to make a point of order after not listening to the contribution. The notion that you could make a judgement on that when half the time those opposite never listened to ministers statements or updates on the community! More disappointingly, part of their tactics would be dead wrong because they would be chattering away during topics like the prevention of family violence or substantive updates on crime prevention in our community, and it was a really bad look. It was a bad look for this Parliament to be chatting to your colleagues when such serious content was under discussion. It is still an important practice, but I think everyone in the community cringes when they see a government MP asking a government minister a question as if they do not know the answer or it is not predetermined. I think this just modernises the practice. The other really important one—this is probably a hallmark of state MPs and unfortunately not something that regional and rural members of Parliament get the opportunity to have the benefit of because they are so far from their residences—is the sessional orders becoming far better work practice and more family friendly in terms of hours. That has been an absolute blessing for this Parliament. On the notion of sitting all the way through, I feel for our upper house colleagues, and hopefully we can modernise the practices in the upper house. It is dangerous to be leaving this place in the middle of the night. It balances far more with family and work commitments to be able to go back to your community or to FaceTime, if you are a rural or regional MP, to engage with your constituents or your electorates. I think it is a far more sensible thing, and it allows members to strike that work-life balance far better. I think that is a really important thing. The final point I want to make is about number 12 of the sessional orders. The carrying over of the exclusion time from question time will standardise some of the behaviours in this Parliament. We saw members named, and we saw the unbecoming conduct of some members in the last Parliament, where it got to the point of bubbling to the surface and you thought, ‘What is the next step that a member of Parliament is going to take in this place after reflecting on the Chair and carrying on?’. We cannot have that kind of conduct at all in this place. Some things like reflecting and name-calling while going out of the chamber have to stop. That will mean that if you are out on a Tuesday for 1½ hours, you will come back in a fortnight’s time. I think that will regulate some of the behaviour, and people will approach things in a far more conciliatory tone. There are plenty of opportunities for government scrutiny here, and constituency questions are a really important part of that. I think these sessional orders strike the right balance in the Parliament.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 141

Ms SANDELL (Melbourne) (14:50): For any member of the public watching at home—if indeed there are any at all—this debate may seem a little bit dry. We are talking about the rules and procedures of Parliament, but in fact these sessional orders before us are incredibly important, because they are the rules that dictate how Parliament operates and how our democracy operates, and that is something that should interest everybody. We in the Greens support many aspects of these sessional orders. Largely they are very similar to the rules that we had under the previous Parliament, but we are proposing amendments in three areas to make this house much more democratic and fair. I would like to move the amendments in my name now:

Sessional Order 3 1 In paragraph (3), omit ‘Matter of public importance or grievance debate’ and insert ‘General business’. 2 Omit paragraphs (4) and (5) and insert— ‘(4) Standing Orders 37 to 39 inclusive be suspended, and so much of Standing Order 34 be suspended, so as to enable: (a) General business to be given precedence at 2.00 pm on Wednesdays for two hours; (b) at 2.00 pm on Wednesday, unless a division is taking place, the Chair interrupts the business before the House and the bells are then rung for one minute; (c) if a division is taking place at 2.00 pm: (i) it will be completed without interruption and result announced; (ii) if the division is on a closure motion, and the motion is agreed to, the question or questions then required to be put to close the issue before the House will also be dealt with; (iii) business is then interrupted following the procedure in sub-paragraph (b); (d) the Chair announces general business; (e) Standing Orders 146, 148 and 150, setting out the order of notices of motion and orders of the day, continue to apply; (f) any business under discussion and not completed at the interruption will be resumed immediately at the end of general business, and any member speaking at the time of the interruption may then continue his or her speech.’. Sessional Order 7 3 After ‘minutes’ insert ‘to advise the House about matters related to their portfolio’. Sessional Order 11 4 Before ‘Standing’ insert ‘(1) ’. 5 After ‘relevant.’ insert the following new paragraphs— ‘(2) The Speaker may determine that an answer to an oral question without notice or supplementary oral question is not responsive to the question, and may accordingly direct the minister to provide a written response to the question and lodge it with the Speaker by 11.00 am the next sitting day. The Speaker will forward the written response to the member who asked the question and the Clerk must publish the response electronically. (3) The Speaker will determine the adequacy of a written response to a question provided under this sessional order. The Speaker may determine that a written response does not appropriately answer the question and may direct that the minister provide another written response by 11.00 am the next sitting day. The Speaker will forward the written response to the member who asked the question and the Clerk must publish the response electronically.’. There are, as I said, many aspects of these sessional orders that are indeed an improvement on the default rules or the standing orders that we are governed by at the moment. This is not an all-inclusive list, but some examples of the new sessional orders that we do support include the rule that says ministers must respond to a question on notice in writing within 30 days. I note that in the last Parliament many ministers broke this rule. Many times I had to get up and make a point of order because a minister had not responded within 30 days. It is a very important rule so we can actually get information from ministers in a timely way, and it is a rule that you yourself, Speaker, can enforce,

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 142 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019 which is good. We also very much support the rule that says MPs can follow up a question in question time with a supplementary question. It is very important to be able to have some of that dialogue and to be able to follow up if you do need more information from a minister or if they have not quite answered your question. Of course the inclusion of constituency questions is something that has been very useful for all members, I believe. We also support the change to sitting times to bring forward the adjournment to 7.00 p.m. rather than 10.00 p.m. so that MPs and staff, I have to note, can keep more family-friendly hours. It is also much more sensible from a wellbeing and welfare point of view. My daughter still goes to bed at 7.00 p.m. so it does not really help me to see her before she goes to sleep, but it is definitely an improvement on 10.00 p.m. So these are some good changes in the sessional orders. However, this chamber, the Legislative Assembly of the Victorian Parliament, unfortunately remains the least democratic chamber in the country—in fact the least democratic chamber in the entire Westminster system. That is largely because there is no time for non-government members to actually get up and have their motions or bills debated and voted on. I understand that this removal of what is called ‘non-government business time’ was a bit of a sleight of hand by the Bracks government in their first term when they were in minority with some Independents. I am not sure quite how they let that get past them; I do not know. I have been told that that is when it came about, but this rule has been with us ever since: both Labor and the Liberals have sought to remove the power of Independents and other political parties like the Greens to have a say in this chamber, to represent their constituents or actually to get things passed and get things done. Given how anti-democratic these rules are, I would like to fix that with my amendment which allows 2 hours—just 2 hours, it is not a huge ask—every Wednesday for non-government business time. This would be time when Independents, Greens, other crossbenchers and the opposition would actually have time to move their own bills and motions and have them debated, and not just sit on the notice paper and languish and never have them go anywhere. Our ability to participate in Parliament is our right as elected MPs. I will not speak for other crossbenchers who are not in the Greens, but we have all spoken about this, and I understand that we are actually all united in recognising that democracy is better served when democratically elected representatives can actually do their jobs. Particularly when it comes to non-government members of Parliament, it is our job to hold the government of the day to account, and the inclusion of non- government business time will mean that we can do that much, much more effectively. Non- government members of Parliament play a very important role in the Westminster system, including as a check and balance on the government of the day as well as representing our constituents, but we cannot do this effectively if we do not have any time to move motions or bills and have them debated. All of us here were elected democratically. We are very lucky to have such a well-functioning democracy in Victoria and Australia, and we were all elected democratically to represent our constituents, but this government is deliberately removing some of our ability to do that effectively, largely I think because they do not want to be embarrassed—to be forced to, say, vote against a motion or a bill that might go against the government’s very carefully crafted message or plans for that week. Throughout history many very good reforms have begun their parliamentary lives in the form of private members bills. This is not something that is unusual. It is not something that we are asking for that is completely out of the ordinary or onerous—just 2 hours a week. It happens in Westminster Parliaments in Australia and all around the world, and it really should happen here in Victoria as well. Currently on Wednesdays from 2.00 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. we have two debates which, in my opinion, are not the best use of this Parliament’s time. We either have a grievance debate where MPs can get up and grieve about anything they want—unfortunately a chance to have a bit of a whinge—or a matter of public importance where the topic is set by the government or the opposition, but to be honest, having sat through four years of them, in reality it just becomes a bit of a sledging match between the government and the opposition on some issue or another. I think there is a much better use of this

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 143

Parliament’s time, and that is actually debating and voting on private members bills and motions brought forward by elected non-government members of this house. Moving on to my two other amendments: one of them, which I have circulated, reintroduces the requirement for ministers to actually answer questions in question time—that is, where a minister does not adequately answer a question, the Speaker can direct them to provide a written response the following sitting day. I propose that this response be supplied by 11.00 a.m. the next day so that the member actually asking the question gets the answer in time for the next question time if they need to follow up. I note the opposition has proposed a similar amendment with a time of 2.00 p.m. It is a bit of a ‘much of a muchness’, but the important thing is the practice and the principle that politicians actually have to answer the questions that are asked of them and to have that principle and practice enforced. This is what happened in the last Parliament, so we know that it is actually workable. Ministers had to be responsive to the question, and it does seem a little bit ridiculous, I have to say, that that has been removed. Essentially it is the government admitting that ministers can just waffle on without actually being responsive to the question and there will be no rules that say they have to do otherwise—no rules that say they actually have to answer the question. To be honest, I think it is no wonder the general public thinks question time is a little bit of a joke. They always think that politicians never answer questions. I think we owe it to the general public to actually answer questions and to put that in the rules. I think it is probably the least that the public deserves and expects. In consultation with the other crossbenchers I have also included a third amendment that brings back the rule that ministers statements must actually be related to their portfolios. The government wants to get rid of this rule, which essentially now means that ministers can get up during ministers statements and talk about anything they like. They could slag off the opposition, they could make a campaign speech, they could make a campaign speech for their federal colleagues or anything else, and I think that is not really an appropriate use of that time in question time. I think it would be much better if those ministers statements are stuck with their portfolios like they were in the last Parliament. It worked okay, so if we can return to that, that would be a good amendment. In relation to the other amendments from the opposition, which I have just seen, we do support them. A few to note: increasing questions in question time to 10 up from five—a good change; moving ministers statements to a different time of the day—another good change and a better use of question time we believe; and also allowing members of Parliament to give verbal notices of motion would be another good tool that particularly non-government members could use to better represent their issues and constituents. Regarding the issue of members having to serve question time suspensions across successive question times, although we appreciate the need for discipline—and at times during the last Parliament it did get out of hand, and I would love members to reflect on their behaviour and not go down that path again—in this house it does seem a little bit excessive, given the size of the government majority, that members could be kicked out across two question times. In that regard I will have a talk to my colleagues, but we are leaning towards supporting that one as well. I would like to ask the government to consider these three amendments. I think they are all very fair and reasonable. They are really about upholding the values of democracy, which we are all a part of. We are all here to represent our constituents and uphold our democracy, and these amendments will go some way to improving that democracy. Mr CARBINES (Ivanhoe) (15:00): We continue this debate on some on the sessional orders moved by the Leader of the Government, the member for Bendigo East, in relation to the customary practice of governments in new parliaments of reviewing past sessional orders—using the benchmark of course of the greater strictures around the standing orders—and making some modest changes to those sessional orders which have worked well in the past. What we are seeing are some specific popular arrangements being retained by the government. It has proposed in these sessional orders

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 144 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019 amendments in relation to constituency questions and ministers statements, that supplementary questions be retained and the retention of constituency questions. I think, as has been pointed out, the minor changes to ministers statements should be seen in that context of the particular opportunities they provide to those on the opposition benches to continue to use constituency and supplementary questions in holding the government to account by raising particular matters they see as of particular interest. I say also that I do think that, in some of the changes that have been put forward in relation to ministers statements, we may well see a change in the amount of points of order in relation to clarity of sessional orders and how to reply to ministers statements. That opportunity presents itself in the tidying up that the Leader of the Government has proposed in relation to those ministers statements. Can I say also in relation to the suspension of members for disorderly conduct during question time and the carryover of time that has not yet expired that that is really just a reflection of the fact that if members acquit themselves appropriately throughout question time, then they have nothing to worry about. There are perhaps some serial offenders on the opposition benches who continue to have much to concern themselves with, and this perhaps explains why they seem to protest a bit too much in relation to the changes to ministers statements when these ultimately provide a greater opportunity for those members to reflect on their conduct in the previous Parliament. Can I say also that—I am not one to be taking lectures from those opposite around conduct in previous parliaments—certainly in the Parliament between 2010 and 2014 I recall sitting on the opposition benches when there were no government members present and the Speaker was absent from the chamber. He was unwilling to test his confidence on the floor of this house and left the opposition members as the only people present in the chamber during the adjournment of this place. So we can all reflect on previous behaviour and how this place has operated in the past. Of course where a government has been elected and reaffirmed by the Victorian people in how we seek to conduct matters in this Parliament through this next four years, can I say that we do not take lectures or advice from those opposite, who seek to throw conventions out the window, who like to wrap themselves in traditions and elements of conservatism in parliamentary democracy but when it comes to matters like 1975 are pretty quick to throw conventions out the window. In relation to some of the matters raised by the Greens party, can I say that there seems to be some confusion—picking up on the amendments put forward by the member for Melbourne—that somehow this is meant to operate like the other place and that somehow this is the Legislative Council, which in past practice, certainly in the previous Parliament, devoted all of Wednesday to opposition business. Governments are made and unmade in the Assembly. That is how a constitution works. This is where work gets done that is the priority work of the government. That is how it works here in the Assembly. We are not the Legislative Council, a house of review that provided in the previous Parliament every Wednesday—all day—for opposition business matters to be considered. And when we talk about family-friendly hours, perhaps members of this place, particularly the Greens party members, should reflect on why members in the other place are sitting late into Thursday nights and often on Fridays to get the government business program concluded. That happens because Wednesdays are devoted to opposition business. Well, the opposition has not been elected to represent Victorians as their government. Particularly the member for Melbourne talks about disillusionment in the Victorian community in relation to those in the community who think parliamentary democracy does not work for them, yet strangely enough when we also have a look at the issue that the member for Melbourne raised, I would say that what we saw very clearly in the election was the Victorian people’s great desire to support, elect and affirm governments who get things done, governments who get on with the job of representing communities and delivering on their commitments. That is what we saw very clearly in the election. It is very clear that the sessional orders and the minor amendments that are being made

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 145 by the Leader of the Government seek to affirm and continue to make those improvements, because that level of confidence in getting the job done is what Victorians have been gravitating to and seek to draw confidence from. While there was a reflection by the Greens in relation to question time, I have never particularly noticed that the public gallery is empty in question time in the Assembly here. I do not always notice that there are as many people here for the debate on sessional orders, but Victorian members of the public are often here and it is always very crowded in the public gallery when it comes to question time, so I think there is plenty of interest in the community and from the media in how question time operates. I think the points that have been made on the way in which we seek to provide greater discipline and ensure greater accountability of members of Parliament in the way in which they conduct themselves during question time are well reflected in the points made by the Leader of the House. Lastly can I say, in relation to private members bills and those other matters and considerations that the member for Melbourne has raised about how you might devote some time on Wednesdays to opposition business, that certainly in our time in opposition we raised and brought forward private members bills. We brought those forward in the other place with changes to government legislation in relation to how donor-conceived people are able to access information about donors, their families and their genetic history. So the work can be done. The achievements can be made. And then ultimately, when that does not bring another question to bear on how a government performed between 2010 and 2014, you can work to get them voted out, you can seek your own commitments and you can form government. You can bring in your legislation and your own laws to reflect the will of the Victorian people. We have done that in very many ways, and particularly in relation to donor-conceived people. So I challenge those opposite, particularly the Greens party, to reflect a bit on how you actually get things done in this house, how you actually provide great confidence to the Victorian people—not to be disillusioned but to draw strength and encouragement and confidence from a government that seeks to get things done, that seeks to act on their concerns and their issues, and that makes sure that in this Parliament there is not obfuscation. There is actually a desire, a setting of tone in the Assembly, where governments are made and unmade, to get the job done and to deliver on the commitments that the people have voted us to deliver on, and then to work our way through that house of review to ensure they become law. That is our job. We set that tone in this place. I look forward to affirming the further amendments put forward by the Leader of the House. They are sensible. They draw on the significant changes made in the previous Parliament, and they provide a great opportunity for us to continue the work of the last Parliament, which is to get things done in the interests of the Victorian people. I commend the amendments to the house. Ms McLEISH (Eildon) (15:08): I am really sure that I just heard the member for Ivanhoe commend the amendments to the house. So I am hoping that he was just commending the amendments that have been put forward by the opposition in this case, or perhaps even those that have been put forward by the member for Melbourne. I must begin by commenting and reflecting on some of the comments that have been made by government speakers about the standards in the house and about accepted codes of behaviour. Many of them probably were not here in 2014 to see the most appalling standards of behaviour by the then Manager of Opposition Business in the way that she worked to undermine the Speaker. It was absolutely appalling. I would encourage you all to perhaps have a look at Hansard to find out what really happened rather than decide that it actually did not happen, because it was absolutely appalling. I think that all of us in this house have the responsibility and accountability to make sure that our governments are open and honest. I think the sessional orders that have been put forward by the manager of government business are anything but that. In fact it is moving further and further—creeping further—towards the left and to socialism. We need to make sure that we have a Parliament and a government that reflects community expectation, and they expect the opposition to hold the government to account—to make sure that we have the opportunities to hold the government to account.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 146 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019

I want to reflect also on the changes to the sessional orders that were made last time and that we got used to for four years. We heard the manager of government business say that there are some modest changes that are going to be made. Modest changes—that tends to indicate low-level, fairly insignificant changes. I think that for the government to believe that they are modest changes is actually quite misguided, because not only have the coalition put amendments to the sessional orders but the Greens have as well, and I understand that an Independent is also very keen on some amendments. The lead speaker, the Manager of Opposition Business, gave quite a lot of detail about which of the clauses we were supporting and which we were not. There are a number that I am going to touch on that we are quite opposed to. First of all is the ministers statements. Then we have also got concerns about members being asked to withdraw from the chamber during question time; responses to questions that are in fact non-responsive; the opportunity for us to introduce verbal notices of motion— those have been denied; and some changes to supplementary questions. I want to point out that all of these that we are debating at the moment are really reflective of Labor’s hypocrisy, because they have certainly grandstanded here. They put out a policy statement, or a statement of intent, in October 2014, and I have that in front of me. The sessional orders put forward today are not true to what the then Labor opposition told the public in October 2014. Now, they made a lot of motherhood statements, grand statements, ones that we could all aspire to. We should make ministers ‘more accountable and honest’—yes, I think that is absolutely important. The Parliament should be the ‘home to democracy and honesty’—that statement was attributed to the now Minister for Racing. I am going to focus first of all on ministers statements and the omission of the requirement that statements relate to government business and update members on matters that are important. They are omitting that and now leaving it open so that they can speak to whatever it is they like, and I think this is actually dangerous. In 2014 we were told that under the 11-point reform plan ministers statements would be ‘where new initiatives, projects and achievements can be briefly explained or announced’. Removing that now means they can take every opportunity they like to talk about anything but those. In the last Parliament there was a very long bow drawn here: many times ministers had to be drawn back to the actual intent of the ministers statements because they tended to launch off in many other directions. But this gives them free rein to actually do so. I absolutely know that between now and the federal election they will use every opportunity to attack the federal government. Going further down that path they might introduce campaign speeches. They may be able to speak out on any matter that they like, unrelated to Parliament. They could attack members of the opposition, opposition parties, people who are not even in the Parliament or people they do not like. So I think this is really a move in the wrong direction because it makes them less accountable, because the government wants to hear about parliamentary business. Also, our idea is to move this section to earlier in the day and to introduce a new sessional order as such—so it would not be part of question time— to have ministers statements earlier in the day around about the time of members statements. With regard to non-responsive answers—and I quote again:

Labor will also give the Speaker and the President the power to determine that a minister’s answer is ‘non- responsive’ or irrelevant to the question that was asked, requiring the minister to provide a written response. Well, that is gone now—they do not need to provide a written response. On many, many occasions the opposition has had to ask the Speaker to make that decision, to make a deliberation about whether the minister’s answer has been responsive or not, and on many occasions the Speaker has in fact required the minister at the time to provide an answer in writing to the chamber the following day. Now, we are looking to have that reinstated and also to require that they provide that by 11.00 a.m. That is prior to question time, and I note the amendments put forward by the Greens also have that same time period.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 147

As I have said, there have been plenty of times when the ministers, through their questions, through their statements, really have not been very responsive—sometimes they do slip through, and I give the Speaker the benefit of the doubt here—they can be open to different interpretations. But I think if we abolish this altogether, we will see even less accountability of government ministers—even more hiding behind a veil of secrecy and a greater lack of integrity and honesty. I do not think this is what the Parliament is about, and I do not think this is what the general public want to see. They want to see that we hold the government to account and we get answers to questions, because it is extremely frustrating for opposition members, for the press and even for the public and for people who are expecting answers to questions when they actually say, ‘We didn’t get one’. It gives us all a bad name. It makes it look as though all MPs are willing to hide things. We certainly know that when we have asked questions about the rorting, the red shirts, the government have been trying to hide very much, and we know that later this week there is going to be some uncomfortable news for the government as well. They will be wanting to make sure that we cannot quiz them on this. This is where I really think it is heading in the wrong direction. We have also got some changes that have been mooted with regard to people who will be asked to remove themselves from the chamber during question time. If they are asked to remove themselves for an hour and there is only half an hour of question time or indeed 15 minutes of question time left, that will be carried over. That is certainly not something that we are looking to support here. I think with those comments I would just further reiterate that this is not in the best interests of Parliament. This is not open and accountable governance and government, and I think that the government really ought to have a good look at themselves and see what they are doing, because they are just putting up the veils—the walls—all around them, and that is really not acceptable. Mr McGUIRE (Broadmeadows) (15:18): ‘We cannot go back and change the beginning but we can start where we are and change the ending’. I think that is the critical point. CS Lewis, I think, has got it right to frame this debate here and what we are looking to do. So if you actually look at the strategy behind what the government is wanting to achieve, it is wanting to make the house where the government is made in the state of Victoria more efficient and effective. If we then go into some of the detail, and I will be succinct on this, the changes are part of an evolution. They are family friendly and in keeping with the times. They are modest changes in what they actually attempt to achieve. Ministers statements will be succinct, a maximum of 2 minutes. That is necessary for the government to actually talk about what the initiatives, projects and achievements have been. I think that 2 minutes is a really tight time to do that, so I think that will work, and I think it will give more clarity to the statements that are made to the house and should lead to fewer points of order. I think that is a key point there as well. It means that we will be able to have more efficiency in the way that the house is conducted. If you look at the issue of being kicked out during question time, I will just make the observation that if you see who from the coalition side topped the list on all of that, I think that gives weight to actually quoting the words of Monty Python. Remember the line? ‘He’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy’. I think that may be something to reflect on in terms of how those things worked as well. I think this is where we are and what we are trying to do. I want to stand and commend the Leader of the House on the initiatives that have been brought to the house, and I also want to support the amendment proposed by the member for Essendon to allow us to address issues on the 10th anniversary of the Black Saturday bushfires, the worst natural disaster in Australia’s history. The culmination of those record-breaking weather conditions after a 10-year drought saw the deaths of 173 people. Anyone who was at the ceremony last night—the commemoration—will know this is still an issue that is important for individuals and communities. Because we all grieve in different ways it has a very personal impact. It is also about what we need to do as a community to show our respect and regard and what we can do for the future. Black Saturday defined Australia’s worst natural disaster and was an existential threat to a state like Victoria, which is one of the most prone to wildfire anywhere in the world. I think that is a critical point.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 148 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019

Just in summing up, I think that the opposition have mounted some views. The Greens political party have put up the proposition about Wednesdays, and again that is a reflection of what has happened in the past in the upper house but not in this place. I think that these sessional orders make family-friendly and modest changes that are part of the evolution of the chamber. If you want to be in question time, you know what to say and what not to say—that is the critical point—and how to behave and how not to behave. No argument in my view has ever been improved by shouting. I do not know why it is such a big issue. Surely you can put your case by being accurate and evidence-based and you might actually put more pressure on whoever is there to answer. I think that is the way it has always been. With the so-called theatre, more and more people just turn down the volume or turn it off. They do not like politics looking and sounding like two dogs barking. They hate it in fact. So I think that is why there is an obvious need for change in the way that we conduct our business, and I support the motion from the Leader of the House and the amendment from the member for Essendon. Ms STALEY (Ripon) (15:23): I rise to speak on the motion to adopt sessional orders as moved by the Leader of the House. I thought I would start with a brief contribution on what I see the purpose of sessional orders to be and why I think this debate and the broader issues around it are important. Of course the sessional orders in conjunction with the standing orders set the rules of debate in this place. When we come to this place we come as members representing individual electorates and we also come as members of political parties that can be either in government, in opposition or a minor party. Our parliamentary democracy has largely been developed to balance competing interests. These competing interests result from many of us here coming from country electorates, from city electorates and from different political parties. I have got to highlight the member for Ivanhoe’s contribution. He seemed very strongly to believe that a government should be able to have whatever sessional orders it wants if it has just won an election, because the people have given the members on the government side the right to say and act as they will. The whole point of parliamentary democracy is to balance the needs of minorities and to make sure that minority voices have a statutory voice in the Parliament. That is why these sessional orders are important, because they give all the players here a voice. I do not want to talk about all of them. I will start with the ones I really support. I think it was a really good move by the government last time to introduce family-friendly hours in this place. Having only done a couple of days of going through to 10 o’clock, I think that period after dinner was not productive time. It is far better for us to get here, do our work and go home, go to our electorates or whatever it is we do. I strongly support that continuing. I also support the removal of Dorothy Dixers and their replacement with ministers statements, and I will have a bit more to say about that. Dorothy Dixers, as others have said, are not the greatest time in our parliamentary democracy. I also support the introduction of constituency questions. However, there are a number of changes in this set of sessional orders that I have concerns with. I will start with sessional order 6 in relation to supplementary questions without notice. This is part of the question time sessional orders. What we have seen here is the addition of some words to a description of what can be in a supplementary question. The additional words are ‘and must not be a separate question on the same topic’. This sessional order already requires supplementary questions to actually and accurately relate to the original question, and they must relate to or arise from the answer to the original question. We have to ask: if you are adding these additional words that they cannot be a separate question on the same topic, are these words redundant because they are already captured in the idea that any supplementary question must relate to what has already been asked or are they restrictive? There is no way that these additional words are opening up new avenues for us to ask supplementary questions. These are a further restriction on what we can ask in question time on what topics. This explicitly says that they must not be a separate question on the same topic—we do not have guidance yet from the Speaker on this because we have not operated under these sessional orders—so it is just not possible that this is an expansion of the opportunities for the opposition to ask questions. This is a reduction in their opportunity.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 149

I now move to sessional order 7. I note that the member for Melbourne has moved a similar, although not quite the same, amendment as we have moved. Of course the issue here is that ministers statements have to be about the minister’s portfolio. That surely is the purpose. A minister in a government should have so much to say about all their actions that, not wasting a moment, they want to get on with all those actions and get up and talk about them for 2 minutes, yet the government wants to remove that requirement from this sessional order. They explicitly want to say that a minister can get up on any topic. What does that say about the government’s belief in its own agenda if it does not believe that ministers have four years worth of things to say for 2 minutes. I think we have to look very hard at saying, ‘Well, they clearly don’t care about their agenda. What they want to do is to use the theatre of question time, the time when you’ve got the cameras up there, the time when the gallery is full, to attack the federal government, their political opponents—anybody that they feel like’. That particular sessional order is clearly a retrograde step for democracy. It is clearly against the historical traditions of parliamentary democracies where ministers get up in the Parliament and answer questions or talk about their portfolios. To take that away is not a trivial matter. The fourth one I want to talk about is sessional order 11, which goes to the ability of the Speaker to require ministers to answer a question. Again, this is about the opposition holding governments to account. The removal of that capacity suggests that the government is really not very interested in democracy here. They are very interested in edging towards that one-party rule idea that what they say goes. They have got a big majority so it does not matter what anybody else thinks. Well, these things erode people’s ideas about democracy. Recent polls have shown over 30 per cent of young people would prefer a strong leader who does not need to ask Parliament for decisions—who is above Parliament. Young people would prefer a dictatorship, and yet here we have a government saying, ‘Well, we’ll help that along in sessional orders’. I cannot support that. The final one I just wanted to touch on is in fact in relation to sessional order 3 and relates to the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne to introduce general business or non-government business. I have to say that personally I see some merit in that. The idea that we have never had it in this chamber is just not true. We did have it in this chamber, but it was removed back in 1999. Yes, it has not been here for a while, but that is not a reason to say, ‘Look, this is the house of government. We only have government business here’. There is no reason for us not to look seriously at that amendment, and I welcome the Greens putting that forward. In conclusion, it is clear that, while the Leader of the House got up in her contribution and said that these are quite modest changes, they only go in one direction. All of the changes in the sessional orders, compared to the last sessional orders, go in one direction and that is to remove the capacity for non- government members to hold the government to account. I have to ask early on in the term, ‘What are you all scared of?’. There are so many of you here. Surely you would think that it would be okay for the opposition members and the non-government members to get up and hold you to account because you would be proud of what you were doing. But instead you are using procedural debates and sessional orders to shut down the capacity of opposition and non-government members to hold the government to account. That is a very, very dangerous path to go on. The Leader of the House getting up and suggesting that these are quite modest changes when they are only going in the one direction suggests that we are in that world where language is set up to mean one thing when it means another. For that reason I commend the amendments moved by the member for Rowville, the Manager of Opposition Business, to the house. Ms SHEED (Shepparton) (15:32): A lot has been said and much of what I would say has been addressed in earlier speeches on this side, and in particular that summary by the member for Ripon summarises the broader view of why we need to have sessional orders that are fair. Going straight to them, I support sessional order 3 and the amendment that the Greens have put up in this place today. I support it because in most parliaments that have a parliamentary system there is an opportunity for non-government business to be addressed. It was only in about 1999 that that seems to have been removed from this place. It is common practice for non-government business to include debates on

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 150 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019 petitions and notices and even for private members bills to be introduced and debated. For that to be taken away, especially in a circumstance where we have a government that has an overwhelming majority in this place, does seem to create an inequity in relation to the ability of those of us on this side to properly represent our communities. Because it is only in this place that we are able to get up and say publicly what we think about certain issues and bring them to the attention of everyone in this place and bring them to the attention of the government. I was reading a paper given to me after diligent research by a member of the library staff called the Ten Measures of a Healthy Parliament. One of them is that non-government members should always be given the opportunity to have their say. Now, the other nine are equally as important and of great value, but in the context of this debate, that is a particularly important one. It is common in other houses of Parliament, and by some anomaly in 1999 it seems to have been removed from this place. This is the time to reintroduce it because this is a Parliament that is so dominated by government members that the voices of minorities in this place are not heard. I mean, look at us. Look where we sit. We are a very small number and it is very important that we get the opportunity to be able to raise a range of issues. It used to be that on a petition the petitioner could speak for 5 minutes, and 40 minutes would then be allocated for other members of Parliament to debate that particular petition should they wish to do so. It used to be that private members bills could be introduced and debated. It used to be that notices of motion could be put forward and debated. Now we just have notices read out one day, put on a list and never visited again. That is not the way democracy should really work. So for those reasons, and the fact that this has been something looked at over a period of time—and I know that some of us in this Parliament have looked at this issue of non-government business being introduced during the course of the last Parliament and it is something that committees could well look at again, a standing orders committee, for instance—I would much rather see the government adopt this amendment today. One of the other 10 healthy factors that was mentioned in that article is that it is appropriate for governments to actually adopt an amendment that may be put by a non-government member if it is a good one. I think this is a good one, as are a number of the other amendments that have been put. Going to ministers statements, sessional order 7, I would say that both the Leader of the House and the member for Essendon have indicated that it is their clear understanding and intention that ministers statements will relate to their portfolios. Both openly said that. I was sitting here, I heard it, so why would you not simply add the words that the amendment proposes? It seems to be, as stated by the Leader of the House, that that is the intention of the government, but unfortunately the lack of additional words at the end of that sessional order means it does not create an onus on the government to comply with that. This is a really good amendment. It is clearly the understanding of, as I said, the Leader of the House and the member for Essendon that the minister would speak on a matter relevant to their portfolio, and I would urge the government to adopt that amendment. This would be an amazing thing in this house to see the government actually adopt a non-government amendment that is of value, that is worthy, and it is a precedent that is a good one. It means that we are actually looking at the content of what we are debating and deciding whether or not we might change our mind, whether someone else had a better idea, whether this would be for the better operation of our Parliament. So I would urge the government to put into place what it says its intention is by agreeing to that amendment. Going to the content of answers and to the amendments proposed, I think there is a need to have more clarity around that and I support the amendments that have been put forward in relation to that. I think, in summing up, a healthy Parliament does provide the opportunity for everyone to have their say, for all our constituents to be represented and for those of us who have something to say to Victoria, something to say to this Parliament and to the government, to have the opportunity to do that and for there to be open debate on it. So I would urge the government to consider these amendments. While the Leader of the House is not looking at me at this moment, I wish that she would so I could eyeball

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 151 her and try and persuade her that she should change her mind in this case and persuade her government to do so. For those reasons I will be supporting the amendments. The SPEAKER: I will now deal with each sessional order proposed in the Leader of the House’s motion as detailed on the notice paper, and the amendments proposed by the Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Essendon and the member for Melbourne. Sessional orders 1 and 2 agreed to. Sessional order 3 The SPEAKER: The member for Melbourne has moved amendments 1 and 2 to the proposed sessional order. The question is:

That the amendments be agreed to. House divided on Ms Sandell’s amendments 1 and 2:

Ayes, 31 Angus, Mr McLeish, Ms Sheed, Ms Battin, Mr Morris, Mr Smith, Mr R Blackwood, Mr Newbury, Mr Smith, Mr T Britnell, Ms O’Brien, Mr D Southwick, Mr Bull, Mr T O’Brien, Mr M Staley, Ms Cupper, Ms Read, Dr Tilley, Mr Guy, Mr Riordan, Mr Vallence, Ms Hibbins, Mr Rowswell, Mr Wakeling, Mr Hodgett, Mr Ryan, Ms Walsh, Mr Kealy, Ms Sandell, Ms Wells, Mr McCurdy, Mr Noes, 54 Addison, Ms Foley, Mr Neville, Ms Allan, Ms Fowles, Mr Pakula, Mr Andrews, Mr Fregon, Mr Pallas, Mr Blandthorn, Ms Green, Ms Pearson, Mr Brayne, Mr Halfpenny, Ms Richards, Ms Bull, Mr J Hall, Ms Richardson, Mr Carbines, Mr Halse, Mr Scott, Mr Carroll, Mr Hamer, Mr Settle, Ms Cheeseman, Mr Hennessy, Ms Spence, Ms Connolly, Ms Horne, Ms Staikos, Mr Couzens, Ms Hutchins, Ms Suleyman, Ms Crugnale, Ms Kairouz, Ms Tak, Mr D’Ambrosio, Ms Kennedy, Mr Taylor, Mr Dimopoulos, Mr Kilkenny, Ms Theophanous, Ms Donnellan, Mr Maas, Mr Thomas, Ms Edbrooke, Mr McGhie, Mr Ward, Ms Edwards, Ms McGuire, Mr Williams, Ms Eren, Mr Merlino, Mr Wynne, Mr Amendments defeated. Sessional order 3 agreed to; sessional orders 4 and 5 agreed to. Sessional order 6 The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business has moved amendments 1 and 2 to the proposed sessional order. The question is that the amendments be agreed to. House divided on Mr Wells’s amendments 1 and 2:

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 152 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019

Ayes, 31 Angus, Mr McLeish, Ms Sheed, Ms Battin, Mr Morris, Mr Smith, Mr R Blackwood, Mr Newbury, Mr Smith, Mr T Britnell, Ms O’Brien, Mr D Southwick, Mr Bull, Mr T O’Brien, Mr M Staley, Ms Cupper, Ms Read, Dr Tilley, Mr Guy, Mr Riordan, Mr Vallence, Ms Hibbins, Mr Rowswell, Mr Wakeling, Mr Hodgett, Mr Ryan, Ms Walsh, Mr Kealy, Ms Sandell, Ms Wells, Mr McCurdy, Mr Noes, 54 Addison, Ms Foley, Mr Neville, Ms Allan, Ms Fowles, Mr Pakula, Mr Andrews, Mr Fregon, Mr Pallas, Mr Blandthorn, Ms Green, Ms Pearson, Mr Brayne, Mr Halfpenny, Ms Richards, Ms Bull, Mr J Hall, Ms Richardson, Mr Carbines, Mr Halse, Mr Scott, Mr Carroll, Mr Hamer, Mr Settle, Ms Cheeseman, Mr Hennessy, Ms Spence, Ms Connolly, Ms Horne, Ms Staikos, Mr Couzens, Ms Hutchins, Ms Suleyman, Ms Crugnale, Ms Kairouz, Ms Tak, Mr D’Ambrosio, Ms Kennedy, Mr Taylor, Mr Dimopoulos, Mr Kilkenny, Ms Theophanous, Ms Donnellan, Mr Maas, Mr Thomas, Ms Edbrooke, Mr McGhie, Mr Ward, Ms Edwards, Ms McGuire, Mr Williams, Ms Eren, Mr Merlino, Mr Wynne, Mr Amendments defeated. Sessional order 6 agreed to. Sessional order 7 The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business has moved two amendments to this sessional order. As they relate to different principles I will deal with them separately. The Manager of Opposition Business’s amendment 3 proposes to omit certain words and insert other words. The question is: That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. Members supporting the Manager of Opposition Business’s amendment should vote no. House divided on omission (members in favour vote no):

Ayes, 54 Addison, Ms Foley, Mr Neville, Ms Allan, Ms Fowles, Mr Pakula, Mr Andrews, Mr Fregon, Mr Pallas, Mr Blandthorn, Ms Green, Ms Pearson, Mr Brayne, Mr Halfpenny, Ms Richards, Ms Bull, Mr J Hall, Ms Richardson, Mr Carbines, Mr Halse, Mr Scott, Mr Carroll, Mr Hamer, Mr Settle, Ms Cheeseman, Mr Hennessy, Ms Spence, Ms Connolly, Ms Horne, Ms Staikos, Mr Couzens, Ms Hutchins, Ms Suleyman, Ms

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 153

Crugnale, Ms Kairouz, Ms Tak, Mr D’Ambrosio, Ms Kennedy, Mr Taylor, Mr Dimopoulos, Mr Kilkenny, Ms Theophanous, Ms Donnellan, Mr Maas, Mr Thomas, Ms Edbrooke, Mr McGhie, Mr Ward, Ms Edwards, Ms McGuire, Mr Williams, Ms Eren, Mr Merlino, Mr Wynne, Mr Noes, 31 Angus, Mr McLeish, Ms Sheed, Ms Battin, Mr Morris, Mr Smith, Mr R Blackwood, Mr Newbury, Mr Smith, Mr T Britnell, Ms O’Brien, Mr D Southwick, Mr Bull, Mr T O’Brien, Mr M Staley, Ms Cupper, Ms Read, Dr Tilley, Mr Guy, Mr Riordan, Mr Vallence, Ms Hibbins, Mr Rowswell, Mr Wakeling, Mr Hodgett, Mr Ryan, Ms Walsh, Mr Kealy, Ms Sandell, Ms Wells, Mr McCurdy, Mr Question agreed to. The SPEAKER: The house will now deal with the Manager of Opposition Business’s amendment 4. This amendment is identical to the member for Melbourne’s amendment 3, so I will test them both by putting the Manager of Opposition Business’s amendment. House divided on Mr Wells’s amendment 4:

Ayes, 31 Angus, Mr McLeish, Ms Sheed, Ms Battin, Mr Morris, Mr Smith, Mr R Blackwood, Mr Newbury, Mr Smith, Mr T Britnell, Ms O’Brien, Mr D Southwick, Mr Bull, Mr T O’Brien, Mr M Staley, Ms Cupper, Ms Read, Dr Tilley, Mr Guy, Mr Riordan, Mr Vallence, Ms Hibbins, Mr Rowswell, Mr Wakeling, Mr Hodgett, Mr Ryan, Ms Walsh, Mr Kealy, Ms Sandell, Ms Wells, Mr McCurdy, Mr Noes, 54 Addison, Ms Foley, Mr Neville, Ms Allan, Ms Fowles, Mr Pakula, Mr Andrews, Mr Fregon, Mr Pallas, Mr Blandthorn, Ms Green, Ms Pearson, Mr Brayne, Mr Halfpenny, Ms Richards, Ms Bull, Mr J Hall, Ms Richardson, Mr Carbines, Mr Halse, Mr Scott, Mr Carroll, Mr Hamer, Mr Settle, Ms Cheeseman, Mr Hennessy, Ms Spence, Ms Connolly, Ms Horne, Ms Staikos, Mr Couzens, Ms Hutchins, Ms Suleyman, Ms Crugnale, Ms Kairouz, Ms Tak, Mr D’Ambrosio, Ms Kennedy, Mr Taylor, Mr Dimopoulos, Mr Kilkenny, Ms Theophanous, Ms Donnellan, Mr Maas, Mr Thomas, Ms Edbrooke, Mr McGhie, Mr Ward, Ms Edwards, Ms McGuire, Mr Williams, Ms Eren, Mr Merlino, Mr Wynne, Mr

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 154 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019

Amendment defeated. Sessional orders 7 agreed to; sessional order 8 agreed to. Sessional order 9 The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business has moved amendments 5 and 6 to the proposed sessional order. The question is:

That the amendments be agreed to. House divided on Mr Wells’s amendments 5 and 6:

Ayes, 31 Angus, Mr McLeish, Ms Sheed, Ms Battin, Mr Morris, Mr Smith, Mr R Blackwood, Mr Newbury, Mr Smith, Mr T Britnell, Ms O’Brien, Mr D Southwick, Mr Bull, Mr T O’Brien, Mr M Staley, Ms Cupper, Ms Read, Dr Tilley, Mr Guy, Mr Riordan, Mr Vallence, Ms Hibbins, Mr Rowswell, Mr Wakeling, Mr Hodgett, Mr Ryan, Ms Walsh, Mr Kealy, Ms Sandell, Ms Wells, Mr McCurdy, Mr Noes, 54 Addison, Ms Foley, Mr Neville, Ms Allan, Ms Fowles, Mr Pakula, Mr Andrews, Mr Fregon, Mr Pallas, Mr Blandthorn, Ms Green, Ms Pearson, Mr Brayne, Mr Halfpenny, Ms Richards, Ms Bull, Mr J Hall, Ms Richardson, Mr Carbines, Mr Halse, Mr Scott, Mr Carroll, Mr Hamer, Mr Settle, Ms Cheeseman, Mr Hennessy, Ms Spence, Ms Connolly, Ms Horne, Ms Staikos, Mr Couzens, Ms Hutchins, Ms Suleyman, Ms Crugnale, Ms Kairouz, Ms Tak, Mr D’Ambrosio, Ms Kennedy, Mr Taylor, Mr Dimopoulos, Mr Kilkenny, Ms Theophanous, Ms Donnellan, Mr Maas, Mr Thomas, Ms Edbrooke, Mr McGhie, Mr Ward, Ms Edwards, Ms McGuire, Mr Williams, Ms Eren, Mr Merlino, Mr Wynne, Mr Amendments defeated. Sessional order 9 agreed to; sessional order 10 agreed to. Sessional order 11 The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business has moved amendments 7 and 8 to the proposed sessional order. These amendments are identical to the member for Melbourne’s amendments 4 and 5, so I will test them by putting the Manager of Opposition Business’s amendments. The question is: That the Manager of Opposition Business’s amendments 7 and 8 be agreed to: House divided on Mr Wells’s amendments 7 and 8:

Ayes, 31 Angus, Mr McLeish, Ms Sheed, Ms

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 155

Battin, Mr Morris, Mr Smith, Mr R Blackwood, Mr Newbury, Mr Smith, Mr T Britnell, Ms O’Brien, Mr D Southwick, Mr Bull, Mr T O’Brien, Mr M Staley, Ms Cupper, Ms Read, Dr Tilley, Mr Guy, Mr Riordan, Mr Vallence, Ms Hibbins, Mr Rowswell, Mr Wakeling, Mr Hodgett, Mr Ryan, Ms Walsh, Mr Kealy, Ms Sandell, Ms Wells, Mr McCurdy, Mr Noes, 54 Addison, Ms Foley, Mr Neville, Ms Allan, Ms Fowles, Mr Pakula, Mr Andrews, Mr Fregon, Mr Pallas, Mr Blandthorn, Ms Green, Ms Pearson, Mr Brayne, Mr Halfpenny, Ms Richards, Ms Bull, Mr J Hall, Ms Richardson, Mr Carbines, Mr Halse, Mr Scott, Mr Carroll, Mr Hamer, Mr Settle, Ms Cheeseman, Mr Hennessy, Ms Spence, Ms Connolly, Ms Horne, Ms Staikos, Mr Couzens, Ms Hutchins, Ms Suleyman, Ms Crugnale, Ms Kairouz, Ms Tak, Mr D’Ambrosio, Ms Kennedy, Mr Taylor, Mr Dimopoulos, Mr Kilkenny, Ms Theophanous, Ms Donnellan, Mr Maas, Mr Thomas, Ms Edbrooke, Mr McGhie, Mr Ward, Ms Edwards, Ms McGuire, Mr Williams, Ms Eren, Mr Merlino, Mr Wynne, Mr Amendments defeated. Sessional order 11 agreed to. Sessional order 12 The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business has proposed to omit this sessional order. The question is: That sessional order 12 be agreed to. Members supporting the Manager of Opposition Business’s amendment should vote no. House divided on sessional order 12:

Ayes, 54 Addison, Ms Foley, Mr Neville, Ms Allan, Ms Fowles, Mr Pakula, Mr Andrews, Mr Fregon, Mr Pallas, Mr Blandthorn, Ms Green, Ms Pearson, Mr Brayne, Mr Halfpenny, Ms Richards, Ms Bull, Mr J Hall, Ms Richardson, Mr Carbines, Mr Halse, Mr Scott, Mr Carroll, Mr Hamer, Mr Settle, Ms Cheeseman, Mr Hennessy, Ms Spence, Ms Connolly, Ms Horne, Ms Staikos, Mr Couzens, Ms Hutchins, Ms Suleyman, Ms Crugnale, Ms Kairouz, Ms Tak, Mr D’Ambrosio, Ms Kennedy, Mr Taylor, Mr Dimopoulos, Mr Kilkenny, Ms Theophanous, Ms Donnellan, Mr Maas, Mr Thomas, Ms Edbrooke, Mr McGhie, Mr Ward, Ms

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 156 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019

Edwards, Ms McGuire, Mr Williams, Ms Eren, Mr Merlino, Mr Wynne, Mr Noes, 31 Angus, Mr McLeish, Ms Sheed, Ms Battin, Mr Morris, Mr Smith, Mr R Blackwood, Mr Newbury, Mr Smith, Mr T Britnell, Ms O’Brien, Mr D Southwick, Mr Bull, Mr T O’Brien, Mr M Staley, Ms Cupper, Ms Read, Dr Tilley, Mr Guy, Mr Riordan, Mr Vallence, Ms Hibbins, Mr Rowswell, Mr Wakeling, Mr Hodgett, Mr Ryan, Ms Walsh, Mr Kealy, Ms Sandell, Ms Wells, Mr McCurdy, Mr Sessional order 12 agreed to. Sessional order 13 agreed to. Sessional order 14 The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business has moved amendments 10 and 11 to proposed sessional order 14. The question is that the amendments be agreed to. House divided on Mr Wells’s amendments 10 and 11:

Ayes, 31 Angus, Mr McLeish, Ms Sheed, Ms Battin, Mr Morris, Mr Smith, Mr R Blackwood, Mr Newbury, Mr Smith, Mr T Britnell, Ms O’Brien, Mr D Southwick, Mr Bull, Mr T O’Brien, Mr M Staley, Ms Cupper, Ms Read, Dr Tilley, Mr Guy, Mr Riordan, Mr Vallence, Ms Hibbins, Mr Rowswell, Mr Wakeling, Mr Hodgett, Mr Ryan, Ms Walsh, Mr Kealy, Ms Sandell, Ms Wells, Mr McCurdy, Mr Noes, 54 Addison, Ms Foley, Mr Neville, Ms Allan, Ms Fowles, Mr Pakula, Mr Andrews, Mr Fregon, Mr Pallas, Mr Blandthorn, Ms Green, Ms Pearson, Mr Brayne, Mr Halfpenny, Ms Richards, Ms Bull, Mr J Hall, Ms Richardson, Mr Carbines, Mr Halse, Mr Scott, Mr Carroll, Mr Hamer, Mr Settle, Ms Cheeseman, Mr Hennessy, Ms Spence, Ms Connolly, Ms Horne, Ms Staikos, Mr Couzens, Ms Hutchins, Ms Suleyman, Ms Crugnale, Ms Kairouz, Ms Tak, Mr D’Ambrosio, Ms Kennedy, Mr Taylor, Mr Dimopoulos, Mr Kilkenny, Ms Theophanous, Ms Donnellan, Mr Maas, Mr Thomas, Ms Edbrooke, Mr McGhie, Mr Ward, Ms Edwards, Ms McGuire, Mr Williams, Ms Eren, Mr Merlino, Mr Wynne, Mr

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 157

Amendments defeated. Sessional order 14 agreed to; sessional orders 15 and 16 agreed to. New sessional order The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business has moved a new sessional order A, ‘Questions to ministers’. The question is:

That the new sessional order proposed by Mr Wells be agreed to. House divided on new sessional order:

Ayes, 31 Angus, Mr McLeish, Ms Sheed, Ms Battin, Mr Morris, Mr Smith, Mr R Blackwood, Mr Newbury, Mr Smith, Mr T Britnell, Ms O’Brien, Mr D Southwick, Mr Bull, Mr T O’Brien, Mr M Staley, Ms Cupper, Ms Read, Dr Tilley, Mr Guy, Mr Riordan, Mr Vallence, Ms Hibbins, Mr Rowswell, Mr Wakeling, Mr Hodgett, Mr Ryan, Ms Walsh, Mr Kealy, Ms Sandell, Ms Wells, Mr McCurdy, Mr Noes, 54 Addison, Ms Foley, Mr Neville, Ms Allan, Ms Fowles, Mr Pakula, Mr Andrews, Mr Fregon, Mr Pallas, Mr Blandthorn, Ms Green, Ms Pearson, Mr Brayne, Mr Halfpenny, Ms Richards, Ms Bull, Mr J Hall, Ms Richardson, Mr Carbines, Mr Halse, Mr Scott, Mr Carroll, Mr Hamer, Mr Settle, Ms Cheeseman, Mr Hennessy, Ms Spence, Ms Connolly, Ms Horne, Ms Staikos, Mr Couzens, Ms Hutchins, Ms Suleyman, Ms Crugnale, Ms Kairouz, Ms Tak, Mr D’Ambrosio, Ms Kennedy, Mr Taylor, Mr Dimopoulos, Mr Kilkenny, Ms Theophanous, Ms Donnellan, Mr Maas, Mr Thomas, Ms Edbrooke, Mr McGhie, Mr Ward, Ms Edwards, Ms McGuire, Mr Williams, Ms Eren, Mr Merlino, Mr Wynne, Mr New sessional order defeated. The SPEAKER: The member for Essendon has moved an amendment to omit the words ‘effect from the next sitting day’ and replace them with the words ‘immediate effect’. The question is:

That the amendment moved by the member for Essendon be agreed to. Amendment agreed to. The SPEAKER: That concludes consideration of the sessional orders and the amendments. The question is:

That the motion moved by the Leader of the House as amended be agreed to. House divided on amended motion:

Ayes, 59 Addison, Ms Fowles, Mr Pallas, Mr

BILLS 158 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019

Allan, Ms Fregon, Mr Pearson, Mr Andrews, Mr Green, Ms Read, Dr Blandthorn, Ms Halfpenny, Ms Richards, Ms Brayne, Mr Hall, Ms Richardson, Mr Bull, Mr J Halse, Mr Sandell, Ms Carbines, Mr Hamer, Mr Scott, Mr Carroll, Mr Hennessy, Ms Settle, Ms Cheeseman, Mr Hibbins, Mr Sheed, Ms Connolly, Ms Horne, Ms Spence, Ms Couzens, Ms Hutchins, Ms Staikos, Mr Crugnale, Ms Kairouz, Ms Suleyman, Ms Cupper, Ms Kennedy, Mr Tak, Mr D’Ambrosio, Ms Kilkenny, Ms Taylor, Mr Dimopoulos, Mr Maas, Mr Theophanous, Ms Donnellan, Mr McGhie, Mr Thomas, Ms Edbrooke, Mr McGuire, Mr Ward, Ms Edwards, Ms Merlino, Mr Williams, Ms Eren, Mr Neville, Ms Wynne, Mr Foley, Mr Pakula, Mr Noes, 26 Angus, Mr McLeish, Ms Smith, Mr T Battin, Mr Morris, Mr Southwick, Mr Blackwood, Mr Newbury, Mr Staley, Ms Britnell, Ms O’Brien, Mr D Tilley, Mr Bull, Mr T O’Brien, Mr M Vallence, Ms Guy, Mr Riordan, Mr Wakeling, Mr Hodgett, Mr Rowswell, Mr Walsh, Mr Kealy, Ms Ryan, Ms Wells, Mr McCurdy, Mr Smith, Mr R Amended motion agreed to. Bills FAIR WORK (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) AMENDMENT BILL 2018 Statement of compatibility Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (16:28): Can I say I stand in my capacity as the Minister for Industrial Relations. In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) Amendment Bill 2018.

In my opinion, the Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) Amendment Bill 2018 (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 purpose of the Bill is to amend the Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) Act 2009 (Vic) (the Referral Act) in relation to certain Victorian public sector employers and employees to expand the range of matters able to be bargained over and included in an enterprise agreement across the Victorian public sector. The Referral Act operates to refer certain matters relating to workplace relations to the Commonwealth Parliament for the purposes of section 51(xxxvii) of the Australian Constitution. That reference of matters by the State permits the Commonwealth Parliament to extend the application of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Commonwealth Fair Work Act) to Victorian employers and employees it would not otherwise cover, subject to the exclusions and limitations set out in section 5 of the Referral Act. At present, under section 5 of the Referral Act, certain matters relating to Victorian public sector employees who are not law enforcement officers are excluded from the State’s reference, including matters pertaining to the number, identity or appointment (other than terms and conditions of appointment) of those employees. The Bill amends the Referral Act in relation to the exclusions that currently apply to those employees, in order to:

BILLS Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 159

• provide for Victoria public sector employees who are not law enforcement officers to enter into enterprise agreements that include terms about matters pertaining to the number, identity or appointment (other than terms and conditions of appointment) of those employees; • provide for some other aspects of the provisions of the Commonwealth Fair Work Act to apply in respect of those matters, in order to support bargaining for the inclusion of those matters in enterprise agreements and enforcing terms about those matters; • provide for other, minor related matters. Human rights issues The Bill would insert a new section 5A into the Referral Act to provide for the further reference of certain matters pertaining to certain public sector employees. In effect, new section 5A would constitute a limited exception to the present exclusion from Victoria’s reference to the Commonwealth contained in section 5(1)(a) of the Referral Act. New section 5A would provide that, despite the exclusion in section 5(1)(a), the matters referred by the Principal Act include matters pertaining to the number, identity, or appointment (other than terms and conditions of appointment) of employees in the public sector who are not law enforcement officers (‘section 5(1)(a) matters’), to the extent of: • an enterprise agreement made or proposed to be made under the Commonwealth Fair Work Act; • a workplace determination being made or proposed to be made that includes an agreed term dealing with a section 5(1)(a) matter; and • the Fair Work Commission dealing with bargaining disputes about section 5(1)(a) matters by arbitration (however described) under section 240 of that Act. However, new section 5A would not allow the Fair Work Commission to: • make an order in relation to transfer of business that a transferable instrument which includes a section 5(1)(a) matter will cover a Referral employer; or • provide that a section 5(1)(a) matter of a transferable instrument be enforceable where that instrument will cover a Referral employer. Right of equal access to the Victorian public service (section 18(2)(b)) Section 18(2)(b) of the Charter provides that every eligible person has the right, and is to have the opportunity, without discrimination, to have access, on general terms of equality, to the Victorian public service and public office. Discrimination in the context of the Charter has the same meaning as in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) (Victorian EO Act). This right is relevant to the Bill to the extent that the amended referral will allow enterprise agreements to include terms relating to the identity and appointment of employees (which could include criteria or minimum qualifications) within the Victoria public service. I note that the amended referral will mean that all public sector employees (both those who are covered by the Referral Act and those who are employees of constitutional corporations) are treated equally in terms of employers and employees being able to bargain over matters pertaining to the number, identity or appointment of those employees. This will create a greater level of fairness and consistency in the bargaining process. Additionally, I am satisfied that the right in section 18(2) is not limited by the Bill because, under the Commonwealth Fair Work Act, an enterprise agreement cannot be approved by the Fair Work Commission if it contains unlawful terms, including terms which are discriminatory within the meaning of that Act. Further, while the terms of an enterprise agreement will generally prevail over State laws, the Commonwealth Fair Work Act provides that an enterprise agreement will apply subject to the Victorian EO Act. Other relevant rights Although there are no further rights under the Charter that are directly relevant to the Bill, I note that the further reference of matters under the Bill will permit the application of certain provisions of the Commonwealth Fair Work Act to public sector employees in respect of section 5(1)(a) matters. Some of the applicable provisions of the Commonwealth Fair Work Act may raise human rights issues, including in relation to the right to freedom of association in section 16(2) of the Charter, the right to freedom of expression in s 15(2), and the right to privacy in s 13(a). Section 16(2) of the Charter protects the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions. In the context of workplace relations, the right protects the freedom of persons to join, or not join, associations or organisations for the purpose of acting collectively in the common pursuit of member interests. Some of the provisions of the Commonwealth Fair Work Act may engage the right to

BILLS 160 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019

freedom of association; for example, those that relate to the making of enterprise agreements (Part 2-4) and those that regulate employers and their employees taking protected industrial action (Part 3-3). In my view, the provisions of the Commonwealth Fair Work Act that regulate the making of enterprise agreements do not limit the right in section 16(2) of the Charter (to the extent that that right may protect the right to collective bargaining), as they do not undermine, but in fact support the activity of workers joining together to negotiate agreements. Employees maintain the right to freedom of association. Additionally, the Bill enhances the right to freedom of association for certain public sector employers who will now be able to bargain collectively in relation to section 5(1)(a) matters, where previously this was excluded. Similarly, the Commonwealth Fair Work Act’s regulation of industrial action is unlikely to amount to a limit on the right to freedom of association; and, even if it did, I am satisfied that any such limit is proportionate, reasonable and demonstrably justified given the objectives of the legislation to achieve a balanced framework for cooperative and productive workplace relations. I am also satisfied that the provisions of the Commonwealth Fair Work Act that regulate industrial action, which may now apply in respect of s 5(1)(a) matters, do not limit the right of freedom of expression in section 15(2) of the Charter. Although such provisions may affect the ability to communicate opinions in certain circumstances, section 15(3) provides that the right to freedom of expression may be subject to lawful restrictions reasonably necessary for, among other things, the protection of public order. The restrictions on freedom of expression through the clear regulation of industrial action in Part 3-3 are reasonably necessary and rationally connected to the objectives of the legislative scheme. The right in section 13 of the Charter, which provides that a person has the right not to have his or her privacy, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with, is relevant to the rights of entry and associated investigative powers under Part 3-4 of the Commonwealth Fair Work Act. These are existing powers in the Fair Work Act; however, the Bill will permit them to be exercised with respect to suspected contraventions of terms pertaining to section 5(1)(a) matters. To the extent that these powers may interfere with the privacy of the employer or persons in the workplace, it is my view that any interference will be neither unlawful nor arbitrary. The powers serve an important purpose of ensuring compliance with the Act, and the manner in which they may be exercised is proportionate to that purpose, particularly as their exercise must be relevant to the investigation of a suspected contravention. The Commonwealth Fair Work Act also includes safeguards to protect personal information. Moreover, the entry rights promote the right to freedom of association in section 16(2) of the Charter, for example by allowing a union representative to access the records of their members for the purpose of investigating a suspected breach of a section 5(1)(a) matter. The Hon. Tim Pallas MP Minister for Industrial Relations Second reading Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (16:29): 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: This Bill, which implements the Government’s commitment, made before its first term, to expand the range of matters that may be included in an enterprise agreement made under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Fair Work Act). Parliament did not pass the Bill during the previous term of Government, limiting the bargaining rights of 130,000 Victorian workers, including teachers, prison staff, transport planners and legal aid workers. The Andrews Labor Government committed to reintroducing the Bill, and I’m pleased we have reintroduced this Bill, one of the first Bills of our second term of Government, as a demonstration of our commitment to fairness for our public sector workforce. The Bill would amend the Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) Act 2009 (Referral Act) to enable public sector employers that are covered by this Act (Referral employers) and their employees to bargain over, and reach agreement on a greater range of matters. The Bill would allow bargaining over the number, identity or appointment of employees in the public sector. This means, for example, that public sector employees (excluding law enforcement officers) could collectively bargain over and reach agreement on matters such as minimum staffing levels, restrictions on how staff are to be engaged or the number of casual, seasonal or fixed term employees.

BILLS Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 161

This will enable Referral employers and their employees to bargain over these matters in the same way that public sector employers and employees of constitutional corporations may now bargain. It will ensure a greater level of fairness and consistency in the bargaining and enterprise agreement making process across the Victorian public sector. Background In 2009, the Government undertook to ensure that all Victorians had the benefit and protection of the federal workplace laws by referring certain workplace relations matters to the Commonwealth (Referral). The Referral Act fulfilled that promise. An important objective of the Referral was to safeguard the ability for employers and employees to collectively bargain and make enterprise agreements under the federal workplace laws. Since that time, most workers in Victoria have had the benefit of the Fair Work Act and many would be covered by an enterprise agreement approved by the Fair Work Commission (Commission). The Referral Act was necessary because, in its absence, only workplaces where the employer was a constitutional corporation could be assured of proper coverage by the federal workplace laws. Employers that were not constitutional corporations, being primarily small businesses, partnerships, non-trading community and some public sector organisations and the Victorian public service would have been excluded. The Referral Act, with some exceptions, captured those employers to ensure that all Victorian businesses and their employees were treated equally. At that time, Victoria did not refer certain matters in relation to public sector employees. These exclusions are set out in section 5(1) of the Referral Act (section 5(1) exclusions). In particular, Victoria did not refer matters relating to the number, identity and appointment of public sector employees (section 5(1)(a) matters). These matters were excluded from the referral as they related to matters that the High Court in the Re Australian Education Union; Ex parte Victoria (Re AEU) decision held to be essential to the functioning of the states. The High Court decided that such matters were beyond the legislative power of the Commonwealth. The Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) Amendment Bill 2018 is a further step to ensure that the objectives of the Referral Act continue to be met, by removing the limitation that prevents Referral employers and their employees from bargaining about section 5(1)(a) matters. Why is the Bill necessary? Since 2009, the legal position has evolved. In 2015, the Full Court of the Federal Court in United Firefighters Union v Country Fire Authority (UFU v CFA) found that some matters previously thought to be beyond the legislative power of the Commonwealth could validly be included in an enterprise agreement. This means that the Referral Act now excludes matters for Referral employers and employees which are not excluded for constitutional corporation employers and employees. Objective of the Bill The central purpose of the Bill is to remedy the disparity between public sector employers that are constitutional corporations and public sector employers that are not constitutional corporations (Referral employers) by legislating to ensure that section 5(1)(a) matters may be included in public sector enterprise agreements covering Referral employers and those terms may be enforced by way of civil remedy provisions under the Fair Work Act. If an amended referral is not made in the manner proposed by the Bill, some public sector employers and their employees are free to bargain about section 5(1)(a) matters, while others are not. Overview of the Bill The Bill would allow for Referral employers and their employees to bargain over and make enterprise agreements containing terms pertaining to the number, identity or appointment of employees in the public sector. Bargaining about such terms will be subject to the bargaining processes in the Fair Work Act, including the good faith bargaining requirements. Parties will be able to apply for bargaining orders and serious breach declarations if there are concerns the good faith bargaining requirements are not being met. Employers and their employees will also be able to take protected industrial action in support of claims in relation to terms about section 5(1)(a) matters and the Bill would permit right of entry for suspected contraventions of such terms. The Commission will have jurisdiction to approve enterprise agreements that contain terms about section 5(1)(a) matters and such terms will be enforceable under the Fair Work Act and subject to the enterprise agreement’s dispute resolution procedures. The Commission may deal with a dispute about a term of an agreement about a section 5(1)(a) matter by mediation or conciliation, by expressing an opinion or making a recommendation or arbitration (where arbitration is expressly provided for in the enterprise agreement).

BILLS 162 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019

The Bill would also allow for the civil remedy provisions, as set out in the Fair Work Act, to apply to a contravention of a term of an enterprise agreement about a section 5(1)(a) matter. This means that the relevant courts would have power to impose penalties and other orders on public sector employers in respect of breaches of such terms. However, the Bill would not permit a term pertaining to a section 5(1)(a) matter to be imposed on a Referral employer and as such, the Bill limits the inclusion of section 5(1)(a) matters in some industrial instruments. The principal effect of these limitations is to ensure that a section 5(1)(a) matter is only included in an industrial instrument with the agreement of the parties and not as the result of any arbitral function on the part of the Commission. This means that the Commission would not have jurisdiction to arbitrate (even with the agreement of the parties) a bargaining dispute about a section 5(1)(a) matter. This also means that the Commission would be able to make a workplace determination containing terms pertaining to a section 5(1)(a) matter but only where those terms are ‘agreed terms’ as defined by the Fair Work Act. The Bill would not permit the Commission to make an award, where that award includes a section 5(1)(a) matter. The Bill will also not permit a section 5(1)(a) matter to apply to a Referral employer by way of transfer of business. This means that a section 5(1)(a) matter in a transferring instrument (as defined by the Fair Work Act) will not be enforceable where that instrument covers a Referral Employer. Further, the Commission will not be permitted to make an order in relation to transfer of business that a transferable instrument which imposes a section 5(1)(a) matter will cover a Referral employer. Who is not covered by the amended referral? In 2009, Victoria did not refer certain matters in relation to law enforcement officers as they were considered necessary to maintaining the integrity of state laws governing law enforcement officers. The exclusions for law enforcement officers are set out in section 5(2) of the Referral Act. It is appropriate to maintain the existing exclusion pertaining to law enforcement officers to ensure the integrity and operational independence of state laws governing law enforcement officers. As such, the Bill would not alter the position with respect to law enforcement officers. I commend the Bill to the house. Mr WELLS (Rowville) (16:29): I move: That the debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. Ordered that debate be adjourned until Tuesday, 19 February. TRANSPORT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (BETTER ROADS VICTORIA AND OTHER AMENDMENTS) BILL 2018 Statement of compatibility Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (16:31): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the Transport Legislation Amendment (Better Roads Victoria and Other Amendments) Bill 2018. 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 amends a variety of Acts relating to the transport system. Relevant to this Statement of Compatibility, the Bill implements a number of reforms to Victoria’s road safety laws. It includes reforms aimed at reducing the burden on courts resulting from the administration of alcohol interlock conditions imposed on the driver licences or learner permits of drink-driving offenders and provides for the mandatory imposition of alcohol interlock conditions in certain situations. It clarifies the offence of failing to stop a motor vehicle and makes an amendment to an evidential provision concerning road safety cameras.

BILLS Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 163

The Bill reinstates offences relating to the driving of an automated vehicle without an automated driving system permit or driving in breach of a condition of such a permit as offences for which vehicle impoundment, immobilisation and forfeiture apply under the Road Safety Act 1986. The Bill also amends the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983 in relation to over- dimensional vehicles crossing tramway and railway tracks. Human Rights Issues Several aspects of the Bill raise human rights issues, which I address in this Statement as follows. Right to a 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. The right to a fair hearing under section 24 of the Charter may be relevant to certain provisions of the Bill which, in effect, transfer court functions in relation to the imposition and removal of alcohol interlock conditions to VicRoads; provide for the mandatory imposition of alcohol interlock conditions with respect to certain offences; and restrict appeals to the Magistrates’ Court with respect to decisions of VicRoads in relation to alcohol interlock conditions. Imposition and removal of alcohol interlock conditions—transfer of court functions to VicRoads An alcohol interlock is an electronic breath testing device that prevents a vehicle from starting if it detects alcohol in the driver’s breath. Section 31KA of the Road Safety Act 1986 requires VicRoads to impose an alcohol interlock condition when granting a driver licence or learner permit to persons in certain circumstances. This obligation applies in relation to first time drink-driving offenders with a recorded blood or breath alcohol concentration (BAC) of less than 0∙10. The Road Safety Act 1986 also empowers the Magistrates’ Court to impose alcohol interlock conditions in respect of driver licences and learner permits for other offences, including for: (a) all first-time drink drivers with a recorded BAC of 0∙10 or more, and all repeat drink-driving offences where the person is disqualified from driving under sections 50 or 89C of the Road Safety Act 1986; and (b) all persons disqualified from driving under sections 89 or 89A of the Sentencing Act 1991 (where the court has also made a finding that the person who committed the offence was under the influence of alcohol or both alcohol and a drug which contributed to the offence) for: (i) serious motor vehicle offences within the meaning of section 87P of the Sentencing Act 1991 (for example, culpable driving); (ii) police pursuit offences; (iii) motor vehicle theft offences; (iv) non-road safety offences (dealt with under section 89A of the Sentencing Act 1991). Clause 12(2) of the Bill amends section 31KA of the Road Safety Act 1986 so as to broaden the offences in relation to which VicRoads is empowered to impose alcohol interlock conditions. VicRoads will now be empowered to impose such conditions for a person disqualified from driving under sections 50 or 89C (unless the person is exempted under new section 50AAAE, discussed below). Further, the Bill now provides that, in all circumstances, the removal of an alcohol interlock condition from a person’s driver licence or learner permit will be determined by VicRoads, a function that was previously, in some circumstances, performed by the Magistrates’ Court. In transferring responsibility for the imposition and removal of alcohol interlock conditions from the Magistrates’ Court to VicRoads, the Bill may appear to engage the right to a fair hearing. However, for the following reasons I do not consider that the right is engaged. While matters that are currently dealt with by the Magistrate’s Court will now be dealt with administratively by VicRoads, this does not limit access to courts. Insofar as the right under section 24(1) contains a right of access to courts, it does not require that matters such as decisions relating to the imposition and removal of alcohol interlock conditions, be determined by courts as opposed to non-judicial bodies. Moreover, the Act and some of the provisions in the Bill contain a range of appropriate safeguards and mechanisms to ensure that the administrative scheme implemented by VicRoads is fair. Consequently, I do not consider that this amendment engages the right.

BILLS 164 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019

Mandatory imposition of alcohol interlock conditions The Bill also amends Schedule 1B to the Road Safety Act 1986. That Schedule distinguishes between offences for which it is discretionary or mandatory for a decision-maker to impose an alcohol interlock condition. The Bill provides that, for certain offences for which the imposition of such a condition was discretionary, it will now be mandatory, subject to an exemption process under section 50AAAE. For example, where a person was disqualified for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of liquor or both liquor and a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle, and that offence occurred before 13 May 2002, the court previously had a discretion whether to impose an alcohol interlock condition. Such a condition will now be mandatory. However, while the removal of discretion from decision-makers may appear to engage the fair hearing right, in my view it does not do so. This is because the changes alter the substantive law to be applied by the decision-makers. By contrast, the right to a fair hearing is concerned with the process by which findings of substantive law are to be made. Consequently, in my view the right is not engaged. Even if the right were engaged by making the conditions mandatory, the Bill contains new provisions allowing a person subject to a condition to apply for an exemption from that condition in certain circumstances, such that the process remains fair. Restriction of appeals to Magistrates’ Court Section 26 of the Road Safety Act 1986 governs appeals to the Magistrates’ Court against certain decisions of VicRoads in relation to driver licences or learner permits. Section 26(5) currently provides that an appeal does not lie against certain decisions of VicRoads to impose (or not remove) alcohol interlock conditions. Clause 9 of the Bill amends section 26(5) to also preclude appeals to the Magistrates’ Court from decisions declining to exempt a person from an alcohol interlock condition which they would otherwise be subject to, under new section 50AAAE. Clause 9 of the Bill also amends section 26(5) to preclude appeals to the Magistrates’ Court from decisions of VicRoads under section 103ZM(6) to not exempt a person from the prescribed alcohol interlock usage data requirements. New section 50AAAE establishes a process for a person in certain circumstances to apply to VicRoads to be exempted from the imposition of an alcohol interlock condition on the basis that they are not engaging in hazardous or harmful use of alcohol and are not dependent on alcohol. New section 26(5)(c), inserted by clause 9, limits a general appeal to the Magistrates’ Court from a decision not to grant such an exemption. However, new section 50AAAF, inserted by clause 18, allows a person to apply to the Court for a direction to VicRoads that the person has satisfied the evidentiary requirements of section 50AAAE. This, in effect, creates a narrow and tailored form of judicial review in place of the general right of appeal. Therefore, even if the limitation of appeal rights has the potential to affect the right to fair hearing, in my view the substance of clause 9 does not. It is noted that new section 50AAAF(4) requires the Magistrates’ Court, at a hearing of an application under this section, to hear any relevant evidence tendered by the Chief Commissioner of Police. There is no corresponding requirement that the Magistrate must hear evidence tendered by the applicant. To the extent that this may be relevant to the applicant’s right to a fair hearing, I do not consider that the right is limited. The relevant material of the applicant will have already been provided by the applicant to the Court, as section 50AAAF(3)(b) requires an application to the Magistrates’ Court to be accompanied by the evidence given in support of the application under section 50AAAE. Further, it is appropriate that the Chief Commissioner of Police be able to tender any relevant evidence, as section 50AAAF(3) requires an application to be made on notice to the Chief Commissioner of Police, and the Chief Commissioner of Police may have evidence that is relevant to the matter which should be considered. New section 103ZM(5) provides that a person whose driver licence or learner permit is subject to an alcohol interlock condition imposed in respect of an offence committed before 1 October 2014, will be subject to the prescribed alcohol interlock usage data requirements. It was previously the case that these requirements did not apply to that group of offenders. If VicRoads is satisfied that there are special circumstances, it may grant an exemption to a person from this new requirement under section 103ZM(6). The prescribed alcohol interlock usage data requirements are set out in regulations and include requirements such as not using the alcohol interlock device while alcohol affected and not tampering with the device. In my view, the exclusion of a decision under section 103ZM(6) from a general right of appeal does not limit the right to a fair hearing. Right not to be tried or punished more than once Section 26 of the Charter provides that a person must not be tried or punished more than once for an offence. Clause 28 of the Bill amends Schedule 1B to the Road Safety Act 1986 to provide that, for certain offences, where the imposition of an alcohol interlock condition was previously discretionary, it will now be mandatory, subject to an exemption process under new section 50AAAE. The alcohol interlock condition will be imposed

BILLS Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 165

after the person’s disqualification period has ended and the person applies to VicRoads for a driver licence or learner permit. A question may arise as to whether this amounts to double punishment for the offence that gave rise to the initial disqualification. However, the alcohol interlock provisions in the Bill are administrative and regulatory in nature and do not amount to punishment for a criminal offence. The purpose of the alcohol interlock conditions is to protect public safety by reducing the risk of future drink-driving offences, rather than being aimed at punishing affected persons. The requirements are only imposed where a person wishes to apply for a driver licence or learner permit after a period of disqualification for a drink-driving offence. Even if the imposition of an alcohol condition may be seen as a sanction, the sanction is not of a criminal nature and the right in section 26 of the Charter does not preclude imposition of various civil consequences for the same conduct. No higher penalty Section 27(2) of the Charter provides that a person has a right not to have a greater penalty imposed for a criminal offence than applied to the offence when it was committed. Clause 27 of the Bill inserts transitional provisions. New section 103ZM(5) provides that where a person was disqualified from driving because of a drink-driving offence that was committed before 1 October 2014, the person will be required to meet the prescribed alcohol interlock usage data requirements, subject to a special circumstances exemption under section 103ZM(6) of the Road Safety Act 1986. These offenders were previously not required to comply with these requirements, which are set out in regulations and include requirements such as not using the alcohol interlock device while alcohol affected and not tampering with the device. Clause 28 of the Bill amends Schedule 1B to the Road Safety Act 1986 to provide that, for certain offences, where the imposition of an alcohol interlock condition was previously discretionary, it will now be mandatory, subject to an exemption process under new section 50AAAE. The alcohol interlock condition will be imposed after the person’s disqualification period has ended and the person applies to VicRoads for a driver licence or learner permit. A question may arise as to whether these amendments may result in a person being subjected to a higher penalty for the disqualifying offence than applied at the time the offence was committed, by being subjected to usage data requirements or the imposition of an alcohol interlock condition which may not otherwise have been imposed at the time the initial offence was committed. However, in my view, clause 27 of the Bill does not engage the right in section 27(2) of the Charter as the requirement to comply with prescribed alcohol interlock usage data requirements does not impose any higher penalty. The application of new requirements, relating to existing conditions, does not amount to the imposition of any penalty. Applicable requirements in a regulatory context, such as licensing, are subject to change to reflect best practice, shifts in policy and technology, and requirements that apply including to conditions. Similarly, clause 28 of the Bill which provides for the mandatory imposition of alcohol interlock conditions in certain cases, is not punitive or penal in nature. Furthermore, alcohol interlock conditions are imposed when a person applies for a driver licence or learner permit, which is an entirely voluntary process. The alcohol interlock assists a person found guilty of a drink-driving offence to separate that person’s drinking from driving and can therefore be better described as a therapeutic measure designed to assist the person to avoid committing another drink-driving offence in the future, and to protect the public against the commission of further drink-driving offences. Right to privacy Section 13 of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. Interference will be lawful if it is permitted by a law which is precise and appropriately circumscribed, and will be arbitrary only if it is capricious, unpredictable, unjust or unreasonable, in the sense of being disproportionate to the legitimate aim sought. A number of clauses are relevant to the right to privacy. Clause 16 amends the administrative scheme for removal of an alcohol interlock condition. Clause 16 re- enacts current section 50AAAB(2)(c) in new section 50AAAB(1)(b), which provides that a person applying for removal of an alcohol interlock condition must supply a report that complies with current section 50AAAB(3). This report must contain data that indicates compliance with any prescribed alcohol interlock usage data requirements. Clause 18 creates a new section 50AAAE which, in certain cases, enables a person to apply to avoid an alcohol interlock condition requirement if they can demonstrate that they are not engaging in hazardous or harmful alcohol use and are not dependent on alcohol. The application must be supported by evidence relating to their personal circumstances, which may include medical reports and assessments.

BILLS 166 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019

Clause 27 of the Bill inserts section 103ZM(6) of the Road Safety Act 1986 which provides that pre-1 October 2014 offenders may, in certain circumstances, make an application to VicRoads to be exempted from the prescribed alcohol interlock usage data requirements. Insofar as the right to privacy is engaged by the requirement to provide personal and sensitive information to VicRoads pursuant to clauses 16, 18 and 27, I consider that any interference with that right is lawful and not arbitrary. An application for a driver licence or learner permit is entirely voluntary and persons making an application for an exemption from or removal of alcohol interlock conditions, or an exemption from the prescribed alcohol interlock usage data requirements, will have a minimal expectation of privacy in relation to material of direct relevance to their application. The requirement that information and supporting evidence be provided pursuant to these clauses is to enable VicRoads to decide that the applicant is not dependent on alcohol (for clause 18), has complied with the prescribed alcohol interlock usage data requirements (for clause 16) or has established special circumstances warranting an exemption from the prescribed alcohol usage data requirements (for clause 27). The requirement that the information be provided serves an important public purpose as it enables VicRoads to make informed decisions about who should be subject to alcohol interlock conditions or the prescribed alcohol usage data requirements and whether an alcohol interlock condition should be removed. Therefore, in my view, clauses 16, 18 and 27 do not limit the right to privacy. 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. Mandatory imposition of alcohol interlock conditions Clause 28 amends Schedule 1B to the Road Safety Act 1986 so that certain offences will result in the mandatory imposition of an alcohol interlock condition by VicRoads upon the offender applying for a driver licence or learner permit. The alcohol interlock provisions may be relevant to the section 20 right not to be deprived of a person’s property other than in accordance with law, because a person is only able to use their property, being their vehicle, if an alcohol interlock has been fitted. In my opinion, the provisions do not limit the right because, even if the requirement to fit the device in order to use the vehicle is viewed as a potential deprivation of the vehicle, the circumstances in which a device must be fitted are clearly formulated and are in accordance with the law. Impoundment, immobilisation and forfeiture of motor vehicles Clause 34 of the Bill provides that offences relating to the driving of an automated vehicle without an automated driving system permit or driving in breach of a condition of such a permit will be offences for which vehicle impoundment, immobilisation and forfeiture apply under the Road Safety Act 1986. These offences were previously subject to the vehicle impoundment regime and they were previously listed as ‘tier 2 relevant offences’. The reason these offences were not included in the new definition of ‘relevant offence’, established by the Transport Legislation Amendment (Road Safety, Rail and Other Matters) Act 2017 (the 2017 Act), is that these new offences, which were created by the Road Safety Amendment (Automated Vehicles) Act 2018, had not yet come into existence when the 2017 Act was considered by the Parliament. Furthermore, the Road Safety Amendment (Automated Vehicles) Act 2018 could only add these offences to the definition of ‘tier 2 relevant offence’ because the new definition of ‘relevant offence’, created by the 2017 Act, had not been assented to when the Road Safety Amendment (Automated Vehicles) Act 2018 was introduced into the Parliament. The commission of ‘relevant offences’ can give rise to consequences including the exercise of powers by police officers for the impoundment, immobilisation and forfeiture of motor vehicles and for the exercise of search and seizure powers. The human rights issues raised by these amendments were discussed in the Statement of Compatibility for Road Safety Amendment (Automated Vehicles) Act 2018 and they were considered to be compatible with the Charter. Freedom of movement Section 12 of the Charter provides that every person lawfully in Victoria has the right to move freely within Victoria and to enter and leave it.

BILLS Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 167

Requirement to remain stopped Clause 32 of the Bill seeks to clarify the offence of failing to stop a motor vehicle when requested by a police officer, or a protective services officer on duty at a designated place (under section 64A of the Road Safety Act 1986). Section 64A currently does not include a specific reference to a person, after being directed to stop, to remain stopped. Clause 32 of the Bill amends section 64A of the Road Safety Act 1986 to include an express requirement that the driver remain stopped until an indication is given that the person may continue driving. The amendment to section 64A may amount to a restriction on freedom of movement. However, I consider that any limitation on the right is reasonable and justified. It is a legitimate expectation that drivers remain stopped while engaging with police officers or protective services officers in the context of this provision. As such, the amendment is technical in nature. Remaining stopped until the police officer or protective services officer indicates otherwise is in the interests of public safety and law enforcement. Restrictions relevant to railway and tramway tracks Clauses 51 to 55 amend the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983 to transfer certain over- dimensional vehicle regulatory functions from the Public Transport Development Authority to VicRoads and to clarify the circumstances where a permit is required when crossing railway tracks or crossing or moving along tramway tracks. To the extent that the provisions being amended restrict freedom of movement, I consider any interference to be reasonable and justified. It is appropriate that the circumstances in which tracks can be crossed are regulated. Drivers of over-dimensional vehicles and the operators of those vehicles should be cognisant of the particular laws that are relevant to them. The provisions promote the protection of rail infrastructure and public safety, and ensure that crossings are carried out efficiently and in a way that minimises disruption to the rail and tram network. Protection against discrimination Section 8 of the Charter sets out a series of recognition and equality rights, including the right of every person to equal protection of the law without discrimination, and the right to equal and effective protection against discrimination. Discrimination, in relation to a person, is defined in section 3(1) of the Charter to mean discrimination (within the meaning of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010) on the basis of an attribute set out in section 6 of that Act. One such attribute is discrimination on the basis of disability. Discrimination includes both direct and indirect discrimination on the basis of an attribute. Direct discrimination occurs if a person treats, or proposes to treat, a person with an attribute unfavourably because of that attribute. Indirect discrimination occurs if a person imposes, or proposes to impose, an unreasonable requirement, condition or practice that either has or is likely to have a disadvantageous effect on persons with an attribute. As noted above, the Bill amends the Road Safety Act 1986 so that certain offences will result in the mandatory imposition of an alcohol interlock condition by VicRoads (when the person applies for a driver licence or learner permit) unless the person can demonstrate (under new section 50AAAE introduced by clause 18 of the Bill) that they are not dependent on alcohol or engaging in hazardous or harmful alcohol use. Alcoholism is an addiction to alcoholic substances, and in some cases, addiction may be regarded as a disability. Insofar as dependency on alcohol may be considered a disability, clause 18 may engage the right to protection against discrimination on the basis of disability. In my view, as the requirement to demonstrate that a person is not dependent on alcohol or engaging in hazardous or harmful alcohol use applies equally to all relevant applicants, any resulting discrimination will be indirect rather than direct in nature. Indirect discrimination is only unlawful (and therefore a limit on the right to equality) if it is unreasonable. The requirement in clause 18 is clearly reasonable. Road safety is of paramount importance to the general community and the inherent requirements of driving a motor vehicle include that drivers meet an appropriate standard of medical fitness and do not pose an unacceptable risk. The requirement is a proportionate response to the risk posed by these drivers and is necessary to protect other road users. For the same reasons, even if the requirement is considered to amount to direct discrimination, and therefore a limit on the right, it is justifiable under section 7(2) of the Charter. I therefore consider that clause 18 is compatible with section 8 of the Charter. Right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law Clause 33 of the Bill substitutes section 81(1B) of the Road Safety Act 1986 to provide that, where an image produced by a prescribed process when used in the prescribed manner (for example, a road safety camera)

BILLS 168 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019

depicts one or more motor vehicles, a marker on a particular motor vehicle and a message stating the speed of that motor vehicle is, without prejudice to any other mode of proof and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof of the speed of that motor vehicle on that occasion. The provision supports the issuing of fines for speeding offences. The right to be presumed innocent may be relevant to clause 33. This right is relevant where a statutory provision shifts the burden of proof onto an accused, so that the accused is required to prove matters to establish, or raise evidence to suggest, that they are not guilty of an offence. However, clause 33 does not create a legal burden by requiring an accused to raise evidence to contradict the speed recorded by, for example, a road safety camera if they disagree with that speed. It does impose an evidential burden. In my view this does not limit the right. It is reasonable to rely on prescribed processes to streamline prosecutions for relevant offences. Giving an accused an opportunity to challenge that evidence by introducing contradictory evidence is appropriate. It will be up to the Court to assess the probative value of any competing evidence. Second reading Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (16:31): 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: This Bill was introduced in August 2018, during the previous Parliament. The Bill passed the Legislative Assembly but was not debated in the Legislative Council before the Parliament was dissolved. Better Roads Victoria The Andrews Labor Government set out to deliver better and more targeted investment to address congestion and improve safety across the State. Part of Project 10,000 is the Government’s commitment to build “Better Roads for More Communities”. The commitments are: • “A minimum of $1 billion over eight years will be allocated to repair and upgrade roads in Melbourne’s outer suburban and interface communities • A minimum of $1 billion over eight years will be allocated to repair and upgrade roads and level crossings in rural and regional communities • Legislative changes will be made to lock-in a guaranteed proportion of funding for these communities in perpetuity • Victorian Labor will also confirm in legislation the compulsory payment of traffic camera and speeding fines into the Better Roads Victoria Trust Account.” These commitments recognise the important role for State Government to plan and deliver transport projects for the economic prosperity and safety of all Victorian communities. I am pleased to inform the Parliament that the Government’s ambitious eight year target to invest a total of $2 billion in Victoria’s outer suburban and regional roads has been met in just four years. A total of over $3 billion dollars has already been allocated to outer suburban and interface, and rural and regional communities in the first term of government. Rural and Regional communities For years we have been investing in roads to improve conditions and enhance safety for rural and regional motorists. The 2018-19 Victorian Budget alone delivers $433 million for regional road restoration, $261 million for road upgrades and $229 million for safety upgrades. The government has so far allocated over $1.1 billion to rural and regional communities. These investments in regional areas are fostering thriving regional economies that are creating jobs and providing for the future. Outer Suburban and Interface communities The population in Melbourne’s outer suburban areas is continuing to grow. This means there will be increasing demand on the road network. Without proper investment in roads—investment for now and for the long term—people in these communities will spend longer in traffic and will need to travel further to get to and from work. This is simply not an option.

BILLS Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 169

This Government recognises the importance of investing in outer suburban and interface roads to ensure that people can get to where they need, when they need. Since 2015, over $1.9 billion has been allocated to roads in these areas. Outer suburban and regional communities can rest assured this Government will continue to invest in improving safety and congestion on their roads. Guaranteed funding This Bill guarantees the allocation of a minimum of 33 per cent of Better Roads Victoria funding to rural and regional communities. This Bill guarantees the allocation of a minimum of 33 per cent of Better Roads Victoria funding to outer suburban and interface communities. The guaranteed minimum proportions will be set now for all future investments. This Government is committed to delivering a consistent and guaranteed level of road funding to growth areas and rural and regional communities for the years to come. The guaranteed funding will be supported by a compulsory payment of an amount equivalent to traffic camera and on-the-spot speeding fines revenue into the Better Roads Victoria Trust Account. Other road-related monies can still go into the account regardless of the source. This will ensure there is a minimum level of funding going into the account, while not preventing other sources of funding to be paid into the account. Administration of Alcohol Interlocks The Bill makes changes to the administration of alcohol interlock conditions to simplify the processes and move the majority of alcohol interlock offences into the VicRoads Alcohol Interlock Program. This is designed to take pressure off court resources and allow them to focus on other key areas, such as family violence and community safety. The Bill transfers responsibility from the courts to VicRoads for the removal of all alcohol interlock conditions for drink-driving offenders once they have met mandatory criteria to demonstrate that they have separated drinking from driving. VicRoads already manages alcohol interlock removals for some offences, and uses the same mandatory criteria that the courts use, so the necessary systems are already in place. It is expected that this will remove over 5,000 matters each year from the Magistrates’ Court. The Bill also transfers the responsibility of re-licensing offenders and imposing alcohol interlock conditions for most drink-driving offences from the courts to VicRoads. VicRoads will not exercise discretion in the same manner that the courts currently do with respect to making determinations on licence eligibility and interlock conditions. Most offences that involve drink-driving have had a mandatory minimum interlock period specified in legislation since 2014. In practice, VicRoads will apply the prescribed mandatory minimum alcohol interlock condition period set in legislation. Under the changes, VicRoads will also assume case management of ‘legacy’ drink-drivers who had a conviction or finding of guilt prior to 2017 and who have not yet returned to licensed driving. For legacy offenders who would have formerly been subject to a discretionary interlock condition at the time of their offence, they will be able to apply to VicRoads to be re-licensed without an alcohol interlock condition. They will be re-licensed if they can demonstrate that they are not dependent on alcohol and are not engaging in harmful or hazardous alcohol use. If they cannot provide evidence from a suitably qualified health professional in accordance with the regulations, an interlock condition will be imposed. Offenders dissatisfied with VicRoads decision will be able to apply to the Magistrates’ Court for a review of the decision, ensuring procedural fairness. More serious offences involving drink-driving–include manslaughter, culpable driving, police pursuits or motor vehicle theft–will still be managed by the court. These serious cases require the discretion of the court to determine whether it is appropriate for the offender to return to licensed driving, and whether the mandatory minimum alcohol interlock condition period set in legislation is sufficient when considering the severity of the offence. Further Road Safety Amendments The Bill also removes an anomaly in current sentencing, by ensuring that a minimum mandatory alcohol interlock condition applies to all drink-driving offences that result in licence cancellation and disqualification. Under the change, a first offence of dangerous driving during a police pursuit or theft of a motor vehicle where the offence was committed under the influence of alcohol will now be subject to a mandatory alcohol interlock

BILLS 170 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019

condition period of no less than six months. These serious offenders will continue to be required to apply to the court to be re-licensed once their licence disqualification period has ended. Additionally, alcohol interlock conditions will no longer be imposed for offences that are not driving-related. A new mandatory behaviour change program for all drink-driving and drug-driving offenders is being rolled out. This will replace the existing drink-driver education course and individual assessment, which only applied to some drink-drivers. The Bill provides for the repeal of the superseded program. Other Road-Related Amendments The Bill extends exemptions from certain fatigue management rules for the drivers of rail replacement buses and buses responding to emergencies so that they also apply to persons who act as record keepers for those drivers. The Bill will also clarify beyond doubt that a driver who has been directed to stop must remain stopped until a police officer indicates that the person may proceed. Improvements to the over-dimensional vehicles crossing rail scheme are included. • The requirement for operators involved in movements across a railway track with a vehicle width of between three and five metres will no longer be required to obtain annual permits. This will reduce red tape. • The infrastructure protected under the scheme will now include railway track structures, signalling systems, and level crossing warning devices (e.g. boom gates). • Movements along tramways tracks will also now fall within scope. Operators wishing to take over- dimensional vehicles along tramway tracks will need to obtain a permit. • Amendments are being made to fee setting powers under the scheme so that cost reflective fees can be charged for high-risk applications. • Responsibility for administering the scheme will also be changed from the Secretary to the Department assisting the Minister administering the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983 (under delegation from Public Transport Victoria), to VicRoads. Public Transport Amendments Land transactions between some transport agencies will be streamlined. The Bill enables VicTrack to transfer interests in land to VicRoads and the Head, Transport for Victoria for nominal consideration. It also removes the requirement for the Treasurer to approve all VicTrack land transactions. These will avoid unnecessary administration costs for the State and reduce the potential for delays. The Bill clarifies compensation entitlements for drivers of trains involved in a fatal accident. Legislation will now reflect the existing practice of providing financial assistance to supervising drivers if they are in the driver cabin of a train involved in a fatal incident. Responsibility for determining conditions of travel on public transport will be transferred from the Secretary to the Department assisting the Minister administering the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983 to the Head, Transport for Victoria. Determining conditions of travel is an operational function, so is better aligned with the functions and power of the Head, Transport for Victoria. Conclusion This Bill delivers on our commitments to fund roads in outer suburban and interface areas and in rural and regional areas. It also makes changes to make all Victorian roads safer. I commend the Bill to the house. Ms BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (16:31): I move: That the debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. Ordered that debate be adjourned for two weeks. Debated adjourned until Tuesday, 19 February.

BILLS Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 171

SAFE PATIENT CARE (NURSE TO PATIENT AND MIDWIFE TO PATIENT RATIOS) AMENDMENT BILL 2018 Second reading Debate resumed on motion of Mr FOLEY: That this bill be now read a second time. Ms KEALY (Lowan) (16:32): It is a great privilege to be able to speak on this bill, although I think it is an adjustment for all of us to get back into the rhythm of speaking on bills and providing debate. I know we are all making a fantastic effort, and it is great to be within this 59th Parliament and to be able to represent our constituents and the people of Victoria to put forward our views on important legislation and make sure that it meets the needs of our local communities. This is of course the Safe Patient Care (Nurse to Patient and Midwife to Patient Ratios) Amendment Bill 2018. It was introduced late last year, and it is a bill that was debated in the 58th Parliament but failed to pass Parliament at that time due to the late stage it was brought to the house. I would like to take some latitude, given we are talking about safe patient care and particularly talking about midwives, to make mention of three special patients who are in the Wimmera Health Care Group hospital today: my lovely friend, the sister of my partner, Ange, gave birth to two big boys this morning just before 8.30, and so I congratulate Ange and Nathan and their two little boys and welcome them into the world. I know that they will be receiving fantastic care from the lovely nurses and midwives in Horsham at the Wimmera Health Care Group, so I just wanted to take some latitude to be able to mention that, because it makes us all glow a little bit when we know little people are coming into the world that we care about. In regard to this bill, the purpose of the bill is to require nurse-patient ratios to be rounded up where the number of nurses required is not a whole number and to specify a method to apply rounding when calculating the ratio of a mixed ward. It is to limit the hospital’s flexibility when applying ratios to allow both nurses and midwives to staff special care nurseries and postnatal wards for the purpose of meeting the ratio, to introduce new ratios for oncology, acute stroke and haematology wards where previously general medical ward ratios would have applied and to improve the ratio in emergency departments, special care nurseries, palliative care wards and birthing suites. As I mentioned in my opening words, this is a bill which has had some amendments but is heavily based upon a bill which had a journey through the 58th Parliament of Victoria. Prior to the 2014 election Labor promised to enshrine nurse-patient ratios into legislation and to consider improvements to the ratio, and there was a task force which was developed over time. They provided some consultation into what should be amended and how the ratios should be presented, and it is my understanding that while the final recommendations of this task force are not public, the amendments were informed by their recommendations, but in some instances they slightly differ from those recommendations. One of the key issues that was raised in the last form of legislation, the last version of this bill that came through the 58th Parliament, was in regard to elements of then section 27, where there was an element where nurses were referred to in a clause. However, midwives were not referred to within that clause. I must commend the former member for Sandringham, Murray Thompson, for his strong advocacy around changes to that specific element of the bill. There was also a lot of advocacy from the Australian College of Midwives. All had the concern that by not including midwives in this specific clause of the bill, it did appear, because ratios would be based upon nurse numbers rather than nurse and midwife numbers, that midwives were going to be seen as subordinate to nurses because they had not gone through that qualification process where they were not a nurse and a midwife. We understood that that was not the intent of the bill, but we did outline some concerns around that and encourage the minister at the time to make those amendments. It was something that was of deep concern to a number of nurses and midwives right across the state. It is something that was highlighted through correspondence with

BILLS 172 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019 the minister, not just by me and other members of Parliament, but as I said there were also advocacy groups and unions who were contacting the minister as well to advocate for this important change to the legislation. This was well-known prior to the bill being debated in the Assembly and of course would have been well-known before debate in the Council because it was tabled during debate in the Assembly at the time. There was limited time to be able to debate this legislation, as I recall. It was the second-to-last week of the 58th Parliament. It was brought on on the Thursday, the last sitting day of that week, with only 1 hour to spare for the debate. I know that there were a number of members who wished to speak on this bill but they were not afforded the opportunity to do so. We flagged at the time that the bill was flawed, that we needed to see some amendments in there before it could be passed, and unfortunately those amendments were unable to be implemented because, when the bill had its journey through to the Legislative Council, again there was significant delay in tabling the bill for debate. In fact it was left until the Thursday of the final sitting week, the final sitting day, the final sitting session, with half an hour to go on that day, when the bill was brought to debate. This is simply not enough time for a true debate, and of course there was not the ability at that time to extend the sitting hours—the upper house voted on that and the hours were not extended. But while there has been some commentary that this was about filibustering or about intentional delay of important legislation around nurse-to-patient ratios, this could not be further from the truth. You cannot possibly filibuster when you have only been afforded a total of 1½ hours between the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council. In important bills with regard to improving patient care, I think we should ensure that there is an appropriate amount of time to debate these bills because we can determine other faults in clauses and gaps within the legislation which we should afford the opportunity for Parliament to fix and ensure that it is right. I would like to think that in the heat of the lead-up to the election this was not done intentionally as a political ploy. I think it would be disastrous if that were the case, if we were actually playing with patients’ lives in order to get a couple of political points, and of course now we have come to the point where we will see a delay in the implementation of the nurse-to-patient ratios and midwife-to-patient ratios because the bill was not handled as a priority at the end of the 58th Parliament of Victoria. We do need to make sure that that is on the record because, as I said, there has been some misinformation circulated around the passage of the bill. Certainly I think in the limited time that the Liberal and National party members of Parliament had to contribute to the debate on the bill very sensible amendments were put forward and very sensible and thoughtful concerns were tabled, but also there was generalised support, which there should be for our fantastic nurses and midwives, who work all throughout the day and night to support us at our most vulnerable times. We are very, very fortunate in Victoria that when we need it, if we have to go to hospital, we can rely on a system that will be available to us. We know that we will have well-trained and qualified staff looking after us and that we will receive care which is equivalent to the best in the world. We really do need to take the time to thank all of the staff within our hospital network in Victoria. I had the great fortune to work within the health system for most of my career before I entered politics, and I have seen firsthand the amazing work that health service staff do each and every day. It always astounded me how staff would go above and beyond just what their position description would be with the utmost priority being caring for patients. That is not just about physical care, about making sure that wounds are treated and medication is given appropriately and accurately and about being aware of and sensitive to a patient’s and emotional and physical wellbeing and needs. It is also about the little things that you see caring staff deliver to patients in Victorian hospitals. It is the little things like understanding that they might have a favourite blanket that they like to use or that they might like to know that something is happening in the community and people will keep them informed and make sure that they feel included and not isolated from what is going on in the rest of the world and that they do feel safe. So I do give utmost credit to our nurses and our midwives in the local community. I would like to reference one of my favourite nurses and midwives, and that would be my midwife, Sarah, who I did acknowledge in my last contribution to the previous bill in the previous Parliament.

BILLS Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 173

Sarah was an absolutely amazing support to me in the delivery of my little boy, Harvey, and I will never forget the support that she was able to provide throughout my pregnancy and through the delivery as well. It was absolutely outstanding. There are still some concerns that we have in relation to the implementation of this legislation, in particular in relation to how it will be rolled out and the costings to ensure that hospitals are given appropriate amounts of information and funding and time lines to be able to manage this in an appropriate way and a safe way. We know that particularly in rural and regional areas it is a very small variation in budget that they have to manage, and a small fluctuation in salaries and wages, whether that be up or down, can really change the final figure on the bottom line of the budget papers or the profit and loss. So while there has been some mention of some funding support for implementation of this bill, I am not certain that it will go far enough. Hospitals still have not been informed when that funding will flow. It will take some time to fill vacant nursing positions to be able to deliver on the increased ratios, and that delay in the time frame puts at risk some of the services that we are able to deliver, particularly in rural and regional hospitals. We need that information to flow sooner rather than later, and this is a conversation that I have had with a number of my local CEOs in the Lowan electorate. We need to make sure that there is some certainty about that. So I do urge the minister to provide that relevant information to hospitals sooner rather than later: how much funding will be provided, when that funding will be delivered and also a plan about how those positions and vacancies will be filled sooner rather than later. It will compound a really serious issue we have got within the health sector—that is, we simply find it very, very difficult to fill our vacancies, particularly in rural and regional Victoria. We have a health workforce crisis. We have not got a health workforce plan in Victoria. It is something that the Liberals and Nationals committed to during the 2018 election campaign and which was heavily supported by the Victorian Healthcare Association. If we look at what we are currently delivering in terms of health care, we have not got sufficient health professionals to be able to deliver it. When we look at changes, whether it be changes to nurse-to-patient ratios or whether it just be about changes in how we deliver health care, about the type of procedures that we will be delivering into the future and adapting to the ever-changing framework of best practice in health care, we need to make sure that today we are training enough people to fill all of the positions that we will need in the future and make sure that every Victorian, no matter where they live, is able to access the health care that they deserve and that they need. We have got a crisis in rural and regional hospitals at the moment. You cannot recruit enough nurses, doctors or any sort of allied health professional. There has been a concern raised with me by CEOs and other leaders in health that implementation of this legislation, by increasing ratios, will actually create a drain on the health workforce and nursing workforce in rural and regional areas f course there will be an increased number of positions in metropolitan areas. Sometimes they have more leniency and a greater ability to provide a bit more money to attract people to come. It is an incredibly difficult task that you have in rural and regional areas to attract and retain staff now there are more and more jobs out there. Having not trained more staff and more nurses today, we are going to see a huge chasm open. There will be a push then to recruit agency nurses or bring in locums, which has a huge additional cost burden. I would like to ensure the minister is aware of this cost burden that will hit our rural and regional hospitals. She needs to be aware of that so that she can fight for additional funding when it comes to the next budget to make sure that we do actually have a huge increase in funding for our rural and regional hospitals so they are able to deliver on the increased work and increased money it is going to cost them to staff their hospitals until we have sufficient numbers of trained nurses and midwives to fill these vacancies across the state. It is something that I do ask the minister to take a serious interest in because of course hospitals have limited budgets. If they cannot afford staff, it puts services at risk. You have to balance the books, so

BILLS 174 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019 if it is costing too much to deliver a patient care service, something that someone in a local community relies on to keep well, then you will lose staff and you will also lose local access to important healthcare services. That in turn will push up patient travel and have an additional cost burden on the state budget. I ask the Minister for Health and the Treasurer to take this very, very seriously because even a small support fund that is put in place across the state, come 1 July, is simply not going to go far enough for those flow-on costs to hospitals when this legislation takes effect. This is something that is of huge concern across our hospitals, so I would seek again that the minister reassure our healthcare leaders that the government have a plan around how they are going to deliver this and ensure that our hospitals across the state, whether metropolitan or rural and regional, are not put at financial risk. Just in summary, they are our key concerns. We are obviously extraordinarily pleased that the elements around section 27 have been addressed and specifically that the government has listened to the concerns of the Liberal-Nationals, the concerns that were raised with the minister prior to the bill being introduced. The concerns that were raised by me during my lead speech were also raised in the upper house by the former shadow Minister for Health. I am very, very pleased to see that the two remaining important matters that needed to be addressed regarding funding and training support for nurses have been addressed. Of course we need to see Labor follow the lead of the Liberal-Nationals and listen to the health sector and undertake a health workforce plan to ensure we have sufficient health professionals trained and recruited to deliver the health needs of our local communities. Again, I thank all nurses and midwives for their great work and commitment in providing outstanding care for all patients in Victoria. Mr CARBINES (Ivanhoe) (16:50): It is said that there is safety in numbers, which is a well-worn phrase. The Safe Patient Care (Nurse to Patient and Midwife to Patient Ratios) Amendment Bill 2018 goes directly to that point, and I am pleased to make a contribution in support of this bill. Of course, those commitments were affirmed by the Victorian people at the most recent state election. We have seen the nursing profession in particular evolve, particularly in recent decades. We have seen the ever-expanding work of nurse practitioners and those in special clinical roles, and we have also seen greater opportunities for people to prepare for not only a career in nursing but other opportunities that that provides right across the state. In more recent times as well nurses have played an iconic part in our history, whether they be World War II heroines such as Sister Vivian Bullwinkel, who also had links with the Heidelberg Repatriation Hospital in my own electorate of Ivanhoe and with the nearby Fairfield Infectious Diseases Hospital. My mother trained and maintains a lifelong connection with the class of ‘72 at the preliminary training school from her St Vincent’s hospital days, that career cut short by my arrival the following year. I note the member for South-West Coast is in the chamber. My aunt and her sister did a lot of their nurse training many years ago in Geelong. Even one of my electorate officers, Anne Paul, has a past career as a nurse. I suppose I make the point that across the Parliament and across the community of Victoria, whether it is family, friends or when we need them most in a healthcare setting, there are probably very few Victorians who have not come into contact with or do not have a connection with or have not been inspired by or have not relied upon or understood and had some empathy with the work of nurses in our community. In reflecting back on some of the work that we did in the previous term of the Parliament, the Andrews government was the first jurisdiction in Australia and the second in the world following California in 1999 to legislate nurse-to-patient ratios and midwife-to-patient ratios, thus enshrining in law minimum staffing levels. That does take me back to the point that it is said there is safety in numbers, and those numbers relate to accountability and support for patients, for nurses and for healthcare providers. A basic point that I think needs to be made is that nurse-to-patient ratios are the number of nurses or midwives working on a particular ward, unit or department in relation to the number of patients that they care for. One of the salient points made in his second-reading speech by the Minister for Mental Health at the time was that:

BILLS Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 175

International and local evidence also confirms a direct relationship between workload levels, patient outcomes and nurse-reported quality of care. In addition, increasing workloads have the potential to lead to burnout, absenteeism, job dissatisfaction, attrition and poor retention. In summary, higher staffing numbers lead to better patient outcomes, and an increasingly engaged workforce. What the reflection of those comments from the minister in that second-reading speech does is to give comfort but also perhaps to create anxiety in patients and in anyone in a workplace where they feel they are under the pump, where they are not supported, where more is asked of them than it is possible for them to deliver in a safe and caring environment, or whether you are in any workplace. There needs to be a desire to understand that people need to be supported in their workplace, and they need to have expectations that are reasonable for them to do their job effectively and appropriately. Where nurses are concerned, of course, and where the government is a key funder in the work that they do, mistakes that could be made, pressures that could be applied, corners that could be cut by management or a lack of funding that is provided can have significant repercussions not only for a professional workforce such as our nurses but also for the people who matter most to them—their patients. Taking responsibility for these matters, putting these accountabilities on health service management and resourcing it effectively was touched on too by the previous speaker. A lot of the investments that the Andrews Labor government have made, particularly in the commitments made in the most recent election but also our commitments in the last term, to invest in TAFE provide opportunities for people, particularly in regional communities. We made some further statements on these matters late last year that once these improvements were made we would commence a new round of changes that will see the total of new nurses and midwives in Victoria reach 1100. This statement appears in a media release from the Premier of 19 December 2018. In relation to other workforce matters that have been raised by the opposition’s lead speaker, the government will also deliver on its commitment to create a $50 million Nursing and Midwifery Workforce Development Fund, which will expand the existing registered nurse and midwife graduate program and establish a graduate program for enrolled nurses for the first time. This will employ some 400 enrolled nurses over the next four years, with 100 of these positions to be available to TAFE graduates from next year—that means from 2019—meaning Victorians will be able to study a diploma of nursing for free at TAFE as one of the Labor government’s free priority TAFE courses, then start work as an enrolled nurse once they graduate, for which the opposition lead speaker has indicated, particularly through the passage of this legislation, that there will be many more opportunities and a greater demand for an increasing nurse workforce. The fund will also provide up to 400 postgraduate scholarships for current nurses and midwives to upgrade their skills—400 places in programs such as the Postgraduate Midwifery Employment Program, as well as refresher programs for 800 nurses and midwives currently registered but not practising so they can re-enter the workforce. Lastly, it will include $10 million for grants, scholarships, graduate jobs and refreshers for regional students and current nurses and midwives. As in any profession and as in any workforce, what is also important is to provide, for example, nurses working in regional communities and in small rural communities with the opportunity to not only upgrade their skills but to do refresher courses or to work where there is a greater volume of patients. This means that there are opportunities to maintain skills and to diversify their skills and the clinical practices that they are able to achieve. What is important here is that we are not just putting forward some legislation that provides greater accountability and safeguards for patients and for the nursing profession in relation to minimum standards and minimum numbers in relation to nurse-to-patient ratios. What we are also doing is providing the other key requirements in terms of free TAFE, investment in courses and investment in training opportunities in regional communities. We are addressing and acknowledging where there can be workforce challenges by providing those opportunities in those regional communities. By investing in TAFE we are investing in opportunities for people who want to either come to these careers later in

BILLS 176 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019 life or re-emerge and re-contest and get back involved in nursing as a profession and those that want to dig in and have a lifelong career of caring for others. There are many pathways to do that and of course in a health system that is not just the job of the Victorian state government; it is a task that requires and demands the investment of a commonwealth Parliament and a commonwealth government. It is important to note that the electorate I represent includes amazing hospitals such as the Austin, with the Heidelberg Repatriation Hospital as one of its campuses, the Warringal Private Hospital and the amazing work that is done at the Mercy in Heidelberg as well. These are amazing places. My electorate has a significant number of nurses who either live locally or come to work and provide care in these places in particular, let alone other aged-care providers across my electorate. It has been made clear to me by our federal member for Jagajaga, the Honourable Jenny Macklin, that the Morrison federal government has offered a funding agreement to Victoria that would leave the Austin Health service in the Ivanhoe and Jagajaga electorates with an estimated shortfall of some $126 million over the first five years of that agreement. This is the sort of lack of commitment from the federal coalition government that undermines health care in Victoria and puts pressure on our nursing and medical workforces right across the state. Some of these laws, while their intention is to make sure that there is safety in numbers and support for our nursing workforce and support for our healthcare professionals and support of course for our patients, also stand—if this bill passes through the Parliament—as a bulwark against these threats that we continue to face from coalition governments that seek to cut and undermine health care budgets and that cut and undermine the health care that we can provide in the community. We stand against that as a Victorian Labor government. I commend this bill to the house. Ms BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (17:00): It gives me great pleasure to speak today on the Safe Patient Care (Nurse to Patient and Midwife to Patient Ratios) Amendment Bill 2018. As has been previously outlined by the lead speaker for the opposition, the member for Lowan, we are really here today because the bill that was left to the last minute in the last Parliament made a glaring omission where the government clearly did not understand what is meant by a midwife and what the capability of a midwife is versus that of a nurse. I stand here in this Parliament with some 30 years experience in the nursing sector working right across many of the wards, from medical wards to surgical wards to coronary care wards to the emergency department and high-dependency wards. I never did midwifery other than during my hospital-based training, and it would be optimal for me here to give a shout-out to the Warrnambool Base Hospital where I completed my training as one of the last nurses through that system down in south-west Victoria. I am very proud of my training and the profession that I spent so many years in. We have got some pretty good hospitals across south-west Victoria, from the Portland health service to Warrnambool Base Hospital and even St John’s, which is not relevant today because this is a bill that affects the public sector. But it is very relevant to our part of the world, because sharing the load is how the public and private sectors work so necessarily together, creating the systems that we have to make sure we meet our health needs. Leaving midwives off and not understanding their capability, I think this really does give us an understanding of just how much relevance the government attributes to the hardworking community that they purport to represent. In Warrnambool for example, the nurses were very excited because they have been working hard since 2001 trying to get the hospital changed from a category 3 to a category 2. For many years they have been disadvantaged while the discussion was going on, saying that they wanted to increase the nurse-to-patient ratio. Warrnambool make the statement that they have put up with ratios that do not help them for a long time. As a cardiac nurse I could look after five patients in Warrnambool with acute myocardial infarction, for example, but I would be looking after only four of those very same patients in Melbourne at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, yet they have the same clinical condition. The fact that the hospital cannot be upgraded to a category 2 from a category 3 is a real disappointment because prior to the election that we have just had the minister was quite vocal in

BILLS Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 177 saying that they were going to make the Warrnambool Base Hospital increase to category 2 so we could get the nurse-to-patient ratios that others have had for so long. Minister Hennessy said in a letter to the midwives and nurses that Warrnambool would be under this new regime, but that appears to be not the case. There is no listing of that and it looks like it might not be until after 2022 that that promise that was given to the Warrnambool Base Hospital even looks like coming to fruition. My advice from the department is that it might even require more legislation for that to occur. What a missed opportunity by this government, to introduce the bill now with the glaring omission that it is fixing to make sure midwives are categorised for the capability that they definitely have to be able to look after an infant in a special care nursery yet missing out on using this opportunity to take the Warrnambool nurses on the same journey. The government is again leaving them hung out to dry despite the promise from the election that we have just had in November 2018. But omissions in legislation are something we are seeing a fair bit of, along with unintended consequences by this incompetent government we have now got for another four years. Just look at the port legislation that came in over two years ago: a glaring omission was the terminal charges that were left off the legislation, so currently we have got a 1000 per cent increase in charges for terminal movements that is costing the consumer hundreds and hundreds of dollars. It is also being passed back to the producers, like your dairy farmers, who are struggling, and your grain farmers, who are going through drought at the moment. In some cases it equates to over $4000 for a dairy farmer and $4 a ton for grain, which is disadvantaging the farmers. I think what we need is some legislation or some regulation to come in to make sure that this glaring omission in relation to the ports, which was missed, is fixed. We had the former minister for ports, the member for Narre Warren North, in his role in October call for an expedited inquiry, and yet we are now in February and where is that inquiry? We have not seen even one word. I call on the current Minister for Ports and Freight to actually do something about this situation urgently, because the farmers are suffering and our community is struggling with the cost of living. Everything that comes through the port in containers—servicing Kmart, servicing Woolworths, servicing Bunnings, which are all big customers, along with everything that families actually buy—will be affected by this omission in the legislation. As I said, there is a history of omissions. In clause 10 of the Safe Patient Care (Nurse to Patient and Midwife to Patient Ratios) Amendment Bill 2018, which inserts new section 27, we see that midwives are now included. What we also need to think about is how country hospitals, for example, are going to manage this new ratio. If we do have hospitals whose ability to provide more nurses to patients is increased, we have got a real capability crisis, and workforce capability is something this government really needs to focus on. During my work in the inquiry into perinatal services last year something I highlighted over and over was how it is all very well to say we need change, but unless you can actually facilitate that change by developing the workforce, then you are just leaving the situation high and dry. We need to make sure that the government looks at workforce capability and makes sure that we train the midwives and encourage the midwives to come to the region. It is not just midwives; it is doctors, it is anaesthetists, it is all sorts of specialties that we require to make sure we address and meet the health needs of the community that we have today right across Victoria. We do not want to see the government focusing only on Melbourne. We want to make sure that we are focusing right to the far reaches of the region, because governing Victoria is the responsibility of government. It is not about governing for Melbourne. We have all seen many examples—even this week with the Port Fairy Hospital and the Heywood hospital coming to my attention over the issue of centralised banking. The government has come up with this plan—a fair call to get better efficiencies—but they have not understood that the banks that the hospitals are banking with are community banks. The government has completely disregarded the fact that the community bank, Bendigo Bank, in Port Fairy just gave $50 000 to the urgent care centre in Port Fairy. It is foolish,

BILLS 178 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019 because the government is going to have to make up that shortfall anyway if community funds are taken away. Those in government really need to spend a bit of time out in the country listening to the people who can make wiser decisions based on the community that they live in. Back to the nurses in Warrnambool, who in 2001 were crying out to be moved from hospital category 3 to category 2 so they could get better patient care ratios. This is a hospital that is needing to be upgraded. The nurses already put up with enormous challenges in their emergency department. In today’s world, where we have technologies that mean we need equipment around us to do our roles when we are in crisis situations in emergency departments, the emergency department at Warrnambool is well and truly past its use-by date. But the nurses do an extraordinary job in extreme circumstances, as do the operating theatre nurses. I trained in 1985 or 1986, I think it was, when I was doing my theatre stint, and the theatres that they are operating in today are actually exactly the same as they were then. So clearly when you are doing much more surgery like we are doing today—hips, knees and all sorts of surgery that we could not do back then—the throughput through those theatres has increased exponentially, and we need to upgrade the hospital to meet that need. This government talks about nurse-patient ratios. That is great, but it leaves off Warrnambool, and it is just ignoring Warrnambool Base Hospital. I hope the nurses there have a think about how they have been promised so much—promised that they would be included in the nurse-patient ratio—and here we are in front of the Parliament today with this legislation going through and completely missing that opportunity, and there is no mention of upgrading Warrnambool Base Hospital. I have already written to Minister Mikakos and said, ‘Come up to Warrnambool. Come and have a look at the hospital. I’ll take you through A and E, I’ll take you through the operating theatres and introduce you to the surgeons, the specialists and the nurses’. We have got incredible capability up our way. Special mention to my oncologist, John Hounsell, who is a great man who helps me in my work here in the Parliament. I am happy to call him to ask him questions about things I do not understand. Noel Bayley, one of our physicians, is another man who has helped me understand different perspectives on the challenges of legislation regarding medical things that I might not understand. Ms HENNESSY (Altona—Attorney General, Minister for Workplace Safety) (17:10): I am really delighted to stand and make a very brief contribution on this bill. I am conscious that there is a great and strong appetite in the chamber, particularly on the government benches, in respect of making a contribution on this very, very important reform. I think I have had my fair opportunity to talk about this issue over many, many years, most particularly when I was the Minister for Health under the previous government. I wanted to rise to make a couple of very important points about the purpose, the need and the history around nurse-patient ratios. Of course the concept of nurse-patient ratios really did find its seminal commencement in industrial agreements between nurses and government when it comes to the public and, unfortunately, not so much the private health sector. For years nurses in their bargaining arrangements for fair pay and conditions would sacrifice wage increases to get better nurse-patient ratios, and that meant better quality of care for patients and greater safety. It meant that nurses had the capacity to bring their eyes, their ears, their compassion and their very brilliant clinical skills to provide much more attention to their patients. Over many years nurses would have to bargain to keep these kinds of protections on the table. The winner when it comes to nurse-patient ratios is actually patients. I think that we all owe a great debt of gratitude to our nurses, who have protected nurse-patient ratios for such a long period of time. Rightfully, nurses came to us when we were in opposition and said to us, ‘This should be a matter of public policy, not a matter of industrial relations’, and we made a commitment that we would legislate for nurse-patient ratios. We made a commitment that we would continue the work of finding additional improvements when it comes to nurse-patient ratios, and I am very pleased that we delivered on that commitment in the last term. We also developed this bill, which we tried to introduce in the last term.

BILLS Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 179

Unfortunately it hit the fence in the filibustering that was occurring in the Legislative Council in the last days of the previous government. In the course of that debate there were a couple of important issues raised, and members from both sides have already made some brief reference to those. One goes to the application in respect of midwives, and I am very pleased to see that in this bill that matter has been addressed. The other issue does go to classifications as well, and I am in absolutely no doubt that, simply, the nurses of Warrnambool do look forward to the reclassification of that hospital. The architecture that is contained in this legislation will enable that to occur. We are also seeing really significant changes in how health care is delivered. Many years ago if a person had a stroke, they would be in an intensive care unit for weeks on end. We are now in a position, with the advances of medical research, world-class health systems here in Victoria and proper approaches to the care of such patients, where those patients are often thrombosed and treated on wards, not in intensive care units, which also means it is not necessarily highly qualified clinicians who are providing that care, but nurses. There are many areas where nurses are providing a very high level of care, but they require the time and the energy and the opportunity to be able to provide that care. The areas that this bill steps out to increase and expand the areas where nurse-patient ratios apply are incredibly important ones. From haematology to midwifery and birthing suites, to the areas where oncology and palliative care are applied, to the different structures that often apply in emergency departments, ultimately being able to have high-quality care is in patients’ interests, and this bill continues that very important work. It also generates significant numbers of nursing opportunities around jobs. We make the estimate that around 600 additional nursing jobs will be generated as a consequence of this bill. Of course our government made pre-election commitments to continue to recruit nurses and midwives. It is a fantastic career path, one that deserves to be kept well paid and one that deserves to be supported in a well-funded, well-regulated health system. But we have also made a commitment around free TAFE, and things like pre-nursing qualifications are eligible for that. There is funding that will be made available for nurses and midwives to be able to do continuing training and education. We are facing a national shortage of midwives as so many of our brilliant nurses and midwives reach that retirement age or seek graduated retirement. We have got a real dearth of those nurses and midwives who have the specialisation that a modern healthcare system needs. But it is expensive to do that. It assumes you have got the money for the continuing legal education, it assumes that your health service is funded to enable you to go off and do the additional continuing legal education and training, and it assumes that it is worth your while when you come back in terms of your ability to clinically practise in a safe, sophisticated and compassionate way. What our commitments, including this important legislative reform, are aimed at is ensuring that we are providing high-quality, high-paying nursing and midwifery careers where there is an opportunity to continue to specialise. Gone are the days when it was simply clinicians that ran health services. Modern healthcare systems are held up by nurses, midwives and allied healthcare staff, by psychologists and radiologists, by administrative staff, by the people that provide security and deliver the meals and by the volunteers who greet people and make them feel welcome upon their arrival. A modern healthcare system requires reforms like these, and we are very delighted to be the government that is introducing these reforms—again, reforms that go much further than any other jurisdiction in this country. We were very proud to be such leaders when it came to nurse-to-patient ratios, and I would be the first to acknowledge that there is always more work to be done in terms of their application. In conclusion, could I also just acknowledge the wonderful leadership that Minister Mikakos has been providing, ably supported by her wonderful parliamentary secretary as well, who is not in the chamber—I hope he is listening to hear my shout-out. Fundamentally the reason we are seeing significant reform is that nurses and midwives stood up for their patients. They stood up for them in enterprise bargaining agreements and they stood up for patients by way of advocacy to political parties,

BILLS 180 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019 and I am pleased the Labor Party listened and acted. Can I acknowledge all of the nurses and midwives across our state that worked so hard for this reform and will continue to advocate for further reforms, and acknowledge the wonderful leadership of the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation. They are all leaders there. Singling people out is always a risk, but I mention particularly Paul Gilbert, Pip Carew and the indefatigable Lisa Fitzpatrick, who is also very wisely a passionate Western Bulldogs supporter, and the relentless focus that they have had on the interests of nurses and the interests of patients. I am very, very proud of the reforms that we initiated under the previous government, and I am very proud to see the priority that has been given in respect of these reforms. God love your nurses and midwives. Mr HIBBINS (Prahran) (17:19): I rise to speak on behalf of the Victorian Greens in support of the Safe Patient Care (Nurse to Patient and Midwife to Patient Ratios) Amendment Bill 2018. The reason I am speaking on behalf of the Greens is that our new Greens health spokesperson, the newly elected member for Brunswick, unfortunately cannot speak yet. He is working very hard on his inaugural speech, and I am sure as a clinician and researcher he will bring a lot of expertise and enthusiasm to the health portfolio. I am sure if he could speak on this bill, he would, but as I said he is working on his inaugural speech, which will be delivered tomorrow. In preparing for this bill, I was familiarised with the 1986 nurses strike, which was when in 1986 nurses went on strike for 50 days over cuts by the then Cain Labor government—over wages and conditions and, of course importantly and relevant to this bill, over staff-to-patient ratios. They went on strike until they were successful and their demands were met. I think that strike and then decades later this bill are testament to the fight, to the advocacy and to the persistence of our nurses to ensure that we have a world-class health system here in Victoria. Certainly that passion for a quality public health system is something that the Greens share, whether it is in preventative health, community health, community mental health, dental health or other health areas in this state. That is something that we share an absolute passion for and something that I think, to the nurses’ credit, they fight for. They work hard to get those results on behalf of patients in Victoria. For the nurses this fight has continued, to make sure that ratios were not just renegotiated in each enterprise bargaining agreement but are now fixed in law. Ensuring that we have sufficient nurses and midwives to care for patients in our public hospitals is absolutely critical to this. It is absolutely crucial that when people present at emergency or at a birthing suite or are admitted due to stroke or serious illness there is an adequate ratio of nurses or midwives to patients to ensure their thorough and timely care. On a personal level, my wife and I went through the public health system for the birth of our two children, born in the last term of Parliament. Certainly we were very grateful for and impressed by the care she and our babies received from midwives both at Sandringham and Parkville hospitals. Previously the Greens strongly backed the introduction of nurse-to-midwife patient ratios back in 2015, which was certainly very important following past attempts to reduce nurse-to-patient and midwife-to-patient ratios through enterprise agreement negotiations. However, unfortunately the legislation had some loopholes in in it whereby ratios allowed nurses and midwives to be faced with work and patient loads well beyond what was envisaged because there were mixed wards or because there were one or two extra patients beyond the specified ratios in the legislation. Acknowledging that this was never the intention of the act, certainly we are pleased that this bill will close those loopholes to ensure that our nurses and midwives are not overworked and that there is adequate staff to meet patients’ needs. We are also pleased to see that ratios in palliative care, in birthing suites, in special care nurseries and in emergency departments will be updated. It is disappointing that we were not able to pass this legislation in the last term but it is certainly good that it is the first bill up in this new Parliament, because this will have a positive impact on the lives of patients and on the nurses and midwives that care for them. And it is certainly important to ensure that existing ratios stay up to date with best care practices and service models, technological change and innovation in relation to complex patient care.

BILLS Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 181

We acknowledge that the positive impact occurs when there are increased nursing hours per patient and a higher percentage of registered nurses on wards. We will see less adverse events, patient stay lengths will be reduced, there will be lower patient mortality rates and patients will have better continuity of care and improved health care equity across all sectors. Our nurses and midwives provide such an important role in care from birth right through to palliative care. For anyone who has spent time in hospital, we can often remember those fabulous nurses and midwives who have cared for us or our loved ones. So I want to put on record the Greens acknowledgement and thanks for the irreplaceable services that nurses provide to our community of Victoria. The Greens fully support this legislation. Ms HUTCHINS (Sydenham) (17:24): I rise to speak on the current bill being debated before the Parliament today, the Safe Patient Care (Nurse to Patient and Midwife to Patient Ratios) Amendment Bill 2018. This is such an important bill, and it is an absolute pleasure for me to be able to rise and speak on it in this house under a returned Labor government. The bill is all about patient safety, and we recognise the commitment of our hardworking nurses and midwives to support us, our families and our friends in our times of need. Nurses tell us that ratios matter, and they have been campaigning on this issue for many years. Ratios allow them to provide the quality of care that Victorians expect and deserve. And we know that appropriate levels of nursing save patients’ lives. We know that they reduce the risk of mortality in surgical patients and reduce the patient length of stay in hospital, and good nursing—and good nursing staffing—reduces the risk of patients developing pressure wounds, pneumonia, deep vein thrombosis, ulcers, bleeds and cardiac arrests. These are the facts. Labor proudly took a commitment to the 2014 election that if we were to win that election we would put nurse-to-patient ratios into law. In 2015 we legislated our Safe Patient Care (Nurse to Patient and Midwife to Patient Ratios) Act 2015 and delivered on that commitment. Today we are updating that commitment. We are moving with the times; we are ensuring that we get this mechanism right. These changes that are being introduced today look at ratios in the new setting. They improve ratios in current settings and end the unfair rounding rule on priority shifts, which have the effect of undermining minimum ratios. These changes will see the employment of an additional 600 nurses and midwives, who will be employed right across Victoria, both in our busiest metropolitan hospitals and in our rural services. In addition to this, the Andrews Labor government has committed to invest an additional $50 million to create a Nursing and Midwifery Workforce Development Fund. This is a huge step forward for our nursing community, for our hospitals and certainly for our patients. This fund will create training opportunities and provide scholarships for nurses and midwives to further specialise so that they can fill new positions that will be created. It will expand the existing registered nurse and midwife graduate program. As we heard from the former Minister for Health, who spoke on this side earlier, there is a national shortage of midwives. This program is about this Labor state government getting ahead here in Victoria to ensure that we are getting the positions in place that we are going to need in order to fulfil our future and of course have the safe hands around those babies being delivered in many of our electorates. This means that Victorians will be able to study a diploma of nursing for free at TAFE, as one of Labor’s commitments to free priority TAFE courses, then start working as an enrolled nurse as soon as they graduate. The fund will also provide up to 400 postgraduate scholarships for current nurses and midwives to upgrade their skills. As a mother, I have had the privilege of raising a stepdaughter, Madeleine, who is now a qualified nurse and certainly has ambitions to be a midwife—and I urge her not to give up on her dreams of being a midwife. I just want to acknowledge that in the few years that she has been working full-time as a nurse she has helped save the lives of hundreds of babies in the neonatal intensive care units that

BILLS 182 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019 she has worked in. She has worked many shifts that cut across both public holidays and Saturdays and Sundays, and there have been many family occasions that she has had to miss out on in the last few years. But she loves her job, and I want to do a little shout-out to her in the context of this bill. She was very excited when I talked to her on the weekend about the ratios that we are introducing here in Victoria because this is an Australian first. I know that the world has its eyes on us when it comes to our health system and this ratio scheme that we have introduced. Can I also do a shout-out to the nurses at Frances Perry House at the Royal Women’s Hospital, who took good care of me only a few weeks ago when I was in there for day surgery—they did an amazing job; to the amazing nurses at all our oncology units across Victoria, in particular the nurses at the Epworth Hospital, who I got to know very well over the course of the two and a half years that my husband was in that oncology unit and ward; and also to the palliative care nurses that have helped us through the most difficult time of our lives. I just admire the work that they do so much. I know that this bill will ensure that nurse numbers are always rounded up and not down when applying ratios in every public hospital across Victoria. It will mean the allocation of a midwife in charge in maternity wards with six or more birthing suites and a nurse-in-charge in short-stay observation units. It will provide after-hours coordinators in hospitals with maternity or emergency services and fund better care at night, with more nurses on night shift in our busiest hospitals. These investments and these ratios will save lives across our state, and I commend the bill to the house. Ms COUZENS (Geelong) (17:30): I am really pleased to rise to speak on this significant bill. I want to begin by acknowledging the work of the former Minister for Health and her commitment not only to nurses but to patients as well, because we know that this is all about safety and continuity of care for the people who we are all concerned about so that they get the care they deserve. Safety has to be the highest priority. It is important that patients feel they are getting the best possible service from nurses, and I know that in fact they do, but to have nurses overworked is not great for their future or for the health services they are working for. By improving the nurse-to-patient and midwife-to- patient ratios we are supporting nurses and midwives in public hospitals and health services to deliver the best possible care. That is what this bill is all about. There are around 50 000 nurses and midwives in Victoria in our public health system, and of course many of those—probably hundreds—are in the electorate of Geelong. I have spoken often to nurses who work and live in my community. They do an amazing job—there is no doubt about that—caring for the most vulnerable and caring for people who have been in accidents or who are sick. They do an amazing job, and their skills and expertise are considerable. As a member of the Family and Community Development Committee in the last Parliament, I participated in the inquiry into perinatal services. The committee heard throughout that inquiry of a shortage of midwives in Victoria, and its recommendation 5.12 in particular outlined the need for long- term measures to ensure a sustainable workforce. Ratios will also address issues of consistency of care, which was also raised during the course of that inquiry. As we have heard already in the chamber today, I think it is really important we recognise that modern health care requires us to make change where necessary. This is one of those changes, and I am very proud to be a part of that. I think it is important that we ensure our nurses and midwives can cope with their workloads. In Geelong we have a major public hospital, being the Geelong hospital. There are a number of private hospitals as well. Recently we had Healthscope, a private hospital, shut down. To the credit of the former Minister for Health and the Premier, we were able to negotiate with Barwon Health to take those nurses. The reason we did that was to ensure that we did not lose the skills and expertise that existed in our community to other areas and that those people did not move away from their nursing and midwifery careers. That was a really significant decision that was made for Geelong. We also made that decision because we know we have such a heavy demand on our healthcare system, and it is no different in Geelong.

BILLS Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 183

Prior to the election we made a commitment to do a case study on having a women’s and children’s hospital in Geelong, using that Healthscope building. It was called Baxter House originally, and it was the public maternity hospital where once the majority of people in Geelong were born, including me and my children. In the Kennett era it was given away to the private sector. We have now been able to get it back, and it will now become a women’s and children’s hospital. We made a commitment of $100 million to develop that. We will need nurses and midwives to work in that new facility. We heard mentioned before the 33 TAFE courses. They will enable nurses to train to not just become nurses but to develop their skills, which will of course enable our hospital to be staffed. This is a great bill for my community and, I am sure, for all other communities across Victoria. I commend the bill to the house. Ms KILKENNY (Carrum) (17:35): I am very proud to rise to contribute to the debate on the Safe Patient Care (Nurse to Patient and Midwife to Patient Ratios) Amendment Bill 2018. You will remember that prior to last year’s election we committed to reintroduce this bill in the first sitting week of the 59th Parliament, and here we are keeping our word. This bill was the first piece of legislation introduced in this house on 19 December 2018, which was in fact the first day of sitting of this Parliament. What we have before us is a true Labor bill. This is a bill that is going to amend the Safe Patient Care (Nurse to Patient and Midwife to Patient Ratios) Bill 2015. I was extremely proud to be able to speak on that bill in the last term of Parliament. The bill back then was groundbreaking. It was the first in Australia to introduce nurse-to-patient ratios and only second in the world to California. I think that goes to show the extent to which the Andrews Labor government values and respects our nurses and midwives and of course the value that we place on our public health system here in Victoria. First I would actually like to thank our Victorian nurses and midwives. They are the true heart and soul of our hospitals, and we need to make sure that they receive all the support they need to keep Victorians safe and healthy and to provide the best level of care for Victorian patients. The bill before us, as I said, makes improvements and amendments to the ratios that we introduced under the Safe Patient Care Act 2015. Of course we have listened to nurses and to midwives; they are the experts. Those dedicated nurses and midwives know what is important, and it is not by accident that they are the most trusted profession in Australia. There are over 50 000 nurses and midwives in our public health system, all of them dedicated to providing the best possible health care they can, and they have been telling us that the higher staffing levels that are improving the nurse-to-patient and midwife-to-patient ratios mean better patient outcomes. As Victorians that is what we all want. We want the best possible level of care when we or a loved one need it. We know that the nurse-to-patient ratios were first introduced way back in December 2000. It was part of the nurses and midwives enterprise agreement. Back then, as a consequence of those ratios, we actually saw a 12 per cent increase in the number of nurses and midwives in the Victorian public hospital system—that was a staggering 2650 additional nurses and midwives. But we knew that we did not want nurses and midwives to have to bargain for ratios. Ratios save lives, and we did not want nurses and midwives to have to trade away their own pay and conditions to guarantee those ratios and patient care and safety. So, very proudly, it was the Andrews Labor government that introduced and then ultimately passed the Safe Patient Care Act 2015, and we saw for the first time, as I said, those ratios become law, and hospitals and health services covered by the enterprise agreement had to apply those ratios. But we were not going to stop there. Following the introduction of the Safe Patient Care Act, the principal act, we committed to continue to work with nurses and midwives to make even more improvements. We established a task force, and that task force provided strategic advice to the then health minister identifying recommendations across a range of clinical areas and settings. It is those findings that have informed us and have contributed to the amendments that we now see in the bill before us. Just briefly, the bill before us will operate to improve and expand nurse-to-patient and midwife-to- patient ratios within Victorian public hospitals. I would like to acknowledge the Premier; our former

BILLS 184 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019 health minister, under whose watch, I have to say, Victoria’s health system just went from strength to strength; and of course our now newly appointed health minister, who has already shown the same level of commitment to putting Victorians first. Both of these ministers were prepared to take the fight up to the federal Liberal government when we saw the federal Liberal government slashing and continuing to slash funding for Victoria’s health system—obviously something that is completely unacceptable. The Andrews Labor government is always going to put the health of Victorians first and foremost, and we are always going to support our extraordinary nurses and midwives. This bill is all about building on the great work that we started in the last term of Parliament with the introduction of ratios, and we are now building on that to ensure that we have better health care for all Victorians. It is clear that better health care for all Victorians is one of this government’s main priorities. I could not be prouder to be here supporting this bill, and I commend it to the house. Mr DIMOPOULOS (Oakleigh) (17:41): It is indeed a pleasure, as my colleague the member for Carrum said, to speak on this bill. Like the member for Carrum, I had the pleasure of speaking on the first bill in 2015, and I am also interested in speaking on the amendment to that initial legislation. This is a true Labor story in a number of ways. It is a story about looking after people who need public services, whether that be in education, in infrastructure or in this case in the health system. We look after people who need public support and public services. It is a Labor story because we believe in our workers and our workforce. As the Attorney-General, the former Minister for Health, said in her contribution to this bill, it was the nurses in their industrial negotiations over many years who brought this issue to our attention and to the attention of government. It was the nurses who said, ‘This does not belong in the realm of industrial bargaining; this belongs in the realm of public policy solution— in statute, in law’. So it is a Labor story because we listen to our workforce. It is also a Labor story because it is in the realm of one of the key areas that is emblematic of our government, and that is health. Further, it is a Labor story because the unions are a key part of this solution. We believe in our industrial partners; we believe in their contribution to public policy. Finally, it is a Labor story, as the member for Carrum said, because we keep our promises. This is a commitment we made and we are delivering on that commitment. I made some contributions in relation to the first bill, and after the first bill passed the Parliament the government set up a task force to further develop the ratios and further identify gaps in those in the coming period, and in fact we did identify those through the task force, which had on it both hospital administrators from health services and nursing and midwifery reps. The evolution of that work is in fact the bill we are debating today. This bill, as others have stated, does a number of things. It improves existing ratios. I will not go into the details because the second-reading speech did. However, I am particularly interested in the fact that this bill seeks to improve ratios around palliative care. I remember in the very, very long debate in this chamber over the voluntary assisted dying reforms during the last Parliament there was a lot of emphasis on palliative care and some concerns by some stakeholders that if we brought in voluntary assisted dying somehow we would diminish support and services around palliative care. I remember meeting with many concerned people in my community, and I said to them at that time that the commitments we had made to palliative care would not be the same, they would be enhanced. One of the elements of that is actually enhancing nurse-to-patient ratios in palliative care. We are doing that in the morning and afternoon shift and the night shift by having a ratio of 1 to 4, including the nurse manager, and in the evening 1 to 6. I am really pleased that this bill seeks to enhance palliative care for those Victorians and those families going through that. It also does a range of other things that are not currently specified, such as new ratios for clinical settings that were not included in the initial bill, removes obsolete sections, and it also, I think, as the Attorney-General and the former Minister for Health said, reclassifies some hospitals. It reclassifies, in fact, Monash Children’s Hospital, adjoining my electorate in the member for Clarinda’s electorate, to a level 1 hospital, which I am really pleased to see.

BILLS Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 185

This bill, and not just this bill but the initial bill, is about responding to facts and research. So unlike some others in the political debate in Victoria on a whole range of issues, we believe in facts. We do not deny them. As I said in my first contribution to the substantive bill, the evidence on ratios is clear. Both Australian and international research has clearly shown that the more nurses per patient, the higher the survival rate and the quicker the recovery rate of patients. An Australian study has shown a 16 per cent reduction in the risk of mortality in surgical patients when there were more nursing staff. There was also a reduction in adverse outcomes of between 3 per cent and 12 per cent. A significant study in Pennsylvania in the US in 2002 showed that for each additional patient per nurse there was a 7 per cent increase in the likelihood of death within 30 days of admission—just on a 7 per cent increase of patients over nurses in ratio. So this public policy response is based on research, and it is also a response which is just one of a suite of responses by this government, in the last Parliament and in this Parliament, that shows its commitment to health: almost 7000 more frontline health workers, 4000 nurses, 1900 doctors, 1000 paramedics, $250 million over five years for 600 more nurses, $3.86 billion in health infrastructure in our latest financial statements, which we will absolutely implement and execute in the life of this Parliament, and a $50 million workforce development fund for health services to better respond to the increase in demand that the ratios were bringing in some areas, including nurse scholarships and other things. And of course I think, as other speakers have said, we wrapped that whole Labor story up with free TAFE so you can now do a diploma in nursing free through Victorian TAFEs. So this is a government that actually does the full circle in terms of a public policy response. I am extraordinarily proud to speak on the amendment bill the second time around, and I look forward to its speedy passage in the Parliament. Ms THOMAS (Macedon) (17:48): I am very proud to rise today to speak on the Safe Patient Care (Nurse to Patient and Midwife to Patient Ratios) Amendment Bill 2018. Can I begin by thanking all of the healthcare workers in my electorate who supported the re-election of the Andrews Labor government. My message to you is we will not let you down. And while speaking on this bill, I particularly want to say thank you to Macedon campaign volunteers Susan Clarke, Marilyn Beaumont, Jill Clutterbuck, Meryl Freemantle and Rita Boyce, nurses one and all. Thank you for your support and your countless volunteer hours doorknocking and on the phones. I want to assure each and every one of you that I will not let you down. The Andrews government is one that keeps its promises and respects working people. Our record of achievement looking after those who look after us is impressive and is one I know that we will keep building on. Looking back now to 2014, Labor proudly took a commitment to the Victorian people that we would protect nurse-to-patient and midwife-to-patient ratios in law. That is what we did last term, and I am proud to be standing here today delivering on a further commitment to improve those nurse-to-patient ratios. These changes introduce new ratios into new settings, they improve ratios in current settings and they end the unfair rounding rule on priority shifts which had the effect of undermining minimum ratios. Under this new bill, where it says one nurse to four patients, it means one nurse to four patients. The changes will see the employment of an additional 600 nurses and midwives who will be employed right across Victoria, from our busiest metropolitan hospitals to some small rural services including, I hope, in my own electorate. This is a bill that is focused on patient care. Who better to rely on for the evidence of the impact this will have on patient care than those people that deliver the care themselves—and that is the nurses and midwives in our system. Others have provided in their contribution some of the detail about what the bill will actually do, so I want to skip forward through some of that and talk to you about a young woman in my electorate. Ruby Redpath has made me coffee just about every single day for the last almost five years while she has supported herself to complete her bachelor of nursing and midwifery degree. Just before the last

BILLS 186 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019 election, when she was making me my skinny latte and before her final exams, Ruby said to me, ‘Mary-Anne, why should I vote for you?’. What a great question. So I said, ‘Well, Ruby, apart from our government’s massive investment rebuilding Kyneton Primary School, the training and innovation hub, 38 additional services on the Bendigo line, an upgrade to the Kyneton courthouse, our commitment to family violence reform and $10 million for a new facility at Cobaw Community Health, why would you vote for me and for a Labor government? Because we will deliver nurse-patient ratios enshrined in law’. And I have got to say I am pretty confident that I won young Ruby’s vote. I am also very pleased to tell you that Ruby has subsequently completed her degree and she is now spending her graduate year at Sunshine Hospital. So to Ruby and all the other graduate nurses and midwives, this bill is for you, and it is a tribute to the nurses and midwives who have come before you and fought for improved conditions and patient safety in our hospitals. I also would like to use this opportunity to thank Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation officials Lisa Fitzpatrick, Pip Carew and everyone down there for everything that you have done to ensure that young Ruby and other nurses and midwives like her will have safe and rewarding careers in our magnificent Victorian health system. This is a great bill. I commend it to the house. Mr RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (17:52): It is a pleasure to rise and make a brief contribution on the Safe Patient Care (Nurse to Patient and Midwife to Patient Ratios) Amendment Bill 2018. You could not get a greater example of values in action. When you contrast Labor’s investment in health, in nurses, in paramedics and in doctors as opposed to the form of those opposite in cutting services, cutting nurse numbers and literally giving the middle finger to our nurses and midwives, you show the values and actions of supporting and caring for people in our community. Everyone throughout their lives will continuously have interaction with nurses or midwives. For me the most fond memory was when my daughter Paisley was delivered. It can also be in those more sombre times when you are supporting a relative who is stricken or, as the member for Oakleigh talked about, is in palliative care. Those nurses, those dedicated people, they are each and every day embracing the stories of Victorians, caring for them, nurturing them and delivering first-class, world-class care. We owe them a great debt of gratitude, and in supporting their work we owe it to them that we have safe patient ratios to ensure that we reduce the burden and make sure that there is care and continuous support for those patients. Supporting the health sector goes to our values, with some 7000 additional frontline full-time healthcare roles. We have seen the benefit in investing in our ambulance services and in our nurses and what that means for patient care: you reduce waiting times, you increase that support and you benefit residents. I think about things like elective surgery, and I have said in this place that I have an issue with the term ‘elective surgery’ because for a lot of people waiting on that list it is not an elective; it is a quality-of-life issue. Whether it is a knee replacement or cataracts, across the board they are waiting there. That care and support, when you invest in your hospitals, invest in your nurses and in your paramedics, leads to better health and community outcomes. It is symbolic that during the 59th Parliament one of the first bills that will come forward is on nurse to patient ratios. It is exciting as well in the context of our investment in TAFE that the diploma of nursing has been so substantially taken up. Victorians are flocking to this degree to care for their fellow Victorians in their times of need. As our state grows and the need for care grows going forward into the future, I could not think of a better role than caring for Victorians as a nurse, by securing the diploma of nursing and getting underway with a very fulfilling career. With that contribution and in the limited time that we have, I commend the bill to the house. Ms KAIROUZ (Kororoit—Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Suburban Development) (17:55): I move: That the debate be now adjourned.

BILLS Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 187

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day. INTEGRITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURES, OVERSIGHT AND INDEPENDENCE) BILL 2018 Second reading Debate resumed on motion of Ms HENNESSY: That this bill be now read a second time. Mr WELLS (Rowville) (17:56): I rise to speak on the Integrity and Accountability Legislation Amendment (Public Interest Disclosures, Oversight and Independence) Bill 2018. I want to first off thank Minister Jennings for organising the detailed briefing with which we were provided. We are very grateful for that. I also acknowledge that the bill was introduced in the last Parliament, debated and passed through the house. It is obviously absolutely crucial in Victoria that we have a strong integrity system not just for the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission but for the Ombudsman and other integrity bodies to ensure that we have the ability to be able to get rid of and obviously eliminate corruption in the public service. It is equally important for those businesses in the private sector that are doing work with the government, which could be in many, many forms. Whether it be the private companies providing IT, security, education or health services, or whether it is building a road or a bridge, it is absolutely imperative that corruption is not part of any equation that has to do with the public service or the private sector providing services to the government. You just have to look around the world to see what corruption can do to a country. Look at Zimbabwe, which I have fortunately visited on a number of occasions for different family reasons. But the corruption actually destroys the moral fabric of the nation, and because the ministers do it, because members of Parliament do it, because the public service do it, then it is just an expected part of the society. I will mention through the speech our contribution through the Independent Broad-based Anti- corruption Commission Committee, which is a great committee formed by the government and the Parliament. It has had members from the National Party, the Greens, Labor and of course the Liberals. It is an outstanding committee. One of the trips that the committee took to look at frameworks around corruption bodies was to Hong Kong. Some decades ago, mainly in the 1970s, there was very serious corruption. One of the people addressing us told us that when she was being born her mother had to bribe nurses in the hospital to get more towels. Once one person in a hospital expects a bribe, then it is just the done thing. Another example given to us—it was obviously a number of decades ago—was with regard to firefighters. Before they would perform their role of putting out fires they wanted a gift. The situation just festered and it became worse and worse, and in the end Hong Kong had serious problems, so they took the bold step to bring in an overarching anti-corruption agency, which is now one of the best in the world. They have gone from a situation in the public service of having severe corruption issues to now having one of the very best—I guess with Northern Ireland—anti-corruption bodies in the world. So out of that adversity it worked well, and the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, the PONI system, is also outstanding. We will not be opposing this bill, but we are going to be moving an amendment, and I would ask that that amendment be circulated now. Opposition amendments circulated by Mr WELLS under standing orders. Mr WELLS: The amendments being circulated are only small amendments, but they relate to an important part of this bill, and that is the issue of public hearings. This is not just a debate for Victoria but a worldwide debate. At what point should the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption

BILLS 188 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019

Commissioner, in our case, have the right or the legislative powers to be able to call for a public hearing? Public hearings are very beneficial, especially when you look at the investigation into the Department of Education and Training. They were public hearings, and the amount of information that came forward as a result of those public hearings was amazing. Obviously the other side of holding a public hearing is some people are concerned that if they are innocent, they will have reputational damage for life. No matter what happens in relation to the public hearing—they could be found not guilty—there will always be the chance that that information will come up on a Google search. Whenever you put in somebody’s name, the first thing that could come up on some occasions would be the issue of confronting or having to be brought before an IBAC public hearing. The reputational damage is also an important factor to take into account. As I said, it is not just an issue for Victoria, it is an issue right around the world—of when you should or when you should not have a public hearing. Many people prefer that hearings are held in private, and then if there is an issue in a private hearing, you could take the decision to hold a public hearing at some other time without reputational damage. But we as a coalition, as the opposition, have looked at the bill and have concerns around clause 119, which makes amendments to section 117(1) of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011. Part of the new clause that the government wants to implement is:

(b) after paragraph (c) insert— “(d) the conduct that is the subject of the investigation may constitute— (i) serious corrupt conduct; or (ii) systemic corrupt conduct; or (iii) serious police personnel misconduct; or (iv) systemic police personnel misconduct.”. The reality is that that tightens and reduces the ability of the IBAC Commissioner to be able to freely hold a public investigation or public inquiry, because when the Commissioner at the moment, a he, is considering holding a public inquiry, he must take into consideration that this change is going to be factored in—serious corrupt conduct or systemic corrupt conduct or, in the case of an investigation into Victoria Police, serious police personnel misconduct or systemic police personnel misconduct. And when you look at what the Commissioner is able to use in the current act, it is so different. In the current Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission act, ‘Part 6—Examinations’, section 117(4) says: For the purposes of subsection (1)(b), the factors the IBAC may take into account in determining whether or not it is in the public interest to hold a public examination include, but are not limited to— (a) whether the corrupt conduct or the police personnel conduct being investigated is related to an individual and was an isolated incident or systemic in nature; (b) the benefit of exposing to the public, and making it aware of, corrupt conduct or police personnel misconduct; (c) in the case of police personnel conduct investigations, the seriousness of the matter being investigated. So that is significantly different and allows more free range for the IBAC Commissioner to be able to choose whether to have a public hearing or not. So we believe as part of our argument and our debate in the Parliament that implementing this change to section 117(1) is going to reduce the ability of the IBAC Commissioner to be able to hold public inquiries. If I go to the second-reading speech for this bill in the previous Parliament, it will become obvious why I am actually drawing on it at this point, because the comments of the current IBAC Commissioner and what was in the second-reading speech are quite different. The second-reading speech refers to: Public examinations are a key investigative tool that help IBAC to fulfil its primary function of exposing public sector corruption. The government, through the stronger system act, made key improvements to IBAC’s legislation by lowering the investigation threshold to make it easier for IBAC to investigate corrupt

BILLS Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 189

conduct. Following those reforms, the government conducted extensive public consultation on the broader integrity and accountability system, including IBAC’s public examination function. But then it goes on to say: The community’s views on public examinations were diverse. However, what was abundantly clear was the need to strike an appropriate balance between IBAC’s extraordinary powers, the benefits of public examinations and the greater potential for an IBAC investigation involving public examinations to unreasonably harm a person’s reputation and right to privacy. IBAC can currently hold a public examination if there are exceptional circumstances, it is in the public interest to hold a public examination, and a public examination would not cause unreasonable damage to a person’s reputation, safety or wellbeing. The bill will add an additional requirement to better protect the rights and welfare of individuals. When deciding whether to hold a public examination, the bill will require IBAC to consider on reasonable grounds that the conduct to be investigated is serious or systemic corrupt conduct or serious or systemic police personnel misconduct— which is what I referred to before. The issue that we have with the changes that are being made and the second-reading speech is that they are actually contrary to what the IBAC Commissioner has actually asked for. So it might be well and good to say that ‘the community’s views on public examinations were diverse’—and we agree that it has to strike the right balance—but surely the views of the actual IBAC Commissioner should be taken into account. This is what he said in his annual report 2017–18. This is commissioner Robert Redlich:

Investigations are integral to IBAC’s work in exposing as well as deterring and preventing public sector corruption and police misconduct. In 2017/18 we commenced 27 investigations and completed 14 (including preliminary inquiries) … Two of these resulted in special reports tabled before Parliament: Operation Tone, concerning drug use and associated corrupt conduct involving Ambulance Victoria paramedics … ; and, Operation Lansdowne, an investigation into alleged serious corruption in the Victorian vocational education and training and public transport sectors … As part of Operation Lansdowne, IBAC held public examinations in June and July 2017 … Public examinations are a critical investigative tool in further exposing and preventing public sector corruption and police misconduct. They help educate the public sector and community about the impact of corruption and police misconduct and how it can be prevented. They have prompted the public sector to examine and improve its systems and practices. And they have encouraged further credible complaints about corruption. Our Act— this is the Commissioner speaking— states that public examinations may only be held in exceptional circumstances. IBAC has used this power carefully, holding five public examinations from the 69 investigations (including preliminary inquiries) that we have completed. He makes a very good point that he needs that ability to be able to investigate. He also makes the point that it is a very good way of educating the public sector—that is, if you hold a public inquiry, then the public inquiry is able to be broadcast across all the media. And if you are involved in any corrupt activity and you saw what was going on in the County Court where they were holding these public examinations into the education department, you would be pretty quick to own up because you would know that IBAC was coming to get you one way or another if you were involved in corrupt activity. I also refer to comments made by Commissioner Redlich at a closed hearing on 7 May 2018. This is on the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Committee website so it is a public transcript: Mr REDLICH—Then if I can go to the examinations, as the committee would probably be aware, to have a public examination requires an exceptional circumstance test and under the present bill requires even further limitations. The present bill before Parliament— this is the one he is referring to—

BILLS 190 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019

proposes additional limitations, such as ‘endemic’, ‘systemic’ and ‘serious’. The various forms of the legislation of course have gone through successive governments now, and if I may speak frankly, the only reason I can see why anyone would want to impose this level of limitation is to appease a particular interest group—a powerful interest group—and, with great respect, that ought not be a consideration which influences the committee. If the bill is passed, there will be provision in the bill to enable IBAC in a public sitting to at any stage go into a private sitting if there is evidence that it is likely to damage individual reputations. That is a powerful additional tool which is being proposed, which I would entirely support and which it appears would go a long way towards affecting the only rationale I can see for why one would want to deter an institution like IBAC from having public hearings. We have had very few public hearings, and one of the criticisms that is made of IBAC is that it has not really discharged its function in terms of public hearings. Particularly if we can ensure that we are able to protect reputations, we would like to see the act amended to remove the restrictions of it being exceptional circumstance. So the actual request by the Commissioner is what the opposition has been looking at, and that is why we have circulated an amendment to remove this restrictive part of the Independent Broad-based Anti- corruption Commission Act 2011 through the oversight bill that we are looking at at the moment. They are pretty powerful comments coming from the IBAC Commissioner himself, that he wants the freedom to be able to choose when he holds public hearings without the restriction being placed on him. It was interesting to read an article the other week by a good friend of mine, John Pesutto, who was the shadow Attorney-General and who wrote on this particular issue. I am not sure whether he knew the bill was coming up, so it is a matter of good coincidence. This is what he said in an article in the Age on 2 February, and I am sure it has been read by many people:

Sensibly, the IBAC regime under current law permits public examinations only in certain circumstances. There have to be exceptional circumstances, it must be in the public interest to hold a public examination, and IBAC must be satisfied that any public examination will not unreasonably damage a person’s reputation, safety or wellbeing. That was referred to by the Commissioner—that if you were halfway through a public hearing and all of a sudden the Commissioner realises there could be damage to the reputation of a witness or a person who has been involved in that, you could stop the public hearing and then go into a private hearing. Mr Pesutto went on to say that: It suggests that the legislative policy of promoting the judicious use of public hearings is working … … Compared with other jurisdictions, Victoria has done well on this. The Independent Commission Against Corruption in NSW has during roughly the same period conducted over twice as many public hearings to the point where they seem to be standard— rather than exceptional circumstances. According to John Pesutto:

On public hearings, Victoria strikes a more reasonable balance. But he goes on to warn: Once the bill passes, in addition to the existing requirements IBAC must already meet before it can conduct any public examination, it will need to consider on reasonable grounds whether the conduct is serious or systemic corrupt conduct or serious or systemic police personnel misconduct. … The risk is that the bill’s changes to the threshold for public examinations could reduce the small number of public examinations we tend to see now. They are very important points made by the former shadow Attorney-General. Just one other point that I want to cover that he covers when referring to public hearings is that:

BILLS Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 191

Used wisely and carefully, public examinations are too important an instrument of normative behaviour for them to be wound back, especially when there is no evidence the modest number to date constitutes overuse. The bill also merges a couple of the committees, and this was highlighted in the last Parliament. The committee that I chaired, the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Committee, as I said earlier, was made up of members from the Greens, the National Party, the Liberal Party and Labor. Obviously it was an excellent committee. It was interesting that debate was not along party lines. The member for Gippsland South and the member for Mordialloc were part of that committee. It was not along party lines; it was actually based on the policy, based on the evidence and based on the facts that we were able to put forward. It was an excellent committee. This bill before us actually draws on three reports that the committee did. Part of the bill is the establishment, through the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003, of an Integrity and Oversight Committee. What it will do is abolish the IBAC Committee and the previous oversight committee that was chaired by the member for Forest Hill. The purpose of the amendment is that the government considers that parliamentary oversight of Victoria’s integrity and oversight bodies is fragmented, with the responsibility distributed across the IBAC Committee, the Accountability and Oversight Committee and the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC). The bill merges the IBAC Committee and the Accountability and Oversight Committee and renames them the Integrity and Oversight Committee. It will have the same functions performed by the former IBAC Committee and the Accountability and Oversight Committee as well as some new functions. The government believes, and we are not opposing this part of the bill, obviously, that it will create a specialist committee with expertise on IBAC, the Ombudsman, the information commissioner and the Victorian Inspectorate (VI), which will allow the committee to bring a more holistic approach to oversight of the integrity system. It will create clear lines of accountability to Parliament, allow for more efficient parliamentary oversight and help to avoid double handling of matters and fragmentation of oversight responsibilities. I do not believe that with the two committees there was that double handling, but the view of the government is slightly different. PAEC will continue to oversee the Victorian Auditor-General, and we have no issues with that. The key amendment in this bill is to make amendments to the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003 to establish a new Integrity and Oversight Committee. Under this bill I note that under new section 31B the Integrity and Oversight Committee must assess a disclosure about the VI to determine whether or not the disclosure is a public interest disclosure complaint. If the committee determines that it is a public interest complaint, it must engage an independent person to investigate it, taking into account the minister’s recommendations for an investigator—and I have no problem with that; I think it is straightforward. In short, it puts the new committee in the shoes of IBAC and becomes a clearing house for disclosures about the VI with respect to disclosures about the VI or a VI officer. The committee—and this is all new—will receive disclosures either directly or via a Presiding Officer of the Parliament, so the Speaker or the President of the Legislative Council can refer a matter to the new committee, which assesses the disclosures and engages an independent person to investigate public interest disclosure matters. So the committee will have more work to do in addition to what the IBAC Committee and the Accountability and Oversight Committee are doing now. You are merging the two, as well as giving it more work in regard to public interest disclosures in regard to the Victorian Inspectorate and VI workers. The committee will also appoint an independent performance auditor to conduct a performance audit of the Ombudsman, IBAC and the Victorian Inspectorate at least every four years. This will line up with the parliamentary terms. Parliament will appoint, on the recommendation of the Integrity and Oversight Committee, an independent performance auditor to conduct a performance audit of IBAC, the VI and the Victorian Ombudsman at least every four years. Provisions commence on 1 July 2020, so we are able to get that set up. The Integrity and Oversight Committee produces specifications of the performance audit. The committee will also consider the Ombudsman’s, IBAC’s and the Victorian Inspectorate’s budget and annual plan, and this is a step towards one of the recommendations that was

BILLS 192 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019 put forward by the IBAC Committee to give greater independence to the integrity bodies to be able to put forward their own budget instead of them being given a lump sum from the government. There needs to be greater independence. That is the way the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office works, and that is the way it is going to work under this new legislation. The bill also makes a number of important changes in regard to protected disclosures. We spent months and months and months working on the issues of protected disclosures—or as they were called in the old days, whistleblowers. The term ‘whistleblowers’ seemed to have a negative connotation around it, so they moved to ‘protected disclosures’. Now it has changed again to ‘public interest disclosures’, PID, arguing that the terminology is best practice and will fall in line with what is used in other states. However, the IBAC Committee found that experts and those working in the field, whilst recognising that most states use the term PID, found that the general public had no understanding of the term, and they are recommending the term be changed to ‘whistleblower disclosure’. If you went out to people in the street and asked what a public protected disclosure or public interest disclosure is, no-one would have a clue, but as soon as you mention the word ‘whistleblower’ of course people understand what it means. There was conflicting evidence given to the committee. I remember one meeting in London where the barristers that were briefing us were very keen for the word ‘whistleblower’ because it is understandable and they believe that the negativity around it has changed over the years and it is not as negative as it was in the past. As I said earlier, the new body will be able to assess and arrange investigation of public interest disclosures about the VI, the new committee can consider and investigate complaints about the office of the freedom of information commissioner and the new committee also has a role in relation to the budgets and performance audits of IBAC, VI and the Ombudsman. The only changes that we have been assured of between the bill that was introduced in the last term and this bill are the commencement dates, and that makes perfect sense. The provisions establishing the Integrity and Oversight Committee will commence the day after royal assent instead of 1 January 2019. The majority of the bill will commence on 1 January 2020 instead of 1 January 2019. The budget independence provisions will still commence on 1 July 2020. It is interesting to note as you work through this bill the number of recommendations that have been accepted by the government on the work done by the IBAC Committee. As I said, there were three reports that the IBAC Committee did over the term of the last government. Those were Strengthening Victoria’s Key Anti-Corruption Agencies? in February 2016, shortened to the strengthening report; Improving Victoria’s Whistleblowing Regime: A Review of the Protected Disclosure Act 2012, better known as the PD report; and A Framework for Monitoring the Performance of the Independent Broad- Based Anti-Corruption Commission, better known as the framework report. That was an important report because it is difficult to be able to assess the work of an anti-corruption body. How do you set KPIs? How do you set the framework around performance? Is it the number of investigations that are completed in a 12-month period? Is it the number of investigations that are started over a term of four years? It is very difficult. But I believe that the framework report that was tabled in Parliament by the IBAC Committee strikes the right balance. We did a lot of work with the IBAC Commissioner and his staff, and we believe that that strikes the right balance. As I said, we have moved the amendment, so we will be supporting the amendment, and we are hoping that the government looks at our amendment because of our concerns about the restriction of the IBAC Commissioner. The IBAC Commissioner himself has raised concerns about the restriction on holding public hearings. We hope that the government accepts our amendment, and if it does not in this place, then between the two houses we would call on the government to look at that amendment and make the right decision to make this a better bill. Mr PEARSON (Essendon) (18:26): I am delighted to make a contribution on the Integrity and Accountability Legislation Amendment (Public Interest Disclosures, Oversight and Independence)

BILLS Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 193

Bill 2018. With the house’s indulgence I would like to congratulate the Manager of Opposition Business. With the departure of the former member for Box Hill and the retirement of the former member for Sandringham, the Manager of Opposition Business now holds the title of father of the house. He is the last member of this place who can recall seeing Jeff Kennett at the dispatch box when he was Premier. That is something to note, as is the fact that I am delighted that there are so many new members on our side of this place who were recently elected. I did want to go to the Manager of Opposition Business’s point about the issue around public hearings for IBAC. It is an interesting point that the member made, because if you go back in time and in history, and if you go back to the establishment of the Star Chamber in the Palace of Westminster, which was in operation around the late 15th century until its abolition by the Habeas Corpus Act of 1640, that body was established to hear matters involving the nobility and the wealthy. The view was established that people who had an issue and who wanted to seek justice could not do so through the lower courts. The notion of the Star Chamber was established and created to enable the nobility to seek redress. It was a private deliberative body involving privy councillors and common-law judges. By its secretive and withdrawn nature it became abused by the monarchy, and the term ‘Star Chamber’ in common lexicon today is used to indicate a body where there was no oversight and there was no review, and so therefore abuses were meted out, in this case by the monarchy, to the nobility. One of the great things we have seen happen in our judicial system over the passage of time has been the opportunity for public scrutiny and the opportunity for the media to be able to examine issues that come before the courts, to make some observations and to provide a level of commentary to the general public about the conduct of the judiciary in certain cases. Where I divert and where I differ from the views expressed by the Manager of Opposition Business is that if you go back in time—I will not say to 3 October 1992 because that was polling day, which was a Saturday—to 5 October 1992, which was a Monday, and let us suppose that someone was hauled before the Magistrates Court at Broadmeadows for having committed an offence. It would have been reported at the time, but there would be very little in the way of information around that particular case available now. It would be very difficult, for example, to go on Google, search the matters that came before the Broadmeadows Magistrates Court on 5 October 1992 and find that particular case, unless you really went out of your way. It is not available digitally is the point I am trying to make. The issue with IBAC is that it is a very powerful body, and if a person is called before IBAC it is usually because they have a serious offence to be held to account for—or at least that is the public perception— and that, I think, is the real challenge, because if you look at somebody who is brought before IBAC for questioning, irrespective of whether there is a finding of innocence or guilt, it becomes very easy for people to turn around and do a search on that person. Let us suppose, for example, John Citizen gets brought before IBAC to answer a charge and there is no finding of guilt levelled against John Citizen, and John Citizen goes about his ordinary life. What happens if John Citizen goes for a job interview and the interviewer decides to put that person’s name into Google and see what comes up? ‘Oh, that person’s been before IBAC. We’d better not employ that particular person, because they’ve been the subject of an IBAC investigation’. That is the risk we have got to try to balance. In this day and age, because we create a digital signature that stays with us for a very long period of time, we need to have a different threshold test. That is not to say there will not be any hearings. All that this bill is seeking to do is to say to IBAC, ‘You have extraordinary powers, and if you are going to conduct public examinations and there is a risk that a person’s reputation is going to be harmed as a consequence of that, there needs to be just cause for that to occur. You cannot just, on a flight of fancy, bring someone before a public hearing’. I think that strikes the right balance between making sure that people who have done the wrong thing have the opportunity to be held to account by IBAC and making sure there is a higher threshold test—so there is an ability to make sure that the person has done something really quite serious or that there has been systemic behaviour. That is what the bill addresses. I think that is important to consider when you think about the environment that we are living

BILLS 194 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019 in now. It is very different for a person brought before IBAC now than, for example, someone brought before a lower court back in 1992. I think that is a really important distinction to make here. This is a very comprehensive bill. It has been thoroughly reviewed, and it encompasses a wide range of acts. I note that there are amendments to the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003, and again it emphasises the fact that the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC) will continue to oversee the matters relating to the Auditor-General. As a former chair of PAEC, I think this is indeed welcome. I think it is important that there are those checks and balances in place. Mr D O’Brien: Bring him back. Mr PEARSON: I note the member for Gippsland South says, ‘Bring him back’. I will watch with interest to see whether the member for Gippsland South continues to discharge his duties on behalf of the National Party on this august body. I am very pleased to see that there will be, in the same way there is for PAEC, a performance audit of the Ombudsman, IBAC and the Victorian Inspectorate. As the member for Gippsland South would know, we conducted in the 58th Parliament a financial audit and appointed a financial auditor of the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO), which was a fairly pedestrian exercise. It was about making sure that what is in the accounts and what is on the balance sheet are reflected by reality. We were able to engage a firm to do the performance audit, and that was about trying to find ways in which VAGO could be better. It was quite a robust process. It was quite a thorough report that was produced and tabled in the Parliament. It was a way of making sure that the Victorian Auditor- General’s Office was performing as well as it could and to the best of its ability. I think that ensuring that these performance audits are conducted every four years is really important because it enables a third party to go through these investigative bodies, these regulatory bodies, and ensure that they are doing the very best that they can. I note that there will be two new functions of the Ombudsman in relation to helping the Ombudsman resolve complaints and promote improved public administration. I know that the member for Gippsland South will share my passion—my burning desire—for the potential of big data. I do hope that the Ombudsman is able to look at the way in which big data can be utilised to improve the quality of public administration in this state, because the reality is that government is a major acquirer of data. There are a series of datasets that are held right throughout the inner agencies and the outer agencies, and there is the capacity to try to bring all this data together, to use algorithms and to try to do some predictive analysis of the way in which we can discharge our duties. As I said many times in the 58th Parliament, we are living in the age of Hadrian, we are not living in the age of Trajan. We need to try to find ways in which we can improve our efficiency and drive greater public service reform by making sure that we use what we have got to the best of our ability. It is a comprehensive bill that is before the house, and I note the member for Gippsland South is eagerly awaiting his call. I commend the bill to the house. Mr D O'BRIEN (Gippsland South) (18:36): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Integrity and Accountability Legislation Amendment (Public Interest Disclosures, Oversight and Independence) Bill 2018, and it is always a pleasure to follow the member for Essendon. I note that we are into the 59th Parliament, but just like the 58th, there is not a speech from the member for Essendon that does not involve going back prior to the 16th century and some sort of quote or statement in Latin. I am always very impressed by the research that the member for Essendon puts into his contributions on legislation—or it could well be that he has got the same line that he uses over and over again, because we do not actually listen to it that often. I hate to disappoint the member for Essendon, but I do not share his enthusiasm for big data. I do, however, recall his very strong enthusiasm for it, and I understand its importance. All jokes aside, the member for Essendon was a very good chair of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC) in the last Parliament, just as the member for Rowville was a very good chair of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission

BILLS Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 195

Committee. I was a part of both of those committees, so I have some experience in the public integrity sphere. That is why I am pleased to have a bit of a chat about this bill. Speaking of the committees, one of the things that this bill does is merge the IBAC Committee and the Accountability and Oversight Committee, and I must say that that makes sense to me. I found, as a new member in the last Parliament, when I was asked to participate in the IBAC Committee and then discovered there was an Accountability and Oversight Committee I thought, ‘Really? What’s the point of that?’. It makes sense that these two will be merged and will continue their oversight function and indeed have some of it strengthened. The new committee will have the ability to undertake investigations into protected disclosures about the Victorian Inspectorate (VI). I hope I am not on that committee because I think it will be difficult should any come forward, but it is fair that there be something above—I guess someone watching the watchdogs—and it is appropriate that that be the Parliament. As I mentioned, I was on PAEC with the member for Essendon, and the oversight of the Auditor- General is also a very difficult job for this Parliament—but one that is critical. The Auditor-General along with the Ombudsman, IBAC and the VI do make up a very robust integrity system here in Victoria. The second-reading speech and, I think, both the previous speakers spoke about balance with respect to different aspects of this legislation, and I think that is the key when it comes to integrity agencies such as IBAC, the VI, the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General. We do need a strong independent corruption watchdog—there is no doubt about that—but it does need to be balanced against the rights of citizens and also the robustness of our democracy. Like the member for Essendon, I have had the opportunity in the past to work in politics, including interstate. Perhaps ‘appalled’ is too strong a word, but I recall the use of anti-corruption bodies in New South Wales and Queensland by political parties against each other. I thought it was a concern for democracy and also a concern for those actual agencies themselves, because the minute there was a politician on one side who was accused of doing something wrong—and I emphasise the word ‘accused’—someone would fire off a letter to IBAC or ICAC, and of course that gave the story another burst even if that person was subsequently found to have done nothing wrong. That is why I think balance is quite important. The second-reading speech says that this bill will improve the public examination function of IBAC— I guess that is a subjective statement, as the member for Rowville, the Manager of Opposition Business, has outlined—and I am not sure IBAC would agree. The public examination function of IBAC is a very powerful one and I think does need to be used very sparingly, but as the member for Rowville has indicated, we are moving an amendment to remove what the government is trying to do with this bill, which is to tighten even further the ability of the Commissioner to undertake public examination. I think it should be something that is used very sparingly because of the human rights implications and the fair and due process that the member for Essendon talked about. I do agree with that, but we have moved that amendment. There are some changes to provide some flexibility for IBAC in particular with the deferral of complaints, and that is good because IBAC does need some flexibility in this. In reading that section of the bill I was reminded of where constituents come to you with a particular complaint—and I am sure other members in the chamber will also have had constituents come to them—and you refer them off to IBAC and they come back to you and say, ‘Well, I’ve actually already been to IBAC and they refused to investigate’. I often think, ‘Well, perhaps there is a message for you there if they are refusing to investigate or they have investigated and found that there is no case—that perhaps you do not actually have a case’. But anyway that is neither here nor there. The budget independence being extended to IBAC, to the Ombudsman and to the VI is a good move and consistent with what already occurs with the Auditor-General, and that will be good. It will be good for the new committee to work through the budget needs for those organisations.

BILLS 196 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019

Turning quickly to protected disclosures, this is an area that is complex and quite difficult. We found on the IBAC Committee that it was very difficult just to get the terminology right. I notice in the second-reading speech the Attorney-General talks about the term ‘whistleblower’ having pejorative connotations. While I understand that, I would add that at least it is something that is understood by the public. If I went up to most of my constituents and said, ‘Are you interested in making a public interest disclosure?’, I do not think they would have any idea what I was talking about. If I went up to them and said, ‘Do you have something that you want to blow the whistle on?’, or ‘Are you a whistleblower on a particular issue?’, people would understand it. I am pleased that the bill does provide for simpler pathways for making such a disclosure. This is a key issue that we debated, and it is related to that terminology. In many respects making it simpler for someone to make a protected disclosure—or a public interest disclosure, as it is now going to be known—in the legislation is all well and good. It is about the public-facing information. If you come across corruption in your workplace or with respect to police or someone else, where do you go? You are unlikely to google ‘public interest disclosure’. You are probably going to google ‘whistleblower’ or something similar, and that was something that we had quite a discussion about. I am pleased that the pathways for making such a disclosure will be improved, and I hope that they are genuinely simplified. There are some changes with respect to disclosures about police as well. In the IBAC Committee we received a lot of evidence from certain organisations that said there should be a separate police integrity commission, a separate organisation to investigate police, given that about, I think, 97 per cent of police complaints to IBAC are actually referred back to police. The committee decided that we did not support that motion—that we thought police complaints could be addressed within the current framework—and I think that is appropriate. What is important here is the threshold of the complaint. For minor matters, where there are workplace relations issues with police, where there are minor behavioural issues—for example, if a policeman swore at somebody who came to make the complaint or somebody at an accident scene—they should be dealt with by police. We do not need to create a whole new investigative framework for that. So I think again the bill at this point is striking the right balance, and I come back to that word again. Overall, as I said, there were some who wanted an additional integrity commission. I do not believe that is necessary. I actually think our system is pretty good. The committee in 2016–17 undertook investigations overseas. From our experience in a number of different countries I think the Victorian system is quite good. I will finish with an example that we got from a French gendarme when we asked him how they find out about corruption in their police force. His answer was, ‘Well, we go out to the car park and if one of our officers is driving a Porsche, then we think he’s probably on the take’—that was not a joke; he was deadly serious—and that is probably simplifying the French, with the greatest respect to the French system. But I do think we do have good system. We are not opposing this bill, which hopefully will help instil public confidence in our integrity commission. Mr McGUIRE (Broadmeadows) (18:46): Increasing scrutiny, accountability and compliance is at the heart of this bill. Put simply, some of the key reforms expand and clarify the types of improper conduct in the public sector that a person can disclose to increase the pathways for making disclosure and to simplify confidentiality obligations. On public interest disclosures, the bill acquits the government’s commitment to review the Protected Disclosure Act 2012. Since this act was introduced IBAC, the Ombudsman, Victoria Police and other bodies have raised concerns that the act is complex and overly prescriptive and may actually deter people from making disclosures. In a previous part of my career as an investigative journalist I saw how harrowing it was for people who wanted to make disclosures in the public interest. Quite often they had no idea what the potential consequences for their careers could be, so this bill is important because it actually looks at how these matters are addressed. The bill looks at systemic issues and puts more light on areas where government needs to be able to see what is actually happening. It is an attempt to overcome wilful blindness, codes

BILLS Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 197 of silence and ‘noble cause’ corruption—that is, the concept of people putting the reputation of an institution above justice for individuals. These are important concepts that are at play within this bill. The bill broadens and simplifies the types of improper conduct that a person can disclose in public interest matters by removing the complex and prohibitive general threshold that improper conduct wrongdoing must constitute a criminal offence or grounds for dismissal. They are two key and important thresholds. The next point more clearly sets out the categories of improper conduct in the act, including in the definition of improper conduct all serious professional misconduct and criminal misconduct committed in an official capacity instead of only corruption-related criminal offences and misconduct. The bill also clarifies that conduct that is trivial does not constitute improper conduct. This is a catch- all mechanism to ensure that the broadened definition of improper conduct does not inappropriately capture fewer serious complaints. Again, this is a fine-line definition of improper conduct, and it is seeking to get the balance that the minister and her government are trying to pursue. Also it looks at expanding the definition of improper conduct to ensure that disclosure about all serious public sector wrongdoing can be protected under the act. I want to just make a couple of other points. The bill makes further improvements to Victoria’s integrity regime to ensure our state has the modern and effective structures needed and that it improves transparency. I have been asked to yield to allow the member for Mordialloc, my colleague who was a member of the IBAC Committee, to make his contribution. I commend the bill to the house. Mr RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (18:49): It is a pleasure to rise on the Integrity and Accountability Legislation Amendment (Public Interest Disclosures, Oversight and Independence) Bill 2018, a very important bill in the context of strengthening our accountability regime and another chapter in the significant evolution of this legislation. It is really refreshing to hear coalition members celebrating the enhancement and improvement of an integrity oversight system. If only the member for Rowville could counsel his colleagues in the federal Parliament on the benefits of a robust, cohesive and strong oversight committee and how that instils confidence in our public institutions and our public sector, we would have a better national system like we do in our states. But it was great—if a bit ironic—to hear the passion of the member for Rowville and the member for Gippsland South when they raised those issues as fellow committee members. This bill builds on those three committee reports that were for all intents and purposes well debated and well thought out during our time on the committee. Through at times a very adversarial and turbulent Parliament, the 58th Parliament, the conciliatory and respectful way that the committee was run was a silver lining to the work that we do as members of Parliament. The member for Rowville was a fantastic committee chair. Every element that was debated right across members’ views and interests—passionately at times—was substantial. I think that is a hallmark of our committee process in this Parliament, in which you get substantial work done. We had three outstanding reports that were put forward for the government’s consideration and its legislative agenda. They were worked through very assiduously by committee staff Stephen James and Sandy Cook, who did a power of work informing this committee in its recommendations to government. There was also the evidence that was heard during that time and presented as we went along to our then and now Special Minister of State in the other place. That is a great hallmark of the fact that our system is working and the skills of parliamentarians are on display. The new iteration of that committee going forward, a combination of the Accountability and Oversight Committee and the IBAC Committee, will continue to strengthen that work. The oversight body of IBAC is relatively young in comparison to other jurisdictions. The committee’s work in assessing other jurisdictions, whether it was ICAC in New South Wales or the oversight

BILLS 198 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019 integrity system in Queensland, was really informative to the work the committee did, underpinning its work and recommendations. It really allowed the government to know that we had thoroughly done every bit of work. The committee’s work took us internationally, where we assessed other jurisdictions as well, coming back with landmark findings and recommendations. Throughout that time, particularly around the public disclosure space and the term ‘whistleblower’, we heard some very interesting evidence—that was sometimes confidential or detailed in the committee’s report—of the pressure and burden to come forward in the interests of good governance and integrity in our state to disclose areas of serious misconduct or corruption. We heard about people putting their livelihoods at risk for the betterment of our broader system and the maintenance of confidence in our public service. It would be remiss of me to miss the very point that people still to this day have sacrificed a great deal by coming forward for that greater good and still, through disclosures and through being known through the media, have had their lives really turned upside down. Regarding the notion of a whistleblower, I have always been conflicted by this term. It is very easy to understand what the term ‘whistleblower’ means, but after reflecting on this bill I can see the challenges around the context of that—making it something that almost seems like the exception rather than it being in this sphere of good governance and good public service. ‘Public interest disclosure’ is a term which— and not to get into semantics—lowers the threshold for public understanding and for a wider scope of accountability, and it creates fear and aversion in people to a public interest disclosure. It implies with its very name that to not disclose and to not come forward confidentially when you potentially have an obligation in your role to do that is not the right course of action. A whistleblower is, in a sense, an exception. It is an individual on their own, potentially, as opposed to having an obligation to disclose in the public interest. I think that lowers that threshold and creates a different culture and a different setting in which people consider every single issue, whether it is a minor one, whether it is about procurement or whether it has anything to do with public service and good governance. We have seen examples of that in public examinations and in particular in the education inquiry, which held very significant and exceptional hearings. We saw the importance of that work there. Regarding public examination, this is something that was debated, and I acknowledge the contribution of the member for Rowville. Unfortunately in the political climate we are in, where there is a winner- takes-all adversarial system, independent, broad-based anti-corruption commissions have consistently been gamed through different jurisdictions with different make-ups, such as ICAC, and we have seen it probably at the more extreme level in New South Wales. But IBAC is gamed as a political outfit. While their brief and their terms of reference are very restricted in that sense, we saw the example where people would do a doorstop and say that they were referring someone to IBAC, and there was the instance of the Leader of the Opposition in the previous Parliament referring himself to IBAC. This then lessens or diminishes the importance of that institution and its role. In this context, the effect of a name or a person being mentioned in the context of IBAC can be severe, so the notion that public examinations should be rare and infrequent I think is a good thing in order to protect people’s names and reputations. If you did not have the media lens constantly following people around in a 24-hour media cycle, it would work. In that setting you could have more public examinations, but with the fast- paced media industry now where the media acts as judge, jury and executioner, within a day people’s reputations get buried and ruined by the simple fact that there is a tweet naming someone who is attending a public hearing or that they get seen in the media or in pictures before a public hearing. In the public examination of the inquiry into the misconduct and corruption in contracts with the Department of Education and Training, I think that struck the right balance. It was clear that there had been serious corruption issues in tendering and contracts over two decades. That was irrefutable, that was known and that was present. But what made it more significant was that it brought forward more evidence and more people. When the threshold was clearly met, they then strengthened the case, as it was likely to be heard further through subsequent legal representations of witnesses and the people that were subjected to scrutiny. That is the threshold, and I think it struck the right balance, whereby the IBAC

ADJOURNMENT Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 199

Commissioner knew that there was a serious level of corrupt conduct and that there was an additional benefit to strengthening that case rather than foraging off into a speculative role or a speculative approach and trying to garner more evidence that would potentially put public reputations at stake. This is an important milestone. The best thing about the oversight committee and the IBAC Committee coming together is that we will assess the implementation. That committee will assess the role of this legislation; I am sure they will be riding alongside. Hopefully the enthusiasm and the good work of the former chair, the member for Rowville will continue and likewise the engagement from committee members and any new members in this Parliament. Some of the most enriching work that you can do is on a committee in a conciliatory way. The examples of well-researched recommendations submitted by committee staff and members are testament to that. Into the future the oversight committee, which is now being merged with the IBAC Committee, will continue that work and will see how this is being implemented. I am sure there will be another recommendation to the Special Minister of State on how that is working and as to whether there are any other things that we need to assess going forward. I commend the bill to the house and wish it a speedy passage to strengthen our integrity system and the confidence of members of the public in our public institutions. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Carbines): 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 ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Carbines): The bill will now be sent to the Legislative Council and their agreement requested. SAFE PATIENT CARE (NURSE TO PATIENT AND MIDWIFE TO PATIENT RATIOS) AMENDMENT BILL 2018 Second reading Debate resumed on motion of Mr FOLEY: That this bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Read second time. Third reading Motion agreed to. Read third time. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Carbines): The bill will now be sent to the Legislative Council and their agreement requested. Business interrupted under sessional orders. Adjournment The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Carbines): The question is:

That the house now adjourns.

ADJOURNMENT 200 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019

CHARLTON PARK COMMUNITY HUB Ms STALEY (Ripon) (19:01): (37) My adjournment matter tonight is to the Minister for Regional Development in the other place, and the action I seek is that the government get on immediately with delivering the $350 000 in additional funding for the Charlton Park Community Hub that was ostensibly promised by the then Labor candidate for Ripon in a media release on 22 November 2018. The Labor candidate asserted that a re-elected Andrews Labor government would top up this Charlton Park project with $350 000. The local government area, which is the Buloke shire, and the project have not heard anything about this since then, and it is time sensitive because the project is currently stalled. There are design works that require this amount of money to be delivered with certainty so that they can get on with building this project for which they have been fighting for nearly a decade. The council and the project committee have repeatedly attempted to get some sort of certainty around delivery of this $350 000, and they have been unable to do so. I am reminded of similar announcements by media release that the then Andrews Labor opposition made in 2014 that took significant pressure to get delivered into the northern part of Ripon, and I would be very disappointed to think that the government had not learned from those experiences and in fact was trying to do the same thing again to a community that is doing it pretty hard. The season has not been fabulous again around Charlton, and of course it has been extremely hot up there. I would request that the minister at the table pass this request on to the minister in the other place to get on with delivering this. GORDON GEELONG CITY CAMPUS Ms COUZENS (Geelong) (19:03): (38) My adjournment this evening is for the Minister for Training and Skills in the other place. The action I seek is for the minister to join me in visiting the Gordon Geelong city campus to discuss with the TAFE the Andrews Labor government’s $13.5 million election commitment to upgrade the Gordon culinary school. This upgrade, which is part of the Andrews Labor government’s $220 million Building Better TAFEs Fund election commitment, will deliver state-of-the-art training facilities for cookery and hospitality students in Geelong. The funding will deliver a social enterprise cafe, a new bakery training facility and the Jamie’s Ministry of Food Project. This, along with the Andrews Labor government’s free TAFE for priority courses initiative has been a huge boost to TAFE in my electorate of Geelong. Free TAFE has given so many people in my electorate a chance to study at TAFE where they once simply could not have afforded to, and there has been an enormous amount of inquiries, with more than 80 000 Victorians picking up the phone or submitting an expression of interest form to their local TAFE to find out how they can sign up. As of last Tuesday, when the Premier and Deputy Premier launched free TAFE in 2019, there were 3000 starting their free TAFE course this week. That represents a threefold increase in enrolment numbers for those courses compared to the same time last year. And there will be plenty more starting over the next few weeks when the full array of courses begins. This is in stark contrast to the previous Liberal-Nationals government, who did everything they could to destroy TAFE during their time in office. They slashed the TAFE funding, closed campuses and sacked TAFE teachers. Only Labor can be trusted to continue building Victoria’s TAFE and training system, and we will spend the next four years building on the great work done in our first term. LINDENOW VALLEY IRRIGATORS Mr T BULL (Gippsland East) (19:05): (39) My adjournment matter is to the Minister for Water, who I am pleased to see is at the table this evening, and the action I seek is for the minister to visit the Lindenow Valley irrigators, where I would hope she could outline the government’s plan for improving water security in that sector. The Lindenow Valley irrigators were this week put on stage 10 water restrictions, which is the final stage before a total ban. This industry generates between $100 million and $120 million to the local and state economy.

ADJOURNMENT Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 201

To give some idea of some of the scope of the markets that the Lindenow Valley irrigators service with their produce, they produce 60 per cent of the lettuce that McDonald’s uses right up the eastern seaboard of Australia. That is a very, very significant market, and it is one of many major markets that the Lindenow Valley irrigators service. What many in the chamber may not know is that Gippsland is also home to six of the top 10 leafy lettuce producers in Australia. It is a significant industry right throughout Gippsland, and the Lindenow Valley is home to a number of those producers. One irrigator said to me this week, ‘When we get to this stage, the business plan is just to push ahead and hope that we get a few showers of rain’. For a multimillion-dollar industry that has markets that they need to supply, or ultimately lose if they do not supply, this is far from an ideal business plan. There has been some significant work done on water security in the Lindenow Valley by both state and federal coalition governments over recent years. Firstly, when in government the state coalition provided—I think it was back in 2011—$1 million to investigate water security in the Lindenow Valley. A local committee was appointed, with representation from the irrigators, East Gippsland Water, Southern Rural Water, the East Gippsland Catchment Management Authority and also the East Gippsland shire. Then in 2016 the federal coalition provided a further $550 000 to bring this project to fruition. It was being overseen by Southern Rural Water at that stage. I am advised that study is now complete, with an off-river storage at Stony Creek the preferred option. Given the importance of this sector to the Victorian economy, I request that the minister visit the region and advise of the government’s plans in relation to progressing this project and Lindenow Valley water security more generally. ASHLEY PARK PRIMARY SCHOOL Ms GREEN (Yan Yean) (19:08): (40) I rise to raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Education. The action I seek is for him to visit the latest new school in the 3754 postcode, and that is Ashley Park Primary School in Doreen. They opened last week with 75 students in their first year. Keren Barro, the newly appointed principal of the school, has come from Apollo Parkways Primary School. That is a very large school so it is a big change for her, but I would reassure Keren that I am sure that 75 will not stay 75 for very long, because there are 9000 preschoolers in the Doreen postcode and the school that is being built—at a cost of $19 million—has capacity for 475 students. A number of schools nearby are at capacity. This is a beautiful, brand-new school building. It is in a great bush setting. There is a very large catchment in the area of new housing estates, and students are able to walk to the new school. The different buildings are given Australian bush names, and there are community facilities for student use—basketball, netball and highball courts—performing arts facilities and also outdoor courts. The Andrews Labor government funded a statewide study for Netball Victoria last year to identify what courts and stadia were needed, and it was shown that the northern suburbs had the second highest disparity in Victoria, so those new courts will be a great addition. I know there have been a few little wrinkles with the provision of some of the facilities at the school, but I am sure that that was due to the caretaker period and the election and that these things can be easily resolved. I look forward to working with the school to resolve these matters, and I am sure when the minister visits he will see firsthand what a great school this is. It is the third school to be opened in three years in that postcode area, and that postcode area is now larger than that of Warrnambool, so it needs just as many schools as that great town, where the member for South-West Coast and I grew up. I know that the minister will continue supporting new schools and new communities, and I look forward to seeing him at Ashley Park primary.

ADJOURNMENT 202 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019

AUSSIE FARMS Ms BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (19:11): (41) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Agriculture in the other place, and the action I seek is a government-backed campaign so the community can be confident in what farmers do to protect the environment and care for animals. Many members may not be aware, but late last month animal activist group Aussie Farms launched an interactive map which listed the addresses of farms right across the country, with many in my own electorate. This map insinuates that farms listed are participating in animal cruelty and are intensive factory farms. These claims are baseless, defamatory and a disgusting attempt from this group to push their anti-farming agenda. The website encourages people to go onto farms and take footage and photos of what they see. Farms are not just businesses; they are people’s homes, and many families I have spoken to now feel threatened and unsafe in their own homes, not knowing when or if animal activists will show up on their property. Activists entering properties uninvited also pose a huge biosecurity risk. There are strict parameters in place to stop the spread of disease. If those parameters are not adhered to, animals could become sick and die, the industry would be crippled and the economy would take an enormous hit in terms of lost production. We need to be proactive and talk about the good farming does, not only for the economy but also for the environment, and what farmers do to care for their animals before the activists achieve their goal of stopping farming. Environmental and animal activists are capitalising on the city-country divide, and they use this to their advantage. A government awareness campaign is needed now to help bridge that disconnect and make sure the truth is being told. A key role of the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning is to enable agriculture. Government has a part to play in showing the good things farms do for our environment, which will in turn counter the negatives being pushed by a noisy minority. Sections of the community are very vocal, so it is time to tell the truth about how farms operate and work to look after and improve the landscape, be it via working to minimise erosion, managing the infestation of weeds or pests or planting areas for native animals to live. The community also needs to know there are strict legislative parameters in place and that if farmers do wrong there are consequences. Activists say farmers treat animals cruelly, but in reality the vast majority of farmers I know spend more time and money caring for their animals than they do for themselves. Unless there is a positive campaign with a solid framework supported by government, the vocal minority will win and the benefits of producing quality food for people will be lost. YARRA VALLEY WATER IVANHOE SITE Mr CARBINES (Ivanhoe) (19:14): (42) My adjournment is for the Minister for Priority Precincts in the other place, and it relates to Development Victoria’s proposed planning scheme amendment for the Yarra Valley Water tank site and council park at 419–421 Upper Heidelberg Road in Ivanhoe. I acknowledge that today there was an announcement from the government of a new CEO for Development Victoria. Her name is Angela Skandarajah, and I welcome her to her new role with that announcement today. The action that I seek from the minister is a further briefing from his staff and Development Victoria officials on the latest progress on the project that is commonly referred to as the Yarra Valley Water tank site in Ivanhoe. It is a piece of work that we have been continuously progressing through Development Victoria since October 2016 and through stakeholder and community consultations around the site, effectively more than doubling the public open space on that site. It has also gone to a range of issues of traffic and parking access, new housing opportunities there, height and density, trees and habitat on the site and access to Upper Heidelberg Road. There has been further work on the draft master plan since March 2017, and we have had further consultations on that project.

ADJOURNMENT Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 203

Of course the great desire from my community is to ensure that it protects neighbourhood character in the suburb of Ivanhoe. That has been reflected in other policy work that we have delivered in government, such as mandatory heights in the Ivanhoe activity centre, which we delivered in the last term because the previous coalition government only had those mandatory heights as guidelines, which were constantly ignored by developers. Having been a Banyule city councillor between 2005 and 2010, I know that the future of the water tank site was an issue. I commend Yarra Valley Water for the work they have done with Development Victoria to find what I think is a great outcome. The government wants to make sure that this public lands gets best public value for the community in an area that has suffered some development fatigue and some poor practice for many years. We are very close; we are doing great work. I am keen to make sure that my community is further updated on the next steps so we can continue to advance the best interests of neighbourhood character in the Ivanhoe community along with Development Victoria, the Minister for Priority Precincts, Banyule City Council and of course our most important stakeholders, the local community. PRINCES HIGHWAY–O’NEIL ROAD, BEACONSFIELD Mr BATTIN (Gembrook) (19:17): (43) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Roads, and the action I seek is for traffic lights to be installed at the intersection of O’Neil Road and Princes Highway in Beaconsfield. We wrote to the former Minister for Roads in 2015. The minister stated that construction of the signals was identified in the precinct structure plans and would be funded under the development contributions plan managed by the Cardinia shire. Council in 2017 stated that they had identified in the PSP that this work would be done; however, it would not be done until at least 2021. At a council meeting recently, the CEO stated that only half of the project was funded through the development contributions plan and that they were looking for the state government to fund the other half. Just two weeks ago there was a major accident there. Sonia Pettitt and her family have contacted us. One of her sons was injured at that intersection and received head injuries as a result of the accident. He was taken to hospital. Her other son was taken to hospital but was released very quickly. Her son who had received head injuries came home a couple of days later, and obviously we are hoping that everything is going to be fine. Her family has approached us, as have many others, about the accidents that have happened at this particular intersection. They want to make sure that these lights are put in place. The one thing that the community will not stand for at the moment is an argument between council and the state government about who is responsible for that. The Princes Highway is and always will be a state road, and we do not deny the fact that it is a state government responsibility. However, in fairness, the council has worked to make sure there is 50 per cent funding from the council. So what we are asking is that at least one of you have the courage to go out and say that the money is on the table now and make the other one match it. The reality is that it needs to be done, and it needs to be done soon. I am calling on the minister to make sure that funding is available right now. Leading up to the budget the government can confirm it so we can get this intersection fixed, because the most important thing here is my local community and this is an intersection in a growth area that has become overly dangerous. ACACIA AVENUE PRESCHOOL Mr RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (19:19): (44) My adjournment matter this evening is to the minister responsible for early childhood education, and the action I seek is that the minister join me at Acacia Avenue kindergarten in Mentone to see the progress of their works and the completion of an extraordinary building project which the state government has undertaken in partnership with the Kingston council.

ADJOURNMENT 204 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019

Each and every one of us, whether it is through our own memories and reflections or the reflections of our children or dependents, reflects on the benefit of kindergarten on our children’s or our own education. They are some of the most formative and fond memories we have as we grow and develop. I want to pay tribute to the educators of Acacia Avenue kindergarten—Lalin, Emma, Lisa, Rhonda and Yolande, who have made an extraordinary contribution to this community over a number of years. It was a $650 000 contribution by the state government that made the new Acacia Avenue kinder a reality. It goes with our support and investment in this sector. Our commitment at the most recent state election was to support three-year-old kinder, to invest in early childhood education and to set up this sector. And still we have kinders across Victoria begging the federal government each year for an extra year of funding for early childhood education. It is unacceptable, and it disrespects the work of the sector and what they do to support our youngest Victorians. I also want to put on record and pay tribute to Natalie Firth, the president of Acacia Avenue kinder, who has done an extraordinary amount of work and shown great leadership in securing this outcome. Labor backs early childhood education whether it is in three-year-old kinder or whether it is our capital works agenda supporting kinders, and we will continue to do so in the future. I ask the minister responsible for early childhood education to come and see an example of a first-class kinder in the City of Kingston. ALBURY WODONGA HEALTH Mr TILLEY (Benambra) (19:21): (45) I wish to raise a matter for the Minister for Health in the other place, and the action I seek is for the minister to provide a detailed briefing on the Victorian government’s capital expenditure at Albury Wodonga Health’s two primary campuses over the past four years, including the short and long-term plans for the Wodonga campus. During the recent election campaign a group of medicos saw fit to raise the issue as a political football. They pointed to billion-dollar investments in Ballarat and Bendigo as examples of why the Benambra electorate should be marginal. Clearly they had not done their homework and taken into consideration that Bendigo and Ballarat are both safe Labor seats. But it does raise the question of when Albury Wodonga Health might benefit from the largesse of this government. Albury Wodonga Health’s emergency department has more presentations than both Ballarat and Bendigo and twice as many as Shepparton. It is the largest health service outside Geelong. We need modern hospitals capable of dealing with a catchment of close to 200 000 people. That includes the emergency department, mental health, maternity, and acute and subacute services, along with a myriad of allied health providers. I am an unabashed fan of Albury Wodonga Health, and combining the two state hospitals and services has led to massive gains for our community, attracted doctors and improved outcomes. It was Labor who played a key role in its creation. The now Premier of Victoria was the Minister for Health in the day when the initial agreement was signed on that. I am an absolute fan of Albury Wodonga Health, but its best years were between 2010 and 2014 under the Liberal-National coalition. There was almost $20 million spent on the emergency department, mental health facilities and medical equipment. So when this issue was politicised ahead of 24 November last year, I was left carrying the can for the government’s lack of vision and, more importantly, investment. Albury Wodonga Health has been missing out under Labor’s watch. Albury Wodonga Health should be seen as a shining light of the achievements of two states working together—a health provider straddling borders and delivering results. Last financial year for the first time—and yes, it was under a New South Wales Liberal government and a Victorian Labor government—Albury Wodonga Health service finished in the black. It also treated a record number of patients, and yet this government provides limited capital investment and leaves the community being drip-fed plans and aspirations that are rarely funded by this government. The New South Wales government has promised $20 million for a new emergency department and is hoping it might be matched by the Victorian Labor government.

ADJOURNMENT Tuesday, 5 February 2019 Legislative Assembly 205

Particularly during last year’s round of Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearings the former health minister confirmed that there was master planning for Albury Wodonga Health and a feasibility study and community consultation program being prepared. Now that was back in July. (Time expired) GLENROY WEST PRIMARY SCHOOL Ms BLANDTHORN (Pascoe Vale) (19:24): (46) I appreciate the opportunity to raise an adjournment matter for the attention of the Minister for Education, and the action I seek is that the minister accompany me on a visit to Glenroy West Primary School to see firsthand their facilities and meet with the school community to listen to the ideas for improvement at that school. Glenroy West Primary School is a great school with a proud history. Only recently I was very honoured to join their principal, Pam Streete, assistant principal Anne Kyriacou, teachers, school council president Aaliya Sadaf, parents and students to celebrate the school’s 60th birthday. Over its 60 years of teaching, the school community has worked hard to ensure the key vision and values of the school thrive and make sure that their students are inspired to perform at their best, to grow and to achieve their full potential. The school has a fantastic leadership team. It has great teachers and provides excellent educational opportunities and outcomes for their students. In particular the school represents 36 language groups and stands as an authorised International Baccalaureate World School for the primary years. This school demonstrates all the positive benefits that a strong sense of diversity can have in creating a vibrant and welcoming school community. The school, however, is currently battling with the pressures of a growing and extremely diverse population. The school has a strong desire to build their capacity to extend on their excellent literacy and numeracy outcomes and to enhance their community engagement programs. The school hopes to create a more inclusive educational space, integrating learning across the various year levels in facilities that provide for that to happen flexibly. The school community would greatly appreciate a visit from the education minister to enable them to present their facilities to the minister firsthand, to discuss directly all the challenges that the school faces and to discuss possible solutions for the future. RESPONSES Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine—Minister for Water, Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (19:26): I thank the member for Gippsland East for his question. I am certainly very aware that communities in east and central Gippsland are doing it pretty tough at the moment with drought. It is extremely dry out there. I spoke a bit about that today, just in terms of bushfire conditions and perhaps some of the lowest on record rainfall figures for East Gippsland. I am sure the member knows, given that the opposition did fund a preliminary investigation into this issue about providing some water storage, that it is not an uncomplicated issue. We did seek and receive funding under the commonwealth. The Victorian government sought additional funding to progress the investigation in relation to storage options for the region. That funding has been delivered; that preliminary investigation has been done by Southern Rural Water. Just to explain to the house: any proposal for water storage in that area has to be considered in relation to the sensitive nature of the environment there, particularly the proximity of the Gippsland Lakes—I know the member for Gippsland East is passionate about their health quality as well—and the Mitchell River National Park. So all the investigations are still pretty preliminary. What I have asked Southern Rural Water to do is to work on a strategy to engage properly with the community about having a look at what we need to do—what those options are—and how we take account of some of the issues around the Mitchell River and the Gippsland Lakes. I am also aware that some farmers have invested themselves in some off-river storages or bores to improve their reliability. So I would encourage people to engage very strongly with Southern Rural Water. Any storage built in that area cannot be done lightly, but we are certainly open to looking and working closely with the community about what we need to do in that area.

ADJOURNMENT 206 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 5 February 2019

A number of other members have raised a number of issues with a range of ministers, and I will refer those matters on. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The house is now adjourned until tomorrow. House adjourned 7.28 p.m.