PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

(HANSARD)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

FIFTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT

FIRST SESSION

WEDNESDAY, 28 AUGUST 2019

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

By authority of the Victorian Government Printer

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

The ministry

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

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

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

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

Minister for Crime Prevention, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice and Minister for Victim Support ...... The Hon. BA Carroll, MP

Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, and Minister for Solar Homes ...... The Hon. L D’Ambrosio, MP

Minister for Child Protection and Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers ...... The Hon. LA Donnellan, MP

Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Equality and Minister for Creative Industries ...... The Hon. MP Foley, MP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaker The Hon. CW BROOKS Deputy Speaker Ms JM EDWARDS

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leader of the House Ms JM ALLAN

Manager of Opposition Business Mr KA WELLS

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

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

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

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

Legislative Assembly committees

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

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

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

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

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

Joint committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS Acknowledgement of country ...... 2867 BILLS Police Legislation Amendment (Road Safety Camera Commissioner and Other Matters) Bill 2019...... 2867 Introduction and first reading ...... 2867 Health Legislation Amendment and Repeal Bill 2019 ...... 2867 Introduction and first reading ...... 2867 PETITIONS Newlands Arm bus services ...... 2868 Banyule planning scheme ...... 2868 The Ice Meltdown Project ...... 2868 Waurn Ponds train stabling ...... 2868 DOCUMENTS Documents ...... 2869 BILLS Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment Bill 2019 ...... 2869 Professional Engineers Registration Bill 2019 ...... 2869 Council’s agreement ...... 2869 MEMBERS STATEMENTS Castlemaine Secondary College...... 2869 Earth Core program ...... 2870 Upper Yarra Secondary College ...... 2870 Healesville Interchurch Community Care Inc...... 2870 FareShare ...... 2870 Tim Fischer ...... 2871 Karen Chetcuti ...... 2871 Wear it Purple Day ...... 2871 Gender diversity and inclusion ...... 2871 Daniel ‘Dano’ King ...... 2871 Lara electorate events ...... 2872 State Parliament Victoria Lions Club ...... 2872 Rockbank train station...... 2873 Ukrainian community ...... 2873 Bentleigh Secondary College ...... 2874 Prahran electorate pedestrian and cycling infrastructure ...... 2874 Murrumbeena Primary School ...... 2875 Regional and rural teacher vacancies ...... 2875 Westbreen Primary School ...... 2875 Stephen Walker ...... 2876 Ballarat events ...... 2876 Christina Dickinson ...... 2877 Victoria University Polytechnic ...... 2877 Koonung Secondary College ...... 2877 Broadmeadows electorate revitalisation ...... 2877 STATEMENTS ON PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS Public Accounts and Estimates Committee ...... 2878 Report on the Appointment of a Person to Conduct the Financial Audit of the Victorian Auditor- General’s Office...... 2878 Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee ...... 2879 Annual Review 2018: Regulations and Legislative Instruments ...... 2879 BILLS Children’s Services Amendment Bill 2019 ...... 2880 Statement of compatibility ...... 2880 Second reading ...... 2891 Dangerous Goods Amendment (Penalty Reform) Bill 2019 ...... 2893 Statement of compatibility ...... 2893 Second reading ...... 2895 Marine and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2019...... 2896 Statement of compatibility ...... 2896 Second reading ...... 2901 Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Amendment Bill 2019...... 2903 Second reading ...... 2903 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS

Waste and recycling management ...... 2911 Ministers statements: Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System ...... 2913 Millewa drought ...... 2913 Ministers statements: North East Link ...... 2914 Djab Wurrung sacred trees ...... 2916 Ministers statements: NAPLAN results ...... 2917 Gippsland train services ...... 2918 Ministers statements: home and community care program ...... 2920 Youth violence ...... 2920 Ministers statements: early childhood education...... 2921 CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Murray Plains electorate ...... 2924 Carrum electorate ...... 2924 Brighton electorate ...... 2924 Essendon electorate ...... 2924 Sandringham electorate ...... 2924 Northcote electorate ...... 2925 Prahran electorate ...... 2925 Tarneit electorate ...... 2925 Benambra electorate ...... 2925 Ivanhoe electorate ...... 2926 BILLS Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Amendment Bill 2019...... 2926 Second reading ...... 2926 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Liberal Party policy review ...... 2940 BILLS Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Amendment Bill 2019...... 2964 Second reading ...... 2964 ADJOURNMENT Mornington Peninsula bus services ...... 2997 Bentleigh and McKinnon station shops ...... 2998 Benalla College ...... 2998 Yan Yean electorate roads ...... 2999 Freight-passenger rail separation project ...... 2999 WavLink neighbourhood house ...... 3000 Millewa drought ...... 3000 The Orange Door ...... 3001 South-West Coast electorate energy supply ...... 3001 Bass electorate bus services ...... 3002 Responses ...... 3002

ANNOUNCEMENTS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2867

Wednesday, 28 August 2019

The SPEAKER (Hon. Colin Brooks) took the chair at 9.32 am and read the prayer. Announcements ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY The SPEAKER (09:32): 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. Bills POLICE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (ROAD SAFETY CAMERA COMMISSIONER AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL 2019 Introduction and first reading Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine—Minister for Water, Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (09:33): I move: That I have leave to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Road Safety Camera Commissioner Act 2011, the Victoria Police Act 2013 and the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 and for other purposes. Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (09:34): I ask the minister for a brief explanation of the bill. Ms NEVILLE: This bill will, firstly, empower protective services officers to execute certain warrants, validate past actions by PSOs to execute certain warrants, strengthen the operation of the Road Safety Camera Commissioner Act and enable Victoria Police to complete the timely disposal of found property that is not claimed. Motion agreed to. Read first time. Ordered to be read a second time tomorrow. HEALTH LEGISLATION AMENDMENT AND REPEAL BILL 2019 Introduction and first reading Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Equality, Minister for Creative Industries) (09:34): I move: That I have leave to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Health Services Act 1988, the Mental Health Act 2014 and the Tobacco Act 1987, to repeal the Access to Medicinal Cannabis Act 2016, to consequentially amend other acts as a result of that repeal and for other purposes. Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (09:35): I ask the minister for a brief explanation of the bill. Mr FOLEY: This bill makes a number of important amendments, including strengthening the existing e-cigarette and tobacco advertising prohibitions, repealing the redundant Access to Medicinal Cannabis Act 2016 and allowing for greater information sharing to improve health services, quality and safety. It also makes a number of other miscellaneous and other minor amendments. Motion agreed to. Read first time. Ordered to be read a second time tomorrow.

PETITIONS 2868 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

Petitions Following petitions presented to house by Clerk: NEWLANDS ARM BUS SERVICES To the Legislative Assembly of Victoria This petition of the Newlands Arm Ratepayers and Residents Association (NARRA) draws to the attention of the Legislative Assembly of Victoria, the need for more public transport services for our community. We, therefore, ask the Legislative Assembly of Victoria to support our application to Public Transport Victoria (PTV) for the provision of, non-school bus services. Our Business Case justifies this necessary support for our community. By Mr T BULL (Gippsland East) (71 signatures). BANYULE PLANNING SCHEME The Petition of residents of Victoria draws to the attention of the House to the Banyule Planning Scheme Amendment C152 that seeks to make the interim heritage overlay (HO198) for 22 Arden Crescent, Rosanna permanent. The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Assembly of Victoria act promptly (interim order expires on 1 Nov 2019) in accordance with this request from Banyule City Council, the local residents and wider community and make the amendment to the Heritage Overlay permanent and thereby protect this 115 year old architecturally unique heritage building. By Mr CARBINES (Ivanhoe) (37 signatures). THE ICE MELTDOWN PROJECT To The Legislative Assembly of Victoria. The Petition of Residents of West Gippsland draws the attention of the House to the operation of The Ice Meltdown Project in West Gippsland. This is a project which works to set people free from life-crippling addictions, such as addiction to ice, and was pioneered by Janice Ablett, whose tireless voluntary work in this area has been acknowledged Australia wide through her recent receipt of an Order of Australia Medal. While many programs work to help addicts cope with their problem, this project has an impressive success rate in not only freeing ice addicts from their addiction and from the lifestyles their addictions have forced them to live in supporting their drug habits, but also in restoring their broken family and social relationships. In the past five years the project has had hundreds of people seek assistance, and is able to claim nearly a 70% success rate where former addicts remain free after two years. After receiving an AMP grant of $100,000 three years ago, the project is now running out of funds, having received no government assistance, relying solely on small pockets of community support. Unless funds are forthcoming in the immediate future, this unique project, which is widely supported within the West Gippsland community, faces imminent closure. The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Assembly of Victoria prioritize immediate funding and business support services for The Ice Meltdown Project to ensure its continuance and to help guide them in expansion of their service. By Mr BLACKWOOD (Narracan) (474 signatures). WAURN PONDS TRAIN STABLING The Petition of residents of Waurn Ponds, Mt Duneed, Freshwater Creek, Moriac and surrounding communities in Victoria draws to the attention of the House, the Planning Scheme Amendment application at 255 Reservoir Road, Mt Duneed, for the purpose of building a 60 hectare, Waurn Ponds Train Stabling & Maintenance Yard. This prime farming land will be rezoned from Farming Zone to Public Use Zone. The landowners and community strongly object to prime farming land being rezoned for a Train Facility. Once it is gone, it is gone forever. In addition, the train facility will significantly impact this established and successful farm and the 3 generations of family who operate the farm. The family have held the land for 112 years and have no plans to reduce or cease farming on this property. The farm is Victoria's oldest Merino property and currently runs 8,000 merino sheep. The proposed train facility will dissect the farm, block the farms’ access between the grazing land and the farms’ shearing sheds, machinery sheds, yards, silos and other infrastructure.

DOCUMENTS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2869

It will also block environmental water flows to the farm dams used for watering stock. Rail Projects Victoria (RPV) have not consulted with the landowners over a workable solution for farm access around the train facility. The train facility proposal is unreasonable and devastating to the farm and family. The location will also impact the amenity of the community with noise and light pollution. RPV have not consulted with the landowners and their families, or the community, regarding the 60 hectare train development. There is an alternate site, the 9.5 km² site adjacent to the farm, it is industrial and vacant land. The site is zoned Special Use and is owned by Boral Australia. Since 2015, Boral have ceased quarrying operations on this site. They plan to close the cement works while relocating these operations to the Port of Geelong in the near future. This site offers a number of options, and it is not Farming Zone. The Petitioners therefore request the Legislative Assembly of Victoria directs The Minister of Transport and Rail Projects Victoria to develop the Waurn Ponds train facility on the alternate site to secure a sustainable and strong outcome for all stakeholders. By Mr CHEESEMAN (South Barwon) (153 signatures). Tabled. Ordered that petition be considered next day on motion of Mr CARBINES (Ivanhoe). Ordered that petition be considered next day on motion of Mr T. BULL (Gippsland East). Ordered that petition be considered next day on motion of Mr BLACKWOOD (Narracan). Documents DOCUMENTS Tabled by Clerk: Auditor-General—Managing Registered Sex Offenders—Ordered to be published Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986—Certificate under s 7 Voluntary Assisted Dying Review Board—Report of operations 2018–19. Bills BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES REGISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL 2019 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS REGISTRATION BILL 2019 Council’s agreement The SPEAKER: I have received messages from the Legislative Council agreeing to the following bills without amendment: the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment Bill 2019 and the Professional Engineers Registration Bill 2019. Members statements CASTLEMAINE SECONDARY COLLEGE Ms EDWARDS (Bendigo West) (09:39): Last Friday I was thrilled to join with school leaders, principal Paul Fry and school council president Beth Mellick at Castlemaine Secondary College to turn the first sod, marking construction of the $11.75 million final stage of the new secondary college. This is a significant milestone for the school, the only secondary college in the Mount Alexander shire. The journey to a new school has been supported by the local council and by the broader community. It is fantastic to see so much passion and commitment in this community for the new school. While there has been a little sense of nostalgia as the old school buildings have been demolished, there is also great excitement that this school will be completed by the end of 2020. The final and largest stage includes completion of the performance precinct, a new administration area, a new library and an artisans precinct. The scope includes art studios, a gallery, a training kitchen, canteen and general learning studios as well. This builds on stages already completed, including the engineers and STEM precinct as well as the wellbeing centre. Congratulations to Y2 Architecture on

MEMBERS STATEMENTS 2870 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019 the design and to Fairbrother Construction, who are the appointed builders. Congratulations to everyone who has been involved in this project. I am proud to represent the community of Castlemaine and district who are so engaged and supportive of this new school build. EARTH CORE PROGRAM Ms EDWARDS: On Saturday I was pleased to attend a successful Pick My Project event at Mount Tarrengower in Maldon. Mirawara, a Castlemaine-based not-for-profit enterprise, was successful in gaining $94 755 from Pick My Project. The Earth Core program was established as a result. The program aims to create a community of young people who connect with nature and can learn about the local Dja Dja Wurrung history, culture and people. UPPER YARRA SECONDARY COLLEGE Ms McLEISH (Eildon) (09:40): I extend my congratulations to the Upper Yarra Secondary College on its recent production, Superheroes Unite. The school is to be commended for its effort to rebuild the drama department and hold an annual production. I was delighted to meet students both before and after the performance, and I was impressed by the interaction of students ranging from years 7 to 12, who were well-supported by their enthusiastic producer, Tessa Kinsella, as well as many other staff. It was clear that many hours of practice paid off and everyone enjoyed the experience. Well done to Roxanne Van Velp Fernand, Ashlee Shotter, Ella MacDonald, Katyayani Sagar-Gordon, Billie Mills, Harrison Green, Cooper Allum, Grace Bray, Talei Whiteside, Ashlyn Hermansen, Amy Upton-Stokes, Matilda Paterson, Chloe Brown, Aidan Tsoumbakos, Jessica Bennett, Jordynne Castleton, Josh Pitts, Monique Lee; the ninjas, Jacinta Tait, Ella Tattersall, Cheyenne Robinson- Sambrooks, Syndal Butler, Josie Mayne, Ryan Poile; and the technical crew, Alexandra Stubna and Callum Richardson. HEALESVILLE INTERCHURCH COMMUNITY CARE INC. Ms McLEISH: Congratulations to HICCI, Healesville Interchurch Community Care Inc., on their 30th birthday. HICCI provides a wonderful service in Healesville and Yarra Glen. Seven Christian churches work together to provide emergency relief, outreach services, transport, community meals and interest-free loans to those with needs. The needs identified 30 years ago when HICCI was established remain today. The organisation has grown significantly and has at times been tested, but does not falter in service delivery. Congratulations to each of the churches, the many volunteers and staff Allison, Sheree, Evelyn, Margaret and Ann on a job well done. FARESHARE Mr WYNNE (Richmond—Minister for Housing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Planning) (09:42): Earlier this month I was delighted to attend the FareShare charity kitchen in Abbotsford, joined by the Premier, FareShare CEO Marcus Godinho and volunteers from across Melbourne. FareShare is a wonderful social enterprise who rescues surplus—and importantly— quality food from supermarkets, businesses, wholesalers and farmers and, through the hard work of 1000 volunteers, turns this into nutritious meals for our most vulnerable Victorians. Currently in Melbourne FareShare produces 6000 free meals a day. This organisation is so successful that it currently has a waiting list of almost a further 1000 people hoping to volunteer for FareShare. Last year the Andrews Labor government committed $2.5 million to help this incredible organisation expand and deliver even more meals to people doing it tough across Victoria. I was amazed to learn that this investment will enable the production of an extra 15 000 meals per week. Many of the meals that the Premier and I saw volunteers preparing went on to be served by members of this house during their participation at various homeless week events. Organisations we all know so well, such as Vinnies Van, the Salvation Army and of course the iconic Father Bob Maguire Foundation would be with little food to serve without the enormously charitable efforts of FareShare. I congratulate

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2871

FareShare on its enormous benefit to Victorians, and encourage those in the house to remember the role we can play in advancing food security for the most vulnerable in our communities. TIM FISCHER Mr McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (09:43): Vale, Tim Fischer, a champion bloke, a wonderful ambassador and a down-to-earth politician. Last week Australia lost a man who personified country values and truly knew how to respect others. I hold Tim Fischer in high regard as a man who served in Vietnam, and we know most Vietnam veterans were initially unfairly treated for their service. But that never stopped Tim Fischer from achieving great things for his community and his country. As a New South Wales politician he understood that all politics is local and representing your electorate came first. As Deputy Prime Minister of Australia he earned the respect of his peers and was respected by opposing politicians. Tim Fischer was proud to wear the iconic akubra, and he wore it well. He was a train fanatic till the end, and as a mark of respect I will be catching the train to his memorial service in Albury tomorrow. But most of all Tim Fischer was a wonderful husband and father, and in the end they are the two most important qualities that define a man during his life. He was a great mentor to all community leaders and was loved by all. Vale, Tim Fischer. Your life’s work has been an outstanding example to all. KAREN CHETCUTI Mr McCURDY: Yesterday we learned that Michael Cardamone had lost his bid to have a parole period imposed on his life sentence for the brutal murder of Ovens Valley local Karen Chetcuti. Common sense has prevailed and the Court of Appeal has refused Cardamone’s application for leave to appeal. Cardamone is an evil killer who will die behind bars for his horrific crime. Ms Chetcuti was a much-loved member of the Wangaratta and Whorouly communities, and while she will be forever missed by her family, it will go a long way to assisting the healing process. WEAR IT PURPLE DAY Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Equality, Minister for Creative Industries) (09:45): This Friday, 30 August, is Wear it Purple Day, a day to celebrate and reaffirm diversity in sexuality and gender identity amongst young people. It is a day to recognise diversity as a real strength in our community. I want to particularly give a call-out to Minus 18, a youth-led organisation of same-sex attracted and diverse young people, whose mission is to build an inclusive and fair community for LGBTIQ young people. Wear it Purple Day arises in response to stories of bullying and harassment and their impact particularly on teenagers. This included Tyler Clementi, who took his own life after being bullied after a series of cyberbullying attacks. The community came together in response, first with overwhelming grief and sharing similar tragic stories from across the world, and then by taking action, with a day of support and fundraising. Wear it Purple Day has grown to ensure every young person knows they are loved, they are supported and they are part of our community. I urge all MPs in this place to take the opportunity to both celebrate and express support for the day by getting involved in the multitude of local grassroots events or simply by wearing purple and standing with LGBTIQ young people as a legitimate part of our community. GENDER DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION Mr FOLEY: I also take this opportunity to mark the passage last night of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment Bill 2019, which reaffirms the right, particularly of gender- diverse and trans Victorians, including young people, to have their foundation identity document, their birth certificate, reflect who they are—a long overdue reform, well endorsed by this Parliament. DANIEL ‘DANO’ KING Mr HODGETT (Croydon) (09:46): I rise today to congratulate Daniel ‘Dano’ King on playing his 250th game with the South Croydon Football Club last Saturday, 24 August 2019, against the Montrose Football Club at Cheong Park. Daniel is only the second player in the club’s proud history

MEMBERS STATEMENTS 2872 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019 to achieve this significant milestone. What a remarkable football journey it has been, and I place it on record. Dano has won five senior best and fairest awards and been part of two senior premierships— one as captain, where he was also best on the ground. He has won an Eastern Football League Chandler Medal, been named in the EFL division 1 team of the year four times and is part of South Croydon’s Teams of the Decade 2000–09 and 2010–19 as captain. Dano began his football with the South Croydon junior club in the under-10s in 1997. His commitment to South Croydon since those beginnings has never wavered, even if the opportunities to play elsewhere presented themselves. In a social media post last week on the South Croydon Instagram account, it states: Dano epitomises the culture that the South Croydon Football Club endears—mateship, selflessness and commitment. He has lead the club through its most successful era and will forever be remembered for what he has given our great club both on and off the field. Few have given so much for such a prolonged period. His team mates tell us what a privilege and honour it has been to play alongside him, while the club members and supporters have been provided much joy watching Dano develop his skills and determination over a long period. Dano King. South Croydon Football Club. 250 games. Loyalty. Leader. Legend. Daniel, your football career at the South Croydon Football Club is second to none: outstanding service through juniors and seniors that has seen many rewards, accolades and premierships. Congratulations on reaching and playing your 250th senior game with the club, and best wishes for a successful finals campaign this year in the EFL premier league. LARA ELECTORATE EVENTS Mr EREN (Lara) (09:48): It has been a busy time in my electorate of Lara. Since the last sitting week I have been able to officially open the Elcho Road roundabout in Lara. The roundabout is part of a package of almost $50 million to boost safety along the Geelong-Bacchus Marsh Road between Lara and Maddingley. Also, passionate soccer players at the Lara United Football Club have a female-friendly pavilion, thanks to a funding boost from the Labor government and the City of Greater Geelong. It was great to be there on Saturday, 17 August, to officially open the $950 000 rooms. Last week I was also able to take a tour of the Purnell Road Integrated Child and Family Centre. This $13 million project has been funded through a partnership with the state government and the City of Greater Geelong. In addition to this we have also contributed funds to the Northern Bay College Wexford campus, which will make improvements to the school and also create a unique hub between the school and the centre. I was also honoured to celebrate the graduation of students from the Northern Futures individual support program. Congratulations to the graduates, and special thanks to Northern Futures for the wonderful work they are doing in the north. Thank you to the Lara RSL sub-branch for inviting me to officially unveil two historical pieces last week. These were funded from the Victoria Remembers minor grant program. It was great to see children from local schools in attendance. Both restored articles can be seen at the Lara RSL museum. Saturday night was a great night celebrating the North Geelong Warriors Women’s Gala. Special thanks to the club for their hard work in organising such a wonderful evening. It was a great opportunity to celebrate the role of women in the club. Special congratulations to Miss Croatia 2019 Juliana Zdelar, Volunteer of the Year Lydia Dzajkic and footballer achievement winner Laura Spiranovic. STATE PARLIAMENT VICTORIA LIONS CLUB Mr RIORDAN (Polwarth) (09:49): The parliamentary Lions this morning hosted a fantastic gathering of Lions from right across the state of Victoria for our monthly breakfast meeting. It was

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2873 great to see particularly from my own electorate Ann Marie and Ross Lander from Bannockburn, Delwyn Seebeck from the wonderful club in Forrest and Phillip and Anne Johnson from the Colac Lions. They joined many others from as far away as Port Fairy and across the state. We thank them for making the effort to come along and join us. It was good to hear this morning not only from the district governor but to hear from one of the many hardworking groups of volunteers that are within Lions, who are working on the skin cancer screening unit. The skin cancer screening unit is a project that they hope to have up early next year as a free service mainly for country Victorians whereby a van fully funded by the Lions clubs of Victoria will drive around offering free skin cancer diagnosis to help people. There is believed to be an up to six- month wait for many country Victorians on being able to see a dermatologist and have their skin checked. With nearly 2000 Australians a year dying of skin cancer—and in Victoria alone it is a rate one and a half times greater than the road toll—this is a fantastic service requiring funding of about $500 000 to kick it off, which is great value considering what these types of services cost and mean to communities. So if the Lions skin cancer unit is in your area, it is important that you support it and get behind the project. ROCKBANK TRAIN STATION Ms KAIROUZ (Kororoit—Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Suburban Development) (09:51): On 25 August I was delighted to attend the unveiling of the rebuilt Rockbank station in my electorate of Kororoit. The reopening of the station is a major milestone and the first of four station upgrades, part of a half-a-billion-dollar upgrade to the Ballarat line. I want to thank the Rockbank community for their patience as the station was closed for two months and for the past 18 months whilst construction could be completed safely. The rebuild was a massive undertaking, with the station effectively demolished and rebuilt from the ground up. Rockbank’s population grew by almost 30 per cent between 2011 and 2016 and will eventually reach 22 000 people. It was important that the station was transformed from a bare two platforms and gravel car park into a convenient, modern transport hub. Congratulations to everybody who worked tirelessly over the past 18 months. The project was a huge success. It was great to see the Melbourne Renegades, the Aintree Stallions, the Melton Valley Rotary Club, Melton City Council, V/Line and Rail Projects Victoria staff and the Rockbank community out and about on Sunday, getting involved with all the activities taking place at the reopening of this magnificent station. It is extremely important that we as a government continue to have public transport infrastructure in place for these growing communities. The upgrade to the Ballarat line, which has been a huge success over the last few years, will be completed by the end of next year, and I certainly look forward to seeing what my community have to say when they see this wonderful upgrade transformed by the end of the year. UKRAINIAN COMMUNITY Mr GUY (Bulleen) (09:52): I rise today to pay tribute to Victoria’s Ukrainian community, who last weekend celebrated the 70th and official anniversary of the founding of the Association of Ukrainians in Victoria. The Saturday event was also to celebrate Independence Day of Ukraine, celebrating the liberation of the nation from 70 years of soviet communist occupation in 1991. I was pleased to be joined by a great friend of the community, the member for St Albans; Mr Atkinson from the other place; as well as Ukraine’s ambassador, Mr Mykola Kulinich. The Ukrainian community is a small but proud community. They have worked hard to keep alive and relevant so many traditions of their founding generations: dance, culture, language, youth groups and of course food. But they are proud Australians, integrating into our legal, sporting, political and educational institutions—in fact almost every part of Australian life. The Ukrainian community is also a huge and proud participant in our multicultural institutions, supporting established and new

MEMBERS STATEMENTS 2874 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019 communities in their drive to keep alive culture and history while being true to our wonderful home, Australia. Last Saturday the Lithuanian, Polish and Latvian communities were there to help celebrate. There is a new and growing bond between our two nations since the Abbott government opened Australia’s first embassy in Kyiv. That move was exceptionally well received in Kyiv and means so much to former soviet nations like Ukraine, who now understand that the national policy of this nation is no longer to view them through the prism of the soviet era but as nations, cultures and people in their own right. Seventy years for the Association of Ukrainians in Victoria—it is also just a few days away from my own mother’s arrival in Australia, originally from Ukraine, so with your indulgence I will send a short message in Hansard—as much as they get confused by Cyrillic—to Victoria’s wonderful Ukrainian community: Deputati І Раnі І Panovi. Українці—горді австралійці. Ми любимо Австралію. Українці пишаються нашою нацією; Україна ще не вмерла! Slava Ukrainini. BENTLEIGH SECONDARY COLLEGE Mr STAIKOS (Bentleigh) (09:54): The Wedding Singer, what a show! Congratulations, Bentleigh Secondary College, especially the cast: Joel Nankervis and Jessie Pirret, two natural performers; as well as Sebastian Wescombe, Rishika Naik, Lucas Petropoulos, Raphael Nafisi, Ester Rubino, Jasmine Sanchez-Butt, Tia Lambas, Alyssa Kyri-Ovenden, Andii Box, Ashleigh Fitzsimon, Bianka Tsan, Braydn Morisi, Brendan Guy, Chrissy Bonikos, Christiana Malotsis, Daniella Stolyarsky, Emma North, Holly Pirret, Jake Murphy, Joseph Folwell, Luka Munro, Marisia Zapantis, Matthew Yianni, Olivia Murphy, Roxy Hellwege, Rylee Allanby, Tess Harvey, Zoe Robinson, Aimee Kay, April Simmons, Cece Rickards, Charli Curtis, Eboni Crawford, Ebony Rae Mann, Ella Boyes, Emily Liberman, Evie Mounter, Gypsy Folwell, Hannah Tyrell, Holly Connelly, Jack Murphy Downs, Jasmine Mckie, Jorja Bell, Kiri Nikolitsis, Klaudia Nantz, Lachlan Hardy, Lili Vafiades, Maddy Houlihan, Maya Thurlow, Milly Nankervis, Oliver Thomas, Ruby Hartley, Sophia Lambas, Sophie Berry, Tommy Valentini and Zoe Marshall. Congratulations also to the orchestra and everyone who worked behind the scenes, including their fantastic director, Jacinta Egan. They just get better and better each year. Well done, Bentleigh Secondary College. PRAHRAN ELECTORATE PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE Mr HIBBINS (Prahran) (09:55): I rise to speak on the need for safer pedestrian and cycling infrastructure in the Prahran electorate. Being able to walk and ride around safely in our community is absolutely essential to keeping Prahran a liveable place and making it accessible for everyone, particularly for those who cannot or choose not to drive, young people, families, parents with prams and elderly citizens. It is essential if we are going to reduce transport emissions and tackle climate change—transport emissions of course are rising—and it is far better for people’s cost of living and people’s health. But for the billions that are spent on transport infrastructure in Victoria only around 1 per cent or so goes to supporting people who walk or ride their bike. Many residents have continually raised with me the dangerous pedestrian crossings at various places across the Prahran electorate: Dandenong Road, Yarra Street next to the South Yarra station, Punt Road and Alexandra Avenue in Toorak. They are frustrated that nothing has been done. We should not have to wait until there is an accident to be improving particular pedestrian crossings in the Prahran electorate. We have also got most of our tram stops across the electorate unprotected and unsafe, where cars are failing to stop for passengers getting on and off the tram. There is a need for more separated bike lanes.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2875

We need them as soon as possible on St Kilda Road, but we also need to look at what can be done across Chapel Street and other main streets in the Prahran electorate. MURRUMBEENA PRIMARY SCHOOL Mr DIMOPOULOS (Oakleigh) (09:57): We are incredibly lucky to sit in this place and have the opportunity to speak our minds, because there is no shortage of smart minds and good ideas outside this Parliament. I was reminded of that when watching members statements video submissions for the Parliament Prize from students at Murrumbeena Primary School. What an amazing group of students. Statements were carefully researched and delivered with real passion. Alexis Liew spoke about closing the pay gap and equal pay for women. Alyvia Liew thinks it is about time we started to protect endangered species. Chantelle Williams also raised the gender pay gap, domestic violence and the declining number of male teachers. Eric Tran spoke of fossil fuels and global warming and the need to invest in sustainable energy sources. Evelyn Marcou raised the excessive use of plastics in our everyday lives, including in supermarkets. Hridya Kozhumal Chattdi wants to see a ban on the cruel practice of animal testing. Lakshithaa Ravindran wants our earth to be safe in the future and to put an end to coal mining. Maithili Lal spoke about the gender pay gap and protecting our natural environment. Maleesha Dharmadasa is concerned about the outsourcing of Australian industry and wants to see more local investment. Sophia Bromley believes pollution is a disaster, taxes should be placed on polluting industries and funding increased for pollution-related illnesses. Sophia Davis would also like to see an end to inhumane animal testing, arguing that we should seek alternatives. Tessa Torok wants to change laws to keep us safe and clean, including tougher laws against littering and drink-driving. Thank you to all the students, I am very impressed. And thank you to teachers Caitlin Callanan and Natalie Beach, who should be very proud of the work they do with these terrific kids at Murrumbeena Primary School. REGIONAL AND RURAL TEACHER VACANCIES Mr TILLEY (Benambra) (09:58): Our educators, our parents, our students and of course I wish to put the Minister for Education on notice. The Benambra district is facing a critical shortage of teachers in all sectors of our primary and secondary schools. Teaching vacancies that once attracted 10 applications are lucky to get one or two, and in some cases none. Senior leadership roles in more remote locations have been vacant for several years. Getting a casual relief teacher is near impossible. Educators with more than three decades of experience say they have never seen it worse. Maths, science, technology, woodwork, metalwork, special education and primary school teachers are all in short supply. I have met with regional education leaders and they know cash bonuses are only a temporary fix. Some states subsidise HECS debts; others provide incentives to teach in remote schools. The education leaders say that the current 12 month fixed-term appointments do not get teachers out of Melbourne, nor does the idea of having to travel a 7-hour round trip for a professional development day. As we know, these are all resourceful people. We are currently to embark on programs locally. We are embarking on programs with local universities to develop the next generation of teachers, and it will assist to have the support from this government. They have other ideas as well, but they need action. Minister, when your Expert Advisory Panel for Rural and Regional Students tables its report in October this year, the issue must be addressed. WESTBREEN PRIMARY SCHOOL Ms BLANDTHORN (Pascoe Vale) (10:00): It was exciting to recently pay a visit to Westbreen Primary School to have a look at their newly completed all-abilities playground. In October last year I joined this school community to announce that $80 000 from the Andrews Labor government inclusive school funding program would be provided to build an all-abilities playground on the new

MEMBERS STATEMENTS 2876 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019 school grounds. I am so proud to represent a government that is investing in such important education infrastructure projects like this one, making our state really the Education State for all. On this visit I was kindly greeted by the school leaders, who are so thrilled to see this project finally completed and to have access to such a unique range of playground equipment that engages all of their senses. The students intuitively discussed the importance of this project for their peers, and they are so glad to be part of a school community where everyone can learn and play together and where no-one misses out. Exploring the playground was a lot of fun. There are foam-padded poles to weave through, echoing microphones to speak into that can be heard from one side of the playground to the other, a ramp up to the new cubbyhouse and musical bells to jump on. Indeed one student has even crafted his own tune to the bells that he tutored us all in. Principal Tony Cerra is overjoyed at seeing this important project reach its completion. He has seen firsthand the excitement and elation from all members of the school community enjoying this equipment all day long. He spoke about how his teachers are even able to weave this new equipment into their curriculum. I have encouraged all eligible schools in my community to apply to the next round of this important program, which is closing soon. STEPHEN WALKER Mr MAAS (Narre Warren South) (10:01): Melbourne’s music community was recently saddened by the passing of public radio station 3RRR’s Stephen Walker on 3 July. Stephen was 3RRR’s program manager for 14 years and a volunteer presenter with the station for 37 years. His long-running show The Skull Cave, a reference to Phantom comics, was one of the most popular on the 3RRR programming grid. It coined his nickname at the station, where he was known as ‘The Ghost’. He called himself the nemesis of mediocre radio everywhere. He is credited with shaping the sound of 3RRR during the late 1980s and 90s and giving some form to the programming style and operation of the station—a style and operation that has seen the station thrive as an integral part of Melbourne’s music and arts community. His work during this period defined the culture of the station and also contributed to Melbourne’s evolving culture of the street. His on-air presence was something that was looked forward to by his listeners—a booming baritone voice, a wonderful turn of phrase, a wisdom that went beyond his words, a deep knowledge of eclectic styles of music and an uncanny knack of predicting who or what would be the next big thing. In 2011 Stephen was the first radio presenter to be inducted into the Age Music Victoria Hall of Fame for his contribution to Melbourne culture. He joined 3RRR in the early 1980s as a volunteer and continued as a presenter until he decided to hang up his microphone in the middle of last year. He suffered from MS, and he battled it for a long time. Ultimately it was a short battle with cancer that took his life. Stephen, we will plant you now, dig you later, trust the energy and do our best. (Time expired) BALLARAT EVENTS Ms ADDISON (Wendouree) (10:03): What a weekend we have had in Ballarat: performance, motorsport, art and footy—something for everyone. Not only was Ballarat alive with the sound of music at the Royal South Street Eisteddfod but Ballarat hosted world-class motorsport with the Eureka Rush, with some of our nation’s best rally teams competing. A special thankyou to Justin Hunt from the CAMS Australian Rally Championship and Tim Shepherd for the opportunity to do a lap of the Ballarat West employment zone in a rally car. It was also the opening weekend of the Ballarat International Foto Biennale, with the opening of Liu Bolin’s Camouflage at the Art Gallery of Ballarat and Dr Fiona Foley’s exhibition at the Mining Exchange. On Sunday morning there was more action, when the AFL came to Ballarat. With a sellout

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2877 crowd at Mars Stadium for the Western Bulldogs and Adelaide Crows do-or-die clash, the game did not disappoint. These significant sporting and cultural events are so important to the Ballarat community, providing a substantial boost to the local economy and creating jobs. I would like to thank the Premier, the Treasurer, the Minister for Creative Industries and the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events for their commitment to supporting great events in Ballarat. I am proud the Andrews Labor government is investing in what makes Ballarat a great place to live and visit, and we will continue to deliver big events for the region. CHRISTINA DICKINSON Ms ADDISON: I would also like to take this opportunity to wish Christina Dickinson a very happy birthday. She is a wonderful sister and an amazing person. I love her very much. VICTORIA UNIVERSITY POLYTECHNIC Ms SULEYMAN (St Albans) (10:04): I was very excited to be part of the launch of Australia’s first cybersecurity training centre at Victoria University Polytechnic in St Albans in partnership with Cisco. The state-of-the-art facility will give students skills and training for jobs now and of course in the future, filling the gap in this very important and rapidly growing sector. Thanks to our government, students are also able to complete certificate IV in cybersecurity as part of the free TAFE program. We can see and I certainly can see the potential these partnerships will bring to St Albans, and I know there will be other organisations and companies. There is no doubt St Albans has the capacity to be the next Silicon Valley and have more partnerships, and I would like to see Google and other organisations also see the potential of St Albans. I would like to thank the vice-chancellor of Victoria University, Peter Dawkins; vice-president of Cisco Australia, Ken Boal; Cisco director of government affairs, Tim Fawcett; and of course the dedicated VU teachers and staff for working with me in the past three years to transform and renew St Albans campus. I think that there are a lot more partnerships and fantastic opportunities for St Albans campus. We have seen St Albans in partnership with the Sunshine campus of VU become a jobs and skills centre. On another matter, I wish to send my heartfelt— (Time expired) KOONUNG SECONDARY COLLEGE Mr HAMER (Box Hill) (10:06): Congratulations to Koonung Secondary College on another incredible musical production. This year’s performance of Legally Blonde was terrific and a real pleasure to watch, thanks to its first-rate production quality and terrific acting by all involved. Well done to the fabulous cast of Ruby Earl, Harrison Vavra, Annie Hawkins, Zac Dooley, Emma Hocking, Imogen Kent, Celeste Watkins, Charlotte Field, Elisha Punay, Evie Tudor-Matthew, Eric Zou, Gwen Fowler, Eva Healey, Sarah Whitebrook, Halle Henson, Mietta De Luise, Keira Singleton, Amelie Storrar-Carey, Imogen Adams, Sarah Croyden, Ben Harding, Henry Andrew, Joe Healey, Sebastian Jose, Haley Alday, Zara Priestley, Tinka Schmid, Mary Elyas and Carina Calcagno. This wonderful production would not have been possible without an equally magnificent crew, and although I do not have time to name everyone involved, I would like to congratulate Will Assai, Jordan Smith and Katherine Hadji-Michael and their backstage crew: Oliver Forman, Ava Booth and Mitchell Sharkie on sound; Sam Smillie, Tiana Cormick, Lachlan Tolliday and Francis Healey on lighting; and all of the girls on hair and make-up. And one final special shout-out to producer Chelsea Thomas and director Mark Anderson, who brought it all together. Well done to all involved. I cannot wait for 2020. BROADMEADOWS ELECTORATE REVITALISATION Mr McGUIRE (Broadmeadows) (10:07): The smarter on crime campaign is winning support. Leaders from business and sporting organisations are backing the strategy to address the causes of crime through lifelong learning, skills and jobs, and connecting the disconnected. The Andrews Labor

STATEMENTS ON PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS 2878 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019 government is coordinating a series of initiatives to address the social determinants of life. These include lifelong learning, health and opportunity. I am also delighted that the multiversity is expanding in Broadmeadows. The Hume Multiversity is an innovation ecosystem, improving relationships between business, education and community through the provision of a range of programs and services which raise local aspiration and build opportunity. Features include access to tertiary courses, internships with industry and developing an entrepreneurial culture from education at the primary school level to higher education and the services sector. The Minister for Housing also invested $90 000 in the community connections program. This is an investment that will help change lives and save lives because it is into Banksia Gardens Community Services, which helps reduce crime and antisocial behaviour and improves resident outlooks and aspirations, their health and their wellbeing. It provides education, employment, recreation and social opportunities where they are needed most. I am also delighted that the Victorian government allocated $116.5 million for medical research. One of these is the GenV project to help children. Statements on parliamentary committee reports PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES COMMITTEE Report on the Appointment of a Person to Conduct the Financial Audit of the Victorian Auditor- General’s Office Mr McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (10:09): I am delighted to rise and make a contribution on a committee report today. Sadly we have only got one committee report so far in the Parliament in this term, and that is the Report on the Appointment of a Person to Conduct the Financial Audit of the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, which was tabled in 2019. It is an important appointment because we do put our trust in the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO). This recommendation from the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee is an important one because it is about ensuring that there is someone watching over the ones doing the watching. It is an office which shines a light on many government activities and duties, and often we see a number of recommendations arise from Auditor-General’s reports which should be taken into consideration and should be put in place when it comes to the government’s planning, how they will change and how they do business into the future. I would like to congratulate the new financial auditor, Mr Geoff Parker, for his appointment to the role. I am sure that he will continue to do an excellent job in upholding the financial duties of the Auditor-General’s office. He will ensure that the body is being monitored and audited, which gives confidence that this information is in fact correct. Hence the appointment of a person to audit the practices of VAGO itself is in itself an oversight that is required in the Westminster system here in Victoria. It can sometimes be forgotten or just overlooked in the current development of the Westminster system that Parliament’s role is not to be the executive, as those on the government benches believe, but to form the executive and keep the executive accountable. A recent VAGO report showed massive changes in investment. Moira shire, for example, which attracted $7.8 million under the coalition government, received only $2 million under the current government. The Alpine shire got $7.9 million under the coalition and only $l million under Labor in the same time frame. I would like to refer to the background to some of the responsibilities of the financial auditor, and they are around ensuring that the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office is achieving its objectives effectively and doing so economically and efficiently in compliance with the Audit Act 1994. This is something that is very important because we need to make sure that we have the powers given to the Auditor- General but the financial support as well to ensure that the office can undertake full and comprehensive audits on government departments and the bureaucracy. This is most important because we have got some important audits that have been put together in the annual plan for VAGO in the coming year.

STATEMENTS ON PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2879

The VAGO team really put an enormous amount of work into producing these comprehensive reports. It does help us to identify where there are gaps in the government system, and helps to make the government accountable and identify where there is a need for urgent recommendations or where there can be improvements in the system to make sure that Victorians can rely on and have faith and trust that our government departments are doing their role to the best of their ability. When I look at the performance and audit work program that is coming up for the next three years for VAGO, there are a few audits that I would particularly like to highlight that I am looking forward to in the Ovens Valley—I am constantly asked about the lack of maintenance on our roads, so in particular the maintaining local roads audit. That is a report to look at closely, I think, given the amount of deterioration in our roads since we lost the country roads and bridges program. Certainly our local councils with rate capping are starting to struggle financially. This is something where I hope there will be strong recommendations put forward for how the state government can better support our local government, local councils, to better maintain these roads. VAGO has many sectors to reach across and its role is needed more now than ever. Keeping an eye on this particular government is a huge task, and I support the role of Geoff Parker to watch over VAGO and ensure that VAGO is not compromised by this government. The great people of the Ovens Valley expect transparency from the government and at the moment they have lost faith, which is all the more reason to ensure the watchdog has the correct checks and balances in place. SCRUTINY OF ACTS AND REGULATIONS COMMITTEE Annual Review 2018: Regulations and Legislative Instruments Mr PEARSON (Essendon) (10:13): I am delighted to make a contribution on the Annual Review 2018: Regulations and Legislative Instruments from August 2019. The work of the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee is quite important because it provides a review in terms of regulations and legislative instruments. As many of us are aware, there is legislation that is passed by this place and the other place but within that there are also regulations that provide a lot of the teeth, as it were, around legislation and really provide that enforcement mechanism. As legislators, we are often not able to comment on regulations in the conduct of government business in this place and there are probably few examples where you can actually provide that opportunity to discuss regulations in the other place. However, since the 1930s in the Westminster system much of this work has been allocated to a subcommittee of the Parliament to examine these instruments. It does provide an important level of work, because these instruments can be disallowed. The forms of this place mean that there is no capacity to disallow a regulatory instrument, because government business takes precedence. That is a form of this place that has been in existence, really, since about the early 1990s with the arrival of the Kennett government. I think government business has taken precedence over general business. That, however, is not the case for the other place, where there is capacity to disallow a regulatory instrument. Look, I think it is an important function of the Westminster system, because, for argument’s sake, if you did not have the capacity to disallow a regulatory instrument and the executive did not have a majority in the other place, then you could potentially find yourself with a system whereby significant legislative change in the guise of regulatory change could be made, be gazetted and in fact become law, which would bypass the role and function of the other place. In order to do that, there is that capacity for the other place in general business, which, if my memory serves me correctly, tends to occur on a Wednesday. That enables the other place to disallow an instrument such as a regulation. But in order to reach that conclusion, a majority of members in the other place would need to satisfy themselves that that was an appropriate course of action. And how would they do that? Well, they would do that through the work of this committee. So this committee does perform an important amount of work in terms of providing some level of comfort and assurance to members in the other place that regulations that are being proposed by the executive are indeed important.

BILLS 2880 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

I also note that the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee play an important role in terms of picking up certain grammatical errors or typographical errors as part of the normal course of events. I have spoken at length in the past about my belief that the Oxford comma should take its rightful place in the publications of this place. I may not have achieved many things in this place, but one thing I am certainly proud of is the fact that Hansard abandoned its style guide and inserted an Oxford comma. There is great beauty in small things. Something I am very proud of, in the brief time I have been here, is the fact that Hansard abandoned its style guide, albeit briefly. The other point I would like to make is, as Hansard would know, I always use the Comic Sans font in my speeches. I think we have come a long way, because when I was an adviser in this place there was only Times New Roman. That was about as far as you could go. You could push the envelope only as far as Times New Roman. I do not know the font that this august report is written in; I am pretty sure it is not in Times New Roman, but nor is it in Comic Sans. I yearn for the day when Comic Sans reaches its rightful destination as a font of choice for the statute book of the great state of Victoria. It is my earnest hope that one day this dream will be fulfilled. Bills CHILDREN’S SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL 2019 Statement of compatibility Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education) (10:19): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the Children’s Services Amendment Bill 2019. In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Children’s Services Amendment Bill 2019 (Bill). In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with human rights protected by the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement. Overview of the Bill The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Children’s Services Act 1996 (Act) to further provide for the regulation of children’s services, in a manner that is consistent, where appropriate, with the regulation of education and care services under the Education and Care Services National Law (Victoria) (National Law). It does so primarily by establishing a scheme that provides for the approval of persons who provide the services and the operation of the services, and providing for the monitoring and enforcement of the scheme. For the purpose of this statement, the key part of the Bill is clause 8, which substitutes the current children’s services licensing regime contained in Parts 2–5 of the Act with new Parts 2–5D. These new parts relate to provider and service approvals (Parts 2 and 3); operational requirements (Part 4); compliance with the Act by service providers (Part 5); review of decisions made by the Regulatory Authority, which is currently the Secretary to the Department of Education and Training, (Part 5A); monitoring and enforcement (Part 5B); the functions of the Regulatory Authority (Part 5C); and information, records and privacy (Part 5D). Clause 15 also inserts new sections into the newly named ‘Miscellaneous’ part (Part 6) and clause 16 substitutes Parts 7 and 8 of the Act with new Part 7 in relation to transitional provisions. Human rights issues The human rights protected by the Charter that are relevant to the Bill are: • the right to protection of children: section 17(2) • the right to privacy: section 13(a) • the right to property: section 20 • the right to the presumption of innocence: section 25(1) • the right to freedom of expression: section 15(2) • the right to freedom of movement: section 12 • the right to privilege against self-incrimination: section 25(2)(k).

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2881

Section 17(2) of the Charter provides that every child has the right, without discrimination, to such protection as is in their best interests and is needed by them by reason of being a child. Section 17(2) recognises that children are vulnerable because of their age and entitled to special protection. The new sections of this Bill operate for the overarching purpose of the protection of children, thereby promoting the right in section 17(2) of the Charter. Clause 7 of the Bill inserts new section 8 into the Act, which provides that one of the objectives of the Act is to ‘ensure the safety, health and wellbeing of children attending children’s services’. It also provides that one of the guiding principles of the Act is that the rights and bests interests of the child are paramount. New section 9 states that the Regulatory Authority must exercise its functions having regard to the objectives and guiding principles of the Act. The underlying purpose of the protection of children permeates every new section of this Bill. To the extent that certain new sections limit human rights under the Charter, as I will discuss, those limitations are reasonably necessary and justified for the purpose of protecting children. Right to privacy The right to privacy under section 13(a) of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. An 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 new sections inserted by the Bill engage the right to privacy for the purpose of ensuring the protection of children in education and care services. However, for the reasons set out below, it is my view that these interferences are neither unlawful nor arbitrary and as such do not constitute a limit on the right to privacy. Some of these new sections also engage other rights under the Charter. Where relevant, I will address those rights alongside the right to privacy. Prohibition on employment Provider and service approvals are required for a person to provide children’s services and operate a children’s service premises. The Regulatory Authority can suspend or cancel a provider or service approval for various reasons under new sections 25, 31, 70 and 76, including if the Regulatory Authority is satisfied that the approved provider is not a fit and proper person or if continued operation of the children’s service would constitute an unacceptable risk to the safety, health or wellbeing of a child. Clause 8 of the Bill inserts into the Act new section 123, which provides that the Regulatory Authority may issue a prohibition notice to a person involved in the provision of an approved children’s service if it considers that there may be an unacceptable risk of harm to children if the person were allowed to remain on the premises or to provide education and care to children. Under new section 126, a notice issued under section 123 prohibits the person from doing one or more of the following: providing education and care to children for a children’s service, being engaged as an educator, employee, contractor, staff member or volunteer at a children’s service, or carrying out any other activity relating to a children’s service. In effect, the prohibition notice bans the person from being on the children’s service premises or from providing education and care services to children. The purpose of the right to privacy is to protect the individual’s interest in the freedom of their personal and social sphere. The courts have interpreted this right to potentially protect against restrictions on employment and business activity if the restriction sufficiently affects an individual’s personal relationships and capacity to have a private life. However, the restrictions in the Bill with respect to prohibition notices and the suspension or cancellation of approvals are reasonably proportionate to the legitimate purpose of protecting the safety and wellbeing of children. The effect of any suspension or cancellation of approval or any prohibition notice is limited to employment in a specific industry and is not of a kind that would give rise to social stigmatisation or serious impediment to earn a living. In particular, a prohibition notice may only be issued if, after considering all of the evidence, the Regulatory Authority forms the view that the person poses an unacceptable risk of harm to children. This imposes a high threshold. In my opinion, these provisions promote the rights of children to be protected under section 17(2) of the Charter. They are necessary to protect children from the risk of harm that may arise either at a children’s service premises or in the provision of education and care services. Therefore, any potential interference with a person’s privacy that arises from restricting their capacity to pursue employment of their choice will be neither unlawful nor arbitrary, and will be confined to the legitimate purpose of protecting children. The provisions in question contain safeguards to protect against the arbitrary exercise of power by the Regulatory Authority. In most cases, the Regulatory Authority is obliged to send a show cause notice to the relevant person before it suspends or cancels the person’s provider or service approval or issues the prohibition notice. A show cause notice informs the individual of the reasons for the proposed suspension, cancellation

BILLS 2882 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

or prohibition notice and provides them with the right to make written submissions to the Regulatory Authority (sections 26, 32, 71, 77 and 124). The Regulatory Authority is obliged to consider any written submissions when deciding whether to suspend or cancel the approval or issue the prohibition notice (sections 27, 33, 72, 78 and 125(1)). In limited circumstances, the Regulatory Authority is permitted to suspend an approval or issue a prohibition notice without first issuing a show cause notice. This can occur where it is satisfied that there is an immediate risk to the safety, risk or wellbeing of a child (sections 28 and 73) or where it is necessary, in the interests of the safety, health or wellbeing of a child, to immediately issue a prohibition notice (section 124(2)). In my opinion, these powers are reasonably required in order to prevent any immediate risks to the safety, health and wellbeing of children while they are being educated and cared for by a children’s service. The powers enable the Regulatory Authority to act swiftly and responsively in the interests of the protection of children. Any suspension of approvals under sections 28 and 73 are temporary, and the power to issue a prohibition notice under section 124(2) is intended to be used rarely and in circumstances requiring immediate action only. Further, cancellation of a service or provider approval always requires a show cause notice to be issued first. In addition, the Act provides ways to challenge the Regulatory Authority’s decision to suspend or cancel a provider or service approval or issue a prohibition notice. A decision to suspend or cancel an approval is subject to internal review under new Part 5A and/or external review in VCAT under new Part 5B. It is also subject to judicial review, where applicable. In relation to prohibition notices, the Regulatory Authority is obliged to cancel the notice if it is satisfied there is no sufficient reason for it to remain in force. A person to whom the notice applies may also apply for cancellation of the notice by submitting relevant information to the Regulatory Authority (section 127). Judicial review is also available in respect of the decision to issue a prohibition notice, where applicable. Therefore, in light of the purpose of the provisions relating to suspending or cancelling approvals and issuing prohibition notices, as well as the safeguards in place to prevent arbitrary exercises of power, I do not consider these provisions to limit the right to privacy. Further, to the extent that these provisions may engage the right to a fair trial under section 24(1) of the Charter, in my view, the overall procedure is fair and therefore the right is not limited. Information sharing There are several new provisions relating to the collection, retention, use, disclosure and publication of information under the Act. Collection, retention and use of information by Regulatory Authority New section 161(2)(a) gives the Regulatory Authority a broad power to collect, hold and use information relating to the provision of children’s services to children, including information about outcomes for children and information about providers of children’s services. Not all information dealt with under this provision will be private in nature. However, to the extent that this provision does relate to private information, any interference with the right to privacy will be neither unlawful nor arbitrary. This provision only relates to information obtained by the Regulatory Authority during the performance of its legitimate functions under the Act itself. Any use of that information will be restricted to legitimate purposes under the Act. Further, the Regulatory Authority’s collection, retention and use of information about providers and nominated supervisors will be subject to the Information Privacy Principles under the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014. In my opinion, the collection, retention and use of such information is reasonably necessary to effectively regulate the provision of education and care services for children. It allows the Regulatory Authority to make decisions and carry out its functions in regulating the industry with the most accurate and up-to-date information available. This enables the Regulatory Authority to protect the rights and interests of children by ensuring they are receiving appropriate education and care, thereby promoting their right to protection under section 17(2) of the Charter. Therefore, I consider new section 161 to be compatible with the Charter. Disclosure of information by Regulatory Authority New sections 166 and 167 of the Act provide for the sharing of information, both between bodies in different jurisdictions and from the Regulatory Authority to approved providers in certain circumstances. The first type of disclosure permitted by the new provisions of the Bill is disclosure between regulatory authorities and government agencies. New section 166(1) provides that the Regulatory Authority may disclose information in respect of a children’s service to the National Authority or a regulatory authority of a State or Territory under the National Law, or to any local, State or Territory or Commonwealth government department or public authority. This power is strictly confined to disclosure for the limited purposes specified in new section 166(2), including where the disclosure is reasonably necessary to promote the objectives of the Act. The objectives of the Act, contained in new section 8, are to ensure the safety, health and wellbeing of children attending children’s services, to improve the educational and developmental outcomes of those

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2883

children, and to promote continuous improvement in the provision of quality children’s services. Section 166(2) also permits disclosure for the purposes of enabling or assisting the receiving regulatory authority or public authority to fulfil its powers or functions under the Act or National Law, or for the purpose of research or development of Commonwealth, State or Territory policy with respect to children’s services. This inter-jurisdiction disclosure mechanism is necessary to ensure that individual schemes in each jurisdiction are interconnected and that relevant regulatory bodies and government agencies are able to access all information necessary to effectively regulate the children’s services industry across Australia. The purposes for which information may be disclosed are closely defined in the Act and relate either to furthering the objectives under the Act or the fulfilment of particular functions and powers of participating regulatory authorities or government agencies. Further, I consider that the disclosure of information about approved providers and nominated supervisors is reasonable given that those persons have voluntarily agreed to participate in a regulated industry involving the provision of children’s services. In addition, new section 166(3) contains a safeguard to minimise the impact on a person’s right to privacy when disclosure is for the purpose of research and development. It requires the Regulatory Authority to remove the identifying details of any person who is not an approved provider or nominated supervisor, or who is not subject to a prohibition notice or a prosecution for an offence under the Act. As stated above, approved providers and nominated supervisors are likely to have a reasonable expectation that their identifying information may be disclosed under this Act, given that they have voluntarily agreed to participate in the industry. I also consider the disclosure of identifying details of a person who is subject to a prohibition notice or a prosecution for an offence under the Act to be reasonable to ensure that regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions are aware of persons subject to prohibition notices and prosecutions in Victoria in the event that any of those persons attempt to work in children’s services in another State or Territory. The second type of disclosure relates to disclosure by the Regulatory Authority to an approved provider, that is, a provider of children’s services that has been approved by the Regulatory Authority under new section 15. New section 167 allows the Regulatory Authority to, at the request of an approved provider, disclose to that provider, information about a person who may be the subject of a prohibition notice. However, this can only occur if the Regulatory Authority considers on reasonable grounds that the provider requires the information to comply with its obligations under the Act. I consider disclosure of this kind to be necessary to assist approved providers to self-regulate, thereby promoting a culture of compliance with the Act. For example, the provider may request the information about a prospective employee, contractor, educator or volunteer. If that person is subject to a prohibition notice, it would be reasonable for the Regulatory Authority to disclose that information to the provider to, in effect, warn the provider of matters relevant to engaging the prohibited person. Therefore, having regard to the circumstances in which information may be shared and disclosed, I conclude that new sections 166 and 167 will not unlawfully or arbitrarily interfere with the privacy of individuals and therefore not limit the right to privacy under the Charter. Duty of confidentiality—Right to the presumption of innocence New section 168 provides a safeguard in the form of a duty of confidentiality applying to persons exercising functions under the Act in relation to ‘protected information’. ‘Protected information’ is defined to mean information that is personal to a particular individual and that identifies or could lead to the identification of that individual, where that information came to the person’s knowledge because or in the course of exercising functions under the Act. This provision imposes a duty of confidentiality to prevent unauthorised disclosures by persons exercising functions under this Act. It enhances the protection of an individual’s right to privacy and promotes section 13(a) of the Charter. Section 168(1) provides that it is an offence to breach the duty of confidentiality. However, section 168(2) provides certain exceptions to the application of the duty in section 168(1), including where the information is disclosed in the exercise of a function related to this Act, where disclosure is required or permitted by law, where disclosure occurs with the consent of the person to whom the information relates, where the disclosed information relates to public court proceedings, or where the disclosed information is publicly available. Section 25(1) of the Charter provides that a person charged with a criminal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. The right in section 25(1) is relevant where a statutory provision shifts the burden of proof onto an accused in a criminal proceeding such that the accused is required to prove matters to establish, or raise evidence to suggest, that they are not guilty of an offence. The exceptions in section 168(2) place an evidential burden on the accused in requiring them to raise evidence of the relevant exception; however, in my opinion, this provision does not limit the right to be presumed innocent. Section 168(1) provides a necessary safeguard against arbitrary disclosures of information, thereby promoting the right to privacy of individuals whose protected information may otherwise be shared. The exceptions in section 168(2) provide a mechanism by which accused persons exercising functions under the

BILLS 2884 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

Act may avoid liability if they fall under a relevant exception. Although the exceptions place an evidential burden on the accused, in doing so, the legal burden of proof is not transferred to the accused. Once the accused has pointed to evidence of a relevant exception, which will ordinarily be peculiarly within their knowledge, the burden shifts back to the prosecution to prove the essential elements of the offence in section 168(1). I do not consider that an evidential onus of this kind limits the right to be presumed innocent, and courts in other jurisdictions have taken this approach. In my opinion, the offence provision attaching to breach of the duty of confidentiality does not limit the right to the presumption of innocence. Indeed, new section 168 provides a safeguard to protect against unauthorised disclosures of protected information, thereby promoting the right to privacy in section 13(a) of the Charter. Therefore, I consider section 168 to be compatible with section 25(1) of the Charter. Publication of information by Regulatory Authority New section 165(1) provides that the Regulatory Authority may publish the names of approved providers, approved services and nominated supervisors and the address of each children’s service premises, as well as other details prescribed in the regulations. The Regulatory Authority may also publish information about any enforcement actions taken by it under the Act, including compliance notices, prosecutions, and cancellations or suspensions of approvals (under new section 165(3)). In particular, new section 161(2)(c) gives the Regulatory Authority the power to maintain and publish registers of approved providers and approved children’s services. New sections 163(1) and 164(1) require the Regulatory Authority to keep a register of approved providers and a register of approved children’s services containing the name of the approved provider, the name and address of each children’s service, and other details prescribed in regulations. Any person, for example, a parent or guardian of a child seeking to find out details about a children’s service before engaging that service, may obtain a copy of, or extract from, the register of approved children’s services for a fee payable to the Regulatory Authority (under new section 164(3)). As new section 165(2) also requires the Regulatory Authority to publish the register on its website, the public is provided with online access to the register. Not all information dealt with under these provisions will be of a private nature. However, to the extent that the provisions relate to private information, any interference with the right to privacy will be neither unlawful nor arbitrary. The type of information that may be published is clearly specified, and publication of that information serves the necessary purpose of ensuring that parents and other members of the public are able to make informed decisions about their dealings with children’s services. Persons whose details may be published by the Regulatory Authority have voluntarily agreed to participate in an industry in which regulation is necessary to ensure that only appropriate persons provide children’s services, thereby promoting and protecting the rights and interests of the children attending a service. Furthermore, section 165(4) minimises the impact on a person’s right to privacy by requiring the Regulatory Authority to remove the identifying details of any person who is not an approved provider or nominated supervisor or is not subject to a prosecution for an offence under the Act. The Regulatory Authority must also remove the identifying details of a person with management or control of a children’s service if it is in the public interest to do so. The publication of the identifying details of an approved provider or a nominated supervisor or person who is subject to a prosecution for an offence under the Act, or for public interest reasons, is reasonable and necessary in a scheme where the right to young children’s safety and protection is paramount. I therefore consider that sections 161, 163, 164 and 165 are compatible with the Charter. Powers of entry and inspection for waivers and approvals Clause 8 of the Bill inserts new Part 3 of the Act, which includes certain powers of entry and inspection on the part of the Regulatory Authority. These powers interfere with the right to privacy; however, in my opinion, none of the provisions are unlawful or arbitrary, and therefore do not limit the right to privacy. Under new section 45, the Regulatory Authority may inspect a children’s service premises at any reasonable time for the purposes of determining an application for approval of a children’s service. Similarly, the Regulatory Authority has powers of entry and inspection over a children’s service premises and office of the applicant for the purposes of determining an application for service waiver (section 87(1)(b)) or a temporary waiver (section 94(1)(b)). Under sections 85 and 92, an approved provider may apply for a waiver to exempt them from complying with a particular requirement for a children’s service under the prescribed requirements of the regulations. For example, an approved provider may seek a waiver of the staff to child ratio in circumstances where it cannot comply due to staffing issues. These entry and inspection powers may interfere with the provider’s right to privacy under section 13(a) of the Charter; however, in my opinion, the interference is neither unlawful nor arbitrary. The Regulatory Authority may only exercise its powers for the limited purpose of assessing an application. As it is the provider who makes the application under new sections 42 (service approval), 85 (service waiver) or 92 (temporary

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2885

waiver), and this is the ‘trigger’ for the Regulatory Authority’s inspection, it is expected that in most cases, the provider would consent to or at least have an expectation of the inspection taking place as it is for the purpose of assessing their application. Further, section 45 specifies that any inspection for the purposes of assessing an application for service approval is required to take place at a reasonable time. Therefore, in my view, these provisions are appropriately confined and do not limit the right to privacy. Powers of entry, inspection, search and seizure for monitoring and enforcement Clause 8 of the Bill also inserts new Part 5B of the Act, which includes various powers of entry, inspection, search and seizure on the part of the Regulatory Authority for the purpose of monitoring and enforcement. Under new Part 5B, authorised officers are provided with particular powers of entry onto a children’s service premises for three main purposes. In my opinion, these powers are neither unlawful nor arbitrary and therefore do not limit the provider’s right to privacy. Some of the provisions also engage other rights under the Charter—I will discuss the right to property (section 20) alongside the right to privacy below and I will assess the compatibility of the provisions with other relevant rights separately below. First, two new sections provide the Regulatory Authority and authorised officers with entry and inspection powers for the purpose of ensuring the safety, health and wellbeing of children. New section 138(2) gives an authorised officer the power to enter and inspect any children’s service premises at any reasonable time for two clearly defined reasons. The first is to monitor compliance with the Act, thereby ensuring the safety, health and wellbeing of children and the quality provision of children’s services. The second is to obtain the contact details of the parents or guardians of all children enrolled at the children’s service in circumstances where the Regulatory Authority has asked the provider for this information under new sections 35 or 81 because, after issuing the provider with a show cause notice, the Regulatory Authority has determined to suspend or cancel the provider approval or service approval, and the provider has failed to provide the requested contact details of parents. This information is required to enable the Regulatory Authority to forewarn parents about its decision to suspend or cancel the provider or service approval and to ensure that parents can make an informed decision about alternative care arrangements for their children. Under section 138, authorised officers have wide powers to inspect the premises and any plant, equipment, vehicle or thing on the premises, make copies of documents found on the premises and take any document or thing at the premises (to the extent that the document or thing is used or is likely to be used in the provision of children’s services). Authorised officers also have the power to ask a person at the premises to answer questions or take reasonable steps to provide information or produce a document. New section 131 provides the Regulatory Authority with the power to enter a children’s service premises without a warrant if it reasonably considers that there is an immediate danger to the safety or health of a child or children being educated and cared for by the children’s service. The Regulatory Authority has the power to remove a child or children from the premises and use reasonable force if necessary. Although these powers are extensive, I do not consider them to constitute unlawful or arbitrary interferences with privacy. This provision is intended to apply in extremely limited circumstances, where entry onto the premises, removal of a child and/or use of reasonable force is necessary to prevent or mitigate an immediate danger to a child. There are internal safeguards to protect against arbitrary interferences with privacy in that any exercise of power must be ‘necessary’ and any danger must be ‘immediate’. Further, any force that is exercised must be ‘reasonable’ in the circumstances for the protection of children. Given that the paramount objective of the Act is to ensure the safety, health and wellbeing of children attending children’s services, these powers are necessary to enable the Regulatory Authority to appropriately and effectively carry out its regulatory and enforcement powers under the Act. This may also engage other rights under the Charter, for example, the right not to be treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way (section 10(b)) and the right to liberty and security (section 21(1)); however, in my view, given that any use of force under new section 131 must be ‘reasonable’, the provision is appropriately confined so as not to give rise to any limit on those rights. Therefore, given the paramount purpose of ensuring the protection of children, I consider the powers in sections 138(1) and 131 to be reasonably aligned with the purposes for which they are to be exercised. Further, in most circumstances, these powers will operate in relation to business premises instead of private premises, and occupiers of such premises would have a limited expectation of privacy. If the premises is residential, then section 138(5) provides that an authorised officer may only enter if an approved children’s service is operating at the time of entry or with the occupier’s written consent. Second, new section 139(1) provides that an authorised officer may exercise the powers to investigate an approved children’s service if they reasonably suspect that an offence may have been or may be being committed under the Act. Section 139(2) allows the authorised officer to enter the premises of the approved provider, with any necessary assistants and at any reasonable time, with or without the provider’s consent, and exercise various investigatory powers. These include searching the premises, testing or photographing any part of the premises, taking a thing or sample from the premises for analysis or testing, and taking a copy

BILLS 2886 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

or extract of a document. The authorised officer can also require the occupier to provide information or otherwise assist in the conduct of the investigation. Similarly to sections 138 and 131, the powers in section 139 can only be used in clearly defined circumstances. The powers of authorised officers are extensive; however, they are necessary for the important purpose of investigating suspected offences under the Act and ensuring compliance with the regulatory scheme. In all cases, the powers may only be exercised at a reasonable time and, in most cases, the powers would only be exercised at a business premises where occupiers would have a limited expectation of privacy. In the event that the powers are exercised at a residential premises, section 139(4) places a limit on this power by preventing an authorised officer from entering a residence unless the authorised officer reasonably believes that an approved children’s service is operating at the residence or the occupier of the residence has consented in writing. New section 140(1) extends the power in section 139 to the principal office or business office of the approved provider if the authorised officer reasonable suspects that documents or other evidence relevant to the possible commission of an offence against the Act are present there. The powers under section 140(2) are the same as those under section 139(2), however, the powers with respect to offices may only be exercised with the consent of the occupier. Section 140(3) contains a safeguard to ensure that, before entry, the authorised officer produces their identity card for inspection and informs the occupier of particular information, including the purpose for the search, the powers that may be exercised, and the right of the occupier to refuse to consent to entry or to the taking of any document of thing from the premises. Third, new sections 141(1) and 142(1) provide powers to authorised officers to enter premises upon the reasonable belief that a person is operating a children’s service without the necessary provider and service approvals, thereby in contravention of new section 99. The authorised officer must have reasonable grounds for such a belief. Section 141(1) gives an authorised officer the power to enter any premises (including residential or business) with the written consent of the occupier, for the purpose of determining whether a children’s service is operating without a service approval at or from the premises. Section 142(1) gives an authorised officer the power to enter any premises with a search warrant for the same purpose as in section 141(1). The authorised officer who exercises a power of entry under either section may do a number of things, including searching any part of the premises, inspecting or filming any part of the premises, copying or taking an extract of any document on the premises, and taking any thing from the premises. In my opinion, the entry and search powers in sections 141 and 142 are sufficiently constrained. Section 141(2) specifies that, before entry, the authorised officer must produce their identity card for inspection and inform the occupier of particular information, including the purpose for the search, the powers that may be exercised, and the right of the occupier to refuse to consent to entry or to the taking of any document of thing from the premises. It is only once these steps have been taken, and the occupier has given their informed consent, that the entry and search powers under section 141 are enlivened. Further, although the occupier’s consent is not required under section 142, the powers may only be exercised under the authority of a warrant. Having regard to the powers in sections 138, 131, 139, 140, 141 and 142, I consider that any interference with the right to privacy is lawful and not arbitrary. First and foremost, the powers are reasonably required to monitor compliance with the regulatory scheme and are limited to that purpose. They are necessary to ensure the detection and prosecution of offences against the Act, which assists the Regulatory Authority (and, more broadly, the industry) to promote the paramount right to protection of children under section 17(2) of the Charter. Further, the powers are proportionate to the purposes for which they will be used. In most circumstances, the search and entry provisions will operate in relation to business premises, as opposed to private residences where occupiers may have a higher expectation of privacy. In the event that the powers are exercised at residential premises, the provisions provide that the powers may not be exercised except in certain circumstances, including with the consent of the occupier. The provisions themselves also embed protections, including a requirement that certain inspections occur at a ‘reasonable time’ and, if a children’s service premises is suspected of operating without a service approval, restrictions on the exercise of powers without the informed consent of the occupier or a search warrant. Therefore, I consider that any interference with privacy caused by the exercise of powers in new sections 138, 131, 139, 140, 141 and 142 is neither unlawful nor arbitrary. Accordingly, I consider those sections to be compatible with the right to privacy under section 13(a) of the Charter. Right to property The search and seizure powers in new sections 138, 139, 140, 141 and 142 may also engage the right to property under section 20 of the Charter, which provides that a person must not be deprived of their property other than in accordance with law. Those sections allow an authorised officer to seize and retain items from a children’s service premises, or from the principal or business office of an approved provider, for the

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2887

purposes of monitoring compliance with the Act and/or obtaining evidence about whether an offence under the Act has been, or is being, committed. However, there are multiple safeguards in the Act in relation to the seizure and retention of property. First, sections 138(3) and 139(3) confine the taking of documents or things by an authorised officer to only those documents or things that are used or are likely to be used in the provision of a children’s service. Second, the Act regulates the retention and return of those things or documents to the owner. A document or thing may only be taken pursuant to section 138 after notice is given to the person in charge or to the occupier of the premises and must be returned within seven days. Section 143 regulates the retention and return of things taken pursuant to sections 139, 140, 141 and 142 by providing that the authorised officer must take reasonable steps to return the thing to the owner if the reason for the taking no longer exists. It also sets the maximum period of retention at 60 days (subject to limited exceptions) and provides a right of reasonable access to the owner while the item is in the possession of the authorised officer. In light of these factors, I consider that any deprivation of property caused by new sections 138, 139, 140, 141 and 142 will be temporary, lawful and therefore compatible with the right to property under section 20 of the Charter. Requirements to provide information to the Regulatory Authority or an authorised officer I will now address the human rights impacts of numerous new provisions in the Act, to be inserted by clause 8 of the Bill, that require a person to provide information to the Regulatory Authority. These new sections are sections 11, 14, 22, 35, 37, 39 and 40 (in Part 2 regarding provider approvals), sections 43, 44, 45, 53, 55, 56, 59, 64, 81, 83, 86, 87, 93, 94 (in Part 3 regarding service approvals), section 127 (in Part 5 regarding compliance with the Act), section 133 (in Part 5A regarding reviews) and sections 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 145, 146, 147, 155 and 156 (in Part 5B regarding monitoring and enforcement). These provisions require a person to provide information in clearly specified circumstances to the Regulatory Authority. The circumstances in which information must be provided include for the purposes of provider and service approvals, for the purposes of variations, suspensions, transfers or reviews of such approvals, for the purposes of temporary waivers or service waivers, for the purposes of applications to lift prohibition notices, and for the purposes of monitoring and enforcing compliance with the Act. In all of the relevant provisions, the information that is sought from particular persons is reasonably required for the fulfilment of one of the specified purposes. The information that must be provided under the Act is, in some circumstances, likely to include personal information and may include information regarding an applicant’s criminal history, medical condition or financial status. It is particularly likely that persons will be required to provide personal information where the Regulatory Authority is assessing or reassessing whether they are ‘fit and proper’ to provide services to children for the purpose of section 12 (see also sections 13 and 21). It is also likely that personal information will be required to be shared with the Regulatory Authority if it is investigating suspected non-compliance with the Act. To the extent that information required under these provisions relates to individuals, these provisions engage the right to privacy under section 13(a) of the Charter. However, any interference with the right to privacy caused by these sections is neither unlawful nor arbitrary. The instances in which persons must provide information to the Regulatory Authority are clearly defined in the Act. Furthermore, the provisions are necessary to uphold the rights of children to protection by ensuring that the Regulatory Authority is well-placed to make informed decisions about the fitness and propriety of particular persons to provide or engage in children’s services or be present at children’s service premises. For the same reasons, the provisions are critical for ensuring that the Regulatory Authority can properly monitor compliance with the Act and provide relevant, accurate and up-to-date information to the public, most importantly parents of children receiving children’s services, about children’s services. Further, the provisions only operate with respect to persons who have voluntarily agreed to be regulated by the legislative scheme under the Act, or who have applied to be. Therefore, to the extent that those persons wish to participate in the children’s services industry, the requirement to provide information to the Regulatory Authority in certain circumstances dually furthers the interests of those persons and protects the interests of children. Further, sections 35 and 81 identify the circumstances where an approved provider must provide the Regulatory Authority with the identity and contact details of all parents or guardians of children enrolled at a children’s service. These sections engage the right to privacy of those parents and guardians. However, I consider that any interference with such right is neither unlawful nor arbitrary. The circumstances in which such information is to be provided are clearly defined in the Act, and the purpose of sharing the information is to ensure that the Regulatory Authority is able to keep parents and guardians informed of any changes to the approval status of an approved provider or children’s service. This also ensures that parents and guardians are able to make informed decisions regarding where their children receive education or care services. I therefore consider that the new sections of the Bill relating to the provision of information to the Regulatory Authority or an authorised officer are compatible with section 13(a) of the Charter.

BILLS 2888 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

Right to freedom of expression Section 15(2) of the Charter provides that every person has the right to freedom of expression. This includes the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds. Section 15(3) provides that special duties and responsibilities attach to the right of freedom of expression and the right may be subject to lawful restrictions reasonably necessary to respect the rights and reputation of other persons, or for the protection of national security, public order, public health or public morality. New section 100 of the Bill engages the right to freedom of expression by providing that it is an offence to knowingly advertise a service as a children’s service if that service has not been approved. The offence provision may interfere with the rights of providers of unapproved children’s services to express themselves by advertising children’s services. However, in my opinion, any restriction on the right to freedom of expression falls under the exception in section 15(3) as it is reasonably necessary to respect the rights of children and protect public health and public order. Services that have not been approved cannot be guaranteed to meet the standards enforced under the Act, and so could potentially pose a risk to the safety, health, and wellbeing of children in their care. This provision both protects the best interests of children and promotes public health and public order by ensuring parents can make confident and informed choices about providers of children’s services that can be entrusted with the care of their children. The right to freedom of expression also includes the right not to express oneself. As discussed above in the context of the right to privacy, there are several provisions in the Bill that compel individuals to provide information to the Regulatory Authority or authorised officers so as to enable them to carry out their functions in relation to monitoring and enforcing compliance under the Act. Other new sections require the display of certain information at the children’s service premises (for example, new section 112), or the communication to the Regulatory Authority, or relevant parents, of certain events (for example, new sections 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 55, 56, 59, 69, 81, 82, 83, 84 and 114). These provisions thereby interfere with the rights of individuals not to express themselves. To the extent that these provisions engage the right not to express oneself, I consider that they fall within the internal limitation in section 15(3) of the Charter. These restrictions are reasonably necessary to respect and protect the rights of children to protection, particularly in line with section 17(2) of the Charter. The provisions are also reasonably necessary for the protection of public health and public order, specifically the safety, health, and wellbeing of children, so as to ensure the effective monitoring and enforcement of the regulatory standards in the Act. Any limitation on the right to freedom of expression is reasonably proportionate to these purposes. Accordingly, I consider that the provisions are compatible with the Charter. Right to be presumed innocent Section 25(1) of the Charter states that a person charged with a criminal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. I will now address the provisions in the Bill that may impact this right. As discussed above, the right to the presumption of innocence is relevant where a statutory provision shifts the burden of proof onto an accused in a criminal proceeding so that the accused is required to prove matters to establish, or raise evidence to suggest, that they are not guilty of an offence. The Bill contains a number of new offence provisions which include various exceptions through which an accused may escape liability, including new section 168 in relation to breach of the duty of confidentiality as discussed above. These sections, read in conjunction with section 72 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, impose an evidentiary burden on the accused in requiring them to raise evidence of the particular exception. In my opinion, none of the provisions limit the right to be presumed innocent. Section 149 provides that a person must not, ‘without reasonable excuse’, refuse to answer questions or produce documents as required by an authorised officer, or fail to assist an authorised officer in conducting an investigation under a search warrant. Section 150 provides that a person must not, ‘without lawful authority’, destroy or damage any notice or document given, prepared or kept under the Act. By including the words ‘without reasonable excuse’ and ‘without lawful authority’, these provisions impose an evidential onus on an accused to adduce or point to evidence that goes to the excuse or authority. Similarly to new section 168 as discussed above, these provisions do not inappropriately transfer the burden of proof to the accused. Once the accused has adduced or pointed to evidence to establish the exception, the burden shifts back to the prosecution to prove the absence of the exception beyond a reasonable doubt. The defences of reasonable excuse and lawful authority relate to matters within the particular knowledge of the accused and, if the onus were placed on the prosecution, would involve proof of a negative which would be logistically difficult. Furthermore, the burdens do not relate to essential elements of the offences and are only imposed on the accused to raise evidence that supports the existence of a reasonable excuse or lawful

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2889

authority. Therefore, I do not consider that the evidential onus imposed on the accused in these offence provisions limits the presumption of innocence under section 25(1) of the Charter. Right to freedom of movement Section 12 of the Charter provides that every person lawfully within Victoria has the right to move freely within Victoria and to enter and leave it, and has the freedom to choose where to live. The right to move freely within Victoria is not dependent on any particular purpose or reason for a person wanting to move or stay in a particular place. It encompasses a right not to be forced to move to, or from, a particular location. New sections 110 and 111 of the Bill limit the ability of certain people to attend the premises at which a children’s service is operating, thereby limiting their freedom of movement. Section 110 imposes obligations on approved providers and nominated supervisors to ensure that ‘unauthorised persons’ do not remain on the children’s service premises while children are being educated and cared for unless they are under the direct supervision of an educator or staff member. An ‘unauthorised person’ is generally someone who does not hold a working with children assessment notice or is not a parent or guardian of a child at the children’s service. Section 111 limits the right to freedom of movement by providing that the Regulatory Authority may make a direction that an ‘inappropriate person’ be excluded from a children’s service premises. An ‘inappropriate person’ is a person who may pose a risk to the health, safety and wellbeing of a child attending the service, or whose behaviour or state of mind is such that it would be inappropriate for that person to remain on the premises while children are present (for example, a person under the influence of drugs or alcohol). Further, new section 155(2)(c) provides the Regulatory Authority with powers to compel approved providers, nominated supervisors, staff members and volunteers at a children’s service to appear before it to give evidence or provide documents if it reasonably suspects that an offence has or may have been committed against the Act. This provision limits a person’s freedom of movement to the extent that the person may be compelled to be physically present before the Regulatory Authority at a particular location at a specified time for the purpose of giving evidence or producing documents. The right to freedom of movement is not an absolute right and may be subject to reasonable limitations pursuant to section 7(2) of the Charter. In my opinion, the limitations on the right to freedom of movement in sections 110 and 111 are reasonably necessary for, and directly and rationally connected to, the purpose of preventing harm to children. They ensure that children are protected from exposure to unauthorised or inappropriate persons who may present a real risk to their safety, health or wellbeing. Their operation is limited to the children’s service premises and does not otherwise affect freedom of movement outside these premises. In any event, unauthorised persons are permitted to attend the premises if they are supervised by an educator or other staff member of the service. And although inappropriate persons will be entirely excluded from such premises if the Regulatory Authority makes a direction to that effect, such directions are intended to be used as an emergency measure of limited duration. If appropriate, a person who considers they have been wrongly subject to such a direction may seek judicial review of the Regulatory Authority’s decision. Similarly, the limitation on the right to freedom of movement in section 155(2)(c) is reasonably necessary for the furtherance of investigations under the Act. Such investigations are integral to the effectiveness of the regulatory regime and, in a more general sense, to advance the best interests of children receiving children’s services. The provision compels particular individuals to participate in the Regulatory Authority’s investigation of suspected offences under the Act when those individuals have knowledge or insight into the relevant events or persons involved. This measure is required to ensure the cooperation of participants in the regulatory scheme. In my opinion, there are no less restrictive means available to achieve the purposes of the limitations. Therefore, I consider that the limitations on the right to freedom of movement in new sections 110, 111 and 155(2)(c) are demonstrably justifiable and the provisions are compatible with the Charter. Privilege against self-incrimination Section 25(2)(k) of the Charter provides that a person charged with a criminal offence is entitled not to be compelled to testify against themselves or to confess guilt. New Part 5B of the Bill contains various sections that compel persons involved in the provision of children’s services to answer questions, provide information or produce documents in certain circumstances. The privilege against self-incrimination is expressly preserved by new section 152, which states that an individual may refuse or fail to give information or do any other thing that they are required to do under the Act if it might incriminate them. Further, new section 153 provides that an authorised officer must advise a person of the effect of section 152 before requiring them to answer a question or provide information or a document so as to ensure that they are aware that the privilege against self-incrimination is not abrogated. There are three sets of circumstances in which the privilege will not apply. First, it does not extend to the production of documents that are required to be kept under the Act. Nevertheless, section 152(3) provides an

BILLS 2890 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

immunity in respect of such documents obtained by the Regulatory Authority under its coercive powers, stating that any document that is required to be kept under the Act that is produced by an individual or any information obtained directly or indirectly from that document produced by an individual is not admissible in evidence against the individual in any criminal proceedings (except for criminal proceedings under the Act) or in any civil proceedings. For use in other proceedings, that information would need to be re-collected with those proceedings as the purpose. To the extent that documents may be used in criminal proceedings under the Act, this provision may limit the right to the privilege against self-incrimination. Although the privilege against self-incrimination is important, courts have interpreted it as being subject to reasonable limitations. In this case, the purpose of the limitation in section 152(3) is to ensure that the regulatory regime can be adequately monitored and enforced, with the ultimate aim of protecting children from harm. It is necessary that such documents are available to be used as evidence in proceedings under the Act for the purpose of enforcing the regulatory scheme. Without those documents, it would be difficult to prove breaches of many of the regulatory obligations under the Act, particularly those that require record- keeping. I also note that the only documents affected are those which the Act specifically requires to be kept, so it is appropriate that they be available in proceedings under the Act. In any event, case law indicates that the privilege against self-incrimination is stronger in relation to oral testimony than documentary evidence, particularly as in this case where documents are required to be kept as part of a regulatory regime. Therefore, given that the limitation gives effect to the best interests of the child as protected by section 17(2) of the Charter, in my opinion, it is reasonably justified under s 7(2). The second exception to section 152 is in relation to providing the individual’s name or address in accordance with the Act. However, in my opinion, such information does not constitute information that would tend to incriminate the person, and so the privilege against self-incrimination does not arise in these circumstances. The third exception to section 152 is in relation to anything that is required to be done under new sections 155 and 156, which provide that the Regulatory Authority may require a person involved in the provision of children’s services to answer questions, provide information or produce documents if it reasonably suspects that an offence has or may have been committed against the Act. The Act distinguishes between, on the one hand, documents produced under sections 155 and 156 and, on the other hand, answers and information provided under sections 155 and 156. Section 159(2) provides an immunity in relation to answers and information disclosed under sections 155 or 156, such that answers and information, as well as information obtained directly or indirectly because of answers or information, are not admissible in evidence against the individual in criminal proceedings (except proceedings under section 158 or 182 of the Act) or any civil proceedings. Section 158 relates to hindering or obstructing the Regulatory Authority in its exercise of powers under sections 155 and 156, and section 182 relates to providing false or misleading information or documents to the Regulatory Authority. To the extent that self-incriminating answers or information are used in proceedings under section 158 or 182, this may limit the right to the privilege against self-incrimination. However, given that information or answers obtained pursuant to the powers in sections 155 and 156 may themselves form part of the obstruction or hindrance, or may constitute false or misleading information, I consider that this exception is reasonably necessary to deter future attempts to hinder, obstruct or mislead investigations by the Regulatory Authority under the Act. In relation to documents containing self-incriminatory information that are produced pursuant to sections 155 and 156, section 159(3), like section 152(3), allows for documents of this kind to be used in criminal proceedings under the Act. This may limit the privilege against self-incrimination. To the extent that documents obtained pursuant to sections 155 and 156 may be used in criminal proceedings under the Act, I refer to the discussion above in relation to section 152(3). Therefore, in my opinion, the exceptions to the privilege against self-incrimination facilitate the proper enforcement of the regulatory regime by enabling successful prosecutions for failure to comply with the regime in specific circumstances. Further, I note that the limitations apply only to persons who voluntarily choose to participate in the provision of children’s services, which is a highly regulated industry. They do not apply to members of the general public. The Regulatory Authority requires the cooperation of participants in the industry to monitor and ensure compliance. Given that the limitation on the privilege against self- incrimination only applies in confined circumstances and is necessary to ensure the proper enforcement of the regulatory regime so as to protect the best interests of children, I consider that any limitation is demonstrably justified under section 7(2) of the Charter. Therefore, I consider sections 152 and 159 to be compatible with the Charter. The Hon. James Merlino MP Minister for Education

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2891

Second reading Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education) (10:19): 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: Objectives This Bill aligns the Children’s Services Act 1996 with the National Quality Framework, where appropriate, to ensure a consistent and contemporary regulatory framework for all Victorian early childhood services, regardless of which regulatory regime applies to that service. Most education and care services in Victoria are regulated under the National Quality Framework, or NQF. The NQF is a jointly governed, unified regulatory framework covering long day care, family day care, preschool and outside school hours care services. The remaining services, primarily occasional care services, are regulated under the Victorian Children’s Services Act. Currently about 350, or 8 percent of services in Victoria are regulated under the Children’s Services Act, or CS Act. The main feature of these services is that children attend for short periods of time, for example occasional care at a Neighbourhood House or a sports and leisure centre. These services are operated by a range of providers such as local government, not for profit, for profit, or community organisations. Quality early childhood education is important for early childhood development, educational outcomes, and whole-of-life achievement. Occasional care services play an important role in providing access to flexible and affordable care, particularly for regional and rural families. It is important that services in this part of the sector are underpinned by a quality, contemporary regulatory framework. The first major review of the NQF by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) was completed in 2017. This review considered, but decided against, bringing the remaining out of scope children’s services within the scope of the NQF, largely due to the complexity of bringing a diverse range of services into the NQF. This decision presented an opportunity to update the Victorian children’s services law to better align it with the NQF, particularly because the regulatory regimes are similar but not consistent. This can cause confusion and administrative burden for services operating under both regimes. It also provides an opportunity to improve educational outcomes for children in all Victorian education and care services, by helping to drive quality in the children’s services sector. The Bill better aligns the two regimes to simplify regulatory arrangements and ensure more consistent minimum standards. Aligning the regulatory regimes will realise a number of benefits for services and the regulator, including: • reducing red tape and the risk of confusion for providers and services • ensuring there is a robust, contemporary regulatory framework for all early childhood services in Victoria • achieving greater consistency for families accessing services • establishing greater equity across operational requirements and offences • making available a more comprehensive suite of enforcement powers • enabling potential efficiencies for the regulatory authority. A key area where alignment is not proposed is that children’s services will not, under the CS Act as amended by the Bill, be assessed and quality rated against the National Quality Standard as services are under the NQF. This is because it would be too burdensome for services operating for limited hours, and would require significant additional regulatory investment. The Bill is not expected to impose burden or cost on service providers. It will simplify matters for providers. The Bill aims to reduce red tape, for example by streamlining licensing processes and allowing services to be transferred between approved providers.

BILLS 2892 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

Transitioning to the new licensing regime will require minimal action on the part of providers. The Bill will automatically convert licences to the new approvals, and declare key personnel to hold the equivalent roles. The Department will provide support and guidance on the new requirements, at an individual provider level if necessary. The Children’s Services Act and the National Law set out the architecture of the licensing frameworks, whilst the operational requirements for services such requirements for staffing and premises are in the Children’s Services Regulations 2009. The Bill does not affect these requirements. However, the Regulations will also be reviewed and remade before they expire in May 2020. Consultation on the amendments to the Regulations will occur later this year. Summary of Bill The Bill will align the current children’s services licensing regime in the Act with the provider and service approval regime in the Education and Care Services National Law (National Law). The Bill adopts the relevant objectives and guiding principles in the National Law. These focus on quality educational and developmental outcomes, and the safety, health and wellbeing of children. The Bill retains the term ‘children’s service’ so that it is clear that these services are separate to NQF education and care services. Other terminology in the CS Act will be aligned with the NQF, for example, licensees will become approved providers, and licences will become service approvals. The licensing structure and approvals processes will be aligned, so that fixed term licences will be replaced with ongoing service approvals. An approved provider will be able to operate multiple services under the CS Act, under a single provider approval. Service approvals will be transferrable between approved providers (subject to approval by the regulatory authority), which will increase flexibility for approved providers. Furthermore, under deeming provisions, approved providers under the NQF will be able to operate services under the CS Act without going through an application process for a separate provider approval under the CS Act. The basic requirements to operate a children’s service will be aligned with the National Law. For example, new approved providers under the CS Act will have to appoint nominated supervisors and persons in day-to-day charge of services. While these roles are fundamentally the same as the existing roles, there will be more explicit requirements about what the approved provider must consider when appointing these responsible persons. Currently, the CS Act requires an educational or recreational program that is based on the developmental needs, interests and experiences of each child, and which is designed to take into account the individual differences of those children. This requirement will be strengthened by aligning it with the National Law requirement to deliver a program based on an approved learning framework (i.e. a learning framework that is already approved for the purposes of the NQF). The program will need to be proportionate and reflect the nature of the education and care provided and how long the children attend. Information and resources will be provided to help services develop programs appropriate for their service. The compliance approach under the National Law gives the regulatory authority more flexible options. The monitoring and enforcement provisions in the CS Act will be aligned with their equivalent provisions in the National Law. This will include the ability to prohibit an individual from working in children’s services if they pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children. The Bill aligns the offences and penalties in the CS Act as closely as possible with those in the National Law. The Bill introduces some new offences, like operating a children’s service without a ‘nominated supervisor’. However, other offences will remain the same; for example, it is currently an offence under both regulatory regimes to inadequately supervise children. The CS Act will continue to express penalties in penalty units in accordance with Victorian legislative policy, whereas the National Law expresses them in dollar amounts. Alignment with the National Law will mean that an offence will carry a different maximum penalty for individuals and corporate bodies. In most cases, the proposed new maximum penalties will be lower for individuals and higher for corporate bodies. The approved associated children’s service (AACS) is a service approval model that was devised when the NQF was introduced to overcome the need for a provider to obtain service approvals under two regulatory regimes. It enables an approved provider to operate a service under the NQF and a service under the CS Act at the same location, under a single NQF service approval.

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2893

The Bill phases out AACSs in Victoria by 2022. This is because once the two regulatory regimes are aligned, there will be no need for the AACS model in Victoria. Approved providers under the NQF will be able to operate separate services under both regulatory regimes. They will enjoy the same flexibility as that offered by the AACS model, such as lower staffing requirements in the AACS and reciprocal recognition of supervisors. To minimise the impacts of the changes for service providers, transitional arrangements in the Bill: • recognise licence approvals in place on the commencement date, so current licence holders can efficiently transition to the new CS Act regime • ensure any service that is exempt from a requirement under the CS Act or Regulations (e.g. staff- to-child ratios) has six months from when the reforms begin to apply for a service waiver in respect of the equivalent requirement under the CS Act (as amended) • provide processes for dealing with licence applications that are in progress when the reforms commence. Conclusion While the Bill is of a largely technical nature, in that it aligns the existing regulatory scheme with the National Law, it will also ensure that all education and care services in Victoria are regulated under a contemporary regulatory regime, with consistent requirements for all providers. This provides a significant opportunity to modernise the regulation of children’s services in Victoria and to drive quality improvements across the sector, which will in turn improve the educational and developmental outcomes of Victorian children. I commend the Bill to the house.

Mr R SMITH (Warrandyte) (10:20): I move:

That the debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. Ordered that debate be adjourned for two weeks. Debate adjourned until Wednesday, 11 September. DANGEROUS GOODS AMENDMENT (PENALTY REFORM) BILL 2019 Statement of compatibility Ms HENNESSY (Altona—Attorney-General, Minister for Workplace Safety) (10:21): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the Dangerous Goods Amendment (Penalty Reform) Bill 2019. In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Dangerous Goods Amendment (Penalty Reform) Bill 2019 (Bill). In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with human rights protected by the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement. Overview of the Bill The Bill amends the Dangerous Goods Act 1985 (Act) to: • Increase the penalties of various offences in the Act so that the penalties better reflect the serious nature of those offences; and • Create a new offence for conduct in respect of dangerous goods that endangers persons. While the increased penalties do not, in and of themselves, engage human rights, some of the existing offence provisions to which they attach do. Given that those offence provisions have not been previously discussed in a Statement of Compatibility, I will consider their compatibility with relevant human rights, as well as that of the new offence provision, now. Having regard to the nature of the offence provisions, I consider that the only relevant human right is the right to the presumption of innocence. Human rights issues Section 25(1) of the Charter provides that a person charged with a criminal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. The right in section 25(1) is relevant where a statutory provision shifts the burden of proof onto an accused in a criminal proceeding such that the accused is required to prove matters to establish, or raise evidence to suggest, that they are not guilty of an offence.

BILLS 2894 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

‘Reasonable excuse’ and ‘lawful excuse’ exceptions The Bill increases the penalty for an existing offence provision that contains a ‘reasonable excuse’ exception. In addition, the Bill inserts a new offence provision that contains a ‘lawful excuse’ exception. The ‘reasonable excuse’ and ‘lawful excuse’ exceptions place an evidential burden on the accused in requiring them to raise evidence of either a reasonable or lawful excuse; however, in my opinion, neither provision limits the right to be presumed innocent. Section 17K(3) of the Act provides that an owner or person in possession or control of dangerous goods must not, without reasonable excuse, refuse or fail to comply with a direction issued by an inspector, when the inspector has a reasonable belief that danger to any person or property exists or may arise in respect of dangerous goods that are damaged or spilled. The amendments in the Bill bring the penalty in s 17K(3) in line with the penalty in s 18A(2), which similarly provides for the offence of refusing or failing to comply with a direction of an inspector where the inspector reasonably believes the direction to be necessary because of an immediate risk to the safety of any person or damage to any property arising out of the presence of dangerous goods. Further, the Bill introduces s 31D, which provides that a person must not, without lawful excuse, recklessly engage in the manufacture, storage, transport, transfer, sale or use of dangerous goods that places, or may place, another person in danger of death. Due to the severity of consequences that may ensue in the event of non-compliance, the new offence provision carries a penalty of 3,800 penalty units or 10 years’ imprisonment for an individual or 40,000 penalty units for a body corporate. Although the ‘reasonable excuse’ exception in s 17K(3) and ‘lawful excuse’ exception in new s 31D place an evidential burden on the accused, in doing so, these offences do not transfer the legal burden of proof. Once the accused has pointed to evidence of a reasonable or lawful excuse, which will ordinarily be peculiarly within their knowledge, the burden shifts back to the prosecution to prove the essential elements of the offence. I do not consider that an evidential onus of this kind limits the right to be presumed innocent, and courts in other jurisdictions have taken this approach. Therefore, in my opinion, s 17K(3) as amended by the Bill and new s 31D are compatible with the right to be presumed innocent. ‘Lawful authority or excuse’ The Bill increases the penalty attaching to existing s 31(2) of the Act, which provides that a person must not, without lawful authority or excuse, do anything in or near a licensed premises which causes or is likely to cause an accident involving dangerous goods. The provision expressly states that the burden of proving the existence of lawful authority or excuse is on the accused. This defence shifts the burden of proof onto an accused to prove certain matters in order to avoid liability. The right to be presumed innocent is an important right that has long been recognised under the common law. However, the courts have held that it may be subject to limits, particularly where, as here, an exception is enacted to enable a defendant to escape liability. While the imposition of a legal burden on the accused will limit their right to the presumption of innocence, I consider that the limit in s 31(2) is reasonably justified under section 7(2) of the Charter. The matters required to be proven will be within the unique knowledge of the accused, who is best placed to lead this evidence. Conversely, it would be difficult for the prosecution to prove these matters in the negative. If the accused has lawful authority or excuse, it should be relatively simple and straightforward to prove in court. Further, the limit on the right to be presumed innocent is imposed only in respect of the available exception. The prosecution will still first have to establish the elements of the particular offence. Although an evidential onus would be less restrictive than a legal onus, it would not be appropriate in light of the strong public interest in ensuring that people do not engage in conduct that may result in accidents involving dangerous goods. Given the importance of maintaining compliance with these provisions and creating a deterrent effect for future conduct, it is necessary for accused persons to demonstrate to a civil standard that they have a lawful excuse or authority, as the case may be, to escape liability. Accordingly, despite containing a reverse onus, I consider s 31(2) of the Act to be compatible with the right to be presumed innocent. The Hon. Jill Hennessy MP Minister for Workplace Safety

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2895

Second reading Ms HENNESSY (Altona—Attorney-General, Minister for Workplace Safety) (10:21): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time. I ask that my second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard. Incorporated speech as follows: The Andrews Labour Government is delivering on its commitment to strengthening the regime for dangerous goods in Victoria with the introduction of a new reckless conduct offence and increases to penalties for existing offences in the Dangerous Goods Act 1985. These reforms follow the recent discovery of a number of sites across outer Melbourne that were storing dangerous goods in contravention of the requirements under the Dangerous Goods Act 1985. There have been two significant industrial fires involving dangerous goods over the last year causing widespread community concern. To reflect the significant health and safety risks associated with these events, the Bill creates a new offence for a person who recklessly engages in conduct relating to dangerous goods that places, or may place, a person in danger of death. The Bill also increases the financial and imprisonment penalties of various offences in the Dangerous Goods Act 1985 so that the penalties better reflect the serious nature of the offending conduct. The recent industrial fires and discovery of sites housing dangerous goods in contravention of the Dangerous Goods Act have highlighted that the current offences in the Act are not a sufficient deterrent for illegal activity and non-compliant behaviour. I now turn to the provisions of the Bill before Parliament. New indictable offence under the Dangerous Goods Act 1985 The Bill introduces a new offence in the Dangerous Goods Act 1985 of recklessly engaging in conduct relating to the manufacture, storage, transport, transfer, sale or use of dangerous goods that places, or may place, a person in danger of death. This offence carries a penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment for individuals, and body corporates will face fines of up to 40,000 penalty units (approximately $6.608 million). This offence will have the highest penalties available under the Dangerous Goods Act 1985, and will recognise the seriousness of the offending conduct. The offence is modelled on section 22 of the Crimes Act 1958. Including such an offence in the Dangerous Goods Act allows investigations to be carried out by WorkSafe inspectors, who have specialist knowledge and expertise in this area. Increase to penalties under the DG Act The Bill provides for an increase in the maximum penalties specified for certain offences under the Dangerous Goods Act 1985, increasing the maximum financial penalty from 1000 penalty units (approximately $165,220) to 1800 penalty units (approximately $297,396) for individuals and more than doubling the fines available for body corporates, from 5000 penalty units (approximately $826,100) to 20,000 penalty units (approximately $3.304 million). These increases relate to individuals and body corporate who are found guilty of contravening specified provisions of the Dangerous Goods Act, in circumstances where the offender knew or ought reasonably to have known that the conduct would endanger the safety or health of another person, property or the environment. The Bill also increases the current penalties for a range of other offences, including: – Failing to comply with a direction issued by an inspector to dispose of or render harmless dangerous goods or to stop the use, or use the goods under specified conditions, of premises or magazines considered to be dangerous – Failure to take reasonable precautions to prevent tampering, theft, fire, explosion or damage – Abandoning, discarding, or neglecting to dispose of dangerous goods safely – Persons who do anything in or near any licensed premises which causes or is likely to cause an accident involving dangerous goods – Failure to comply with requirements on goods too dangerous to be transported.

BILLS 2896 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

Financial penalties for individuals and body corporates in respect to the above offences will more than double. These increases bring the penalties with similar offences in the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 and better reflect the serious nature of the offending conduct. The stronger regulation of dangerous goods is a priority for the Andrews Labor Government, and these penalty increases are an important step towards strengthening the broader dangerous goods framework. I commend the Bill to the house.

Mr WAKELING (Ferntree Gully) (10:21): I move:

That the debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. Ordered that debate be adjourned for two weeks. Debate adjourned until Wednesday, 11 September. MARINE AND FISHERIES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2019 Statement of compatibility Ms HORNE (Williamstown—Minister for Ports and Freight, Minister for Public Transport) (10:22): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the Marine and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (the charter), I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Marine and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. In my opinion, the Marine and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with the human rights protected by the charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement. Overview of the Bill Gippsland Lakes Fishing Access Licences Part 2 of the Bill sets out a scheme to cancel the Gippsland Lakes Fishery Access Licence class of fishing licence by 1 April 2021. The scheme affects ten licence-holders, who may elect to surrender their licences early by 1 April 2020. The Bill sets out the process by which licences may be surrendered, will be cancelled and under which affected licence-holders will be provided with a compensation package. Other fishery access licence holders are not affected by the scheme. Regulation of pilotage service providers and pilots The purpose of pilotage services is to support and facilitate the safe passage of ships within the port waters of Victoria. Pilots provide navigation services and, as marine safety workers under the Marine Safety Act, have various safety duties. A person who is not a marine safety worker and who supplies pilotage services to an owner of a vessel is a pilotage services provider. Under the Marine Safety Act 2010, pilotage services providers have general safety duties. This includes ensuring, so far as is reasonably practicable, that a pilot provided by the person is medically fit qualified, competent and able to carry out the activity for which the pilot has been provided. The Safety Director regulates pilotage service providers but does not currently have the power to refuse to register a provider if the Safety Director considers that the applicant is unlikely to be able to comply with the general safety duty. The Bill provides a discretion to the Safety Director to refuse a registration on the grounds that the applicant does not have the competence and capacity to provide pilotage services safely. Clause 9 of the Bill applies a zero blood alcohol concentration to pilots providing any service, extending the current zero limit that applies when piloting domestic commercial vessels to all vessels (including international vessels and vessels undertaking interstate journeys, for example, to which a maximum concentration of 0.05 grams per 100 millilitres of blood currently applies). The Bill also provides for the cancellation of pilot licences where the pilots are inactive. Clause 14 of the Bill requires pilotage service providers to report safety incidents to the Safety Director to improve levels of information available to the Safety Director and compliance monitoring and enforcement of marine safety laws.

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2897

Marine safety duties Clause 11 of the Bill amends the Marine Safety Act to make it clear that volunteers are not marine safety workers and thus subject to the higher penalty that apply to those workers, compared to recreational boaters. The Marine Safety Act also imposes safety duties on persons who design, manufacture and supply certain marine vessels and safety equipment and persons who maintain, repair or modify vessels and on pilotage service providers. However, transport safety officers do not currently have power to enter premises associated with the design, manufacture or supply of vessels and equipment or the provision of pilotage services for compliance and investigatory purposes. Part 5 of the Bill amends the Transport (Safety Schemes Compliance and Enforcement) Act 2014 to enable transport safety officers to enter those premises to conduct compliance monitoring and enforcement. Human rights issues Cancellation of the Gippsland Lakes Fishery Access Licence class Section 20 of the charter provides that a person must not be deprived of their property other than in accordance with law. This 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. The cancellation of the Gippsland Lakes Fishery Access Licence class of fishing licence, provided for in Part 2 of the Bill, engages the section 20 right. Statutory rights are inherently subject to change and, for this reason, are less likely to be found to be proprietary than other rights. This conclusion is even more likely where what is being considered is a statutory licence, where the nature of the right is such that there is no reasonable expectation of its lasting nature. The existing provisions in Division 2 of Part 4 of the Fisheries Act 1995 make it clear that licences are granted under that Act on the basis that they can be varied or have conditions imposed upon them, and can be suspended or cancelled in accordance with that Division, and are therefore inherently contingent. However, if the Gippsland Lakes Fishery Access Licences are considered proprietary in nature licence and cancellation therefore results in the deprivation of property, the process for cancelling licences and associated compensation provisions are precisely set out in the Bill and are not arbitrary in nature. For example, Part 2 of the Bill sets out in clear detail the process by which licences will be cancelled, makes provision for early surrender, and provides for the compensation that a licence holder will be entitled to in each scenario. The provisions for surrender and cancellation, limitation of the State’s liability to licence holders except as provided for in the Bill (including the right to compensation calculated in accordance with the Bill) are contained in new Division 6 of the Fisheries Act, inserted into that Act by clause 6 of the Bill. The processes by which a person may elect to surrender their licence, information to be provided to the licence holder and calculation of compensation are provided for in new Schedule 5 to that Act, inserted into that Act by clause 7 of the Bill. The compensation provisions in clause 7 the Bill provide for a sum of $371,000 (for licence cancellation), $60,000 (for commercial fishing equipment) and a further amount calculated on the basis of 3 times the average catch value taken by the licence holder over a 5-year survey period indicated in the records held by the Victorian Fisheries Authority to be paid to a licence holder who elects to surrender their licence by 1 April 2020, in which case it is cancelled on that date. A licence holder who elects to continue to hold their licence until it cancelled on 1 April 2021 as a result of the operation of the new provisions is entitled to compensation of 80 per cent of that sum. Clause 5 of the Bill also amends section 60 of the Fisheries Act, which provides for certain licences suspended or cancelled under that Act to be able to be transferred following cancellation. The amendment exempts a licence suspended or cancelled under the scheme established by the Bill from the operation of section 60, thereby ensuring that such a cancelled licence cannot be transferred. Given that the clauses of the Bill, and the circumstances in which any deprivation of property in relation to the Gippsland Lakes Fishery Access Licence class of fishing licence will occur, are clearly and precisely formulated, in my view there is no impermissible limitation of the property right under section 20 of the charter because any deprivation of property would be in accordance with law. To the extent that the provisions may limit the right to property, they are reasonable and justified. I also consider that the notice provisions relating to cancellation of licences and the option to surrender a licence early are consistent with the section 24 charter right to a fair hearing. The compensation that a licence holder is entitled to, and the process by which licence holders are given notice of the ability to elect to surrender early, are (as noted) set out in clause 7 the Bill, with associated provisions contained in clause 6.

BILLS 2898 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

Clause 7 also contains provisions that provides a licence holder who seeks to surrender their licence but makes an invalid election may make another valid election in accordance with the processes contained in the Bill. New section 153T of the Fisheries Act, inserted into the Act by clause 6 of the Bill, also provides for an exception to the offence in section 36(2) of the Fisheries Act relating to the possession of commercial fishing equipment, which would otherwise apply on cancellation of a licence. A licence holder is exempt for a period of 12 months from cancellation of their licence in relation to commercial fishing equipment possessed in the course of carrying out activities under their licence if the person has evidence of ownership immediately before that date. The purpose of the provision is to ensure that licence holders will not commit an offence immediately upon their licence being cancelled. The effect is to provide affected licence holders with a reasonable time to enable them to dispose of property comprising commercial fishing equipment following cancellation of their licence. The provision engages the section 25(1) charter right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in accordance with law because, if the prosecution has proved that a former licence holder is in possession of commercial fishing equipment, the former licence holder would need to point to evidence that the exception applies in order to escape liability. The provision places an evidentiary onus on the accused in respect of matters that are particularly within the knowledge of the former licence holder. Once the accused has pointed to evidence of ownership of commercial fishing equipment possessed in the course of carrying out activities under their licence, which will be particularly within the knowledge of the licence holder, the burden of proof shifts back to the prosecution. I also note that the licence holder is required to have evidence of ownership, which is a more flexible concept than specifically requiring the production of records and is intended to enable licence holders who may have owned equipment for a number of years but who may not, for example, have purchase receipts, to satisfy the requirement. I therefore consider that the likelihood of an innocent person being convicted to be minimal, and that any limitations on charter rights arising from the provisions are reasonable and justified. Clause 4 of the Bill also amends section 58A of the Fisheries Act to extend the exemption in that section to Division 6 of Part 8 of the Act. Section 58A otherwise requires certain licences cancelled under the Fisheries Act to be returned to the Victorian Fisheries Authority if licence has been cancelled or suspended under the Act within 14 days after the cancellation or suspension comes into effect. The effect of the exception is to make conduct that would otherwise be an offence lawful, as the provision is primarily aimed at ensuring that licences or permits are returned to the Authority in the circumstances prescribed in section 58, which are not relevant to the licence cancellation scheme in the Bill. In my view, in clarifying the extent of operation of the section 58A offence, the Bill does not limit the right to be presumed innocent because the Bill relates to the Gippsland Lakes Fishery Access Licence class of fishing licence. In that context, the prosecution would not be able to prove an element of the offence, that a licence to which the offence applies had not been returned. There would be no need for the accused to point to evidence to this effect. However, even if that were the case, it would be an easy matter for a former licence holder to do if it became necessary. I therefore consider that, to the extent that the provisions may limit the right, they are reasonable and justified. Suspension and cancellation of inactive pilot licences Clause 12 of the Bill inserts new Part 4.6A into the Marine Safety Act 2010 to provide for the suspension or cancellation of relevant inactive pilot licences, where a pilot is inactive or no longer intends to be available to act as a pilot. The Safety Director may, by notice in writing to a licence holder, suspend or cancel the licence if satisfied that the licence holder has not acted as a pilot for at least 12 months or does not intend to act as a pilot. Prior to suspending or cancelling a licence, the holder of the licence or permit must be given at least 28 days in which to make a submission about why the licence should not be suspended or cancelled. As explained above, statutory rights such as those arising from registration or a licence to participate in a regulated industry are inherently subject to change and, for this reason, are less likely to be found to be proprietary rights. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the provisions for suspending or cancelling a licence under the Bill may not amount to a deprivation of property. However, if they do limit the section 20 charter property rights, it is clear that such a deprivation would be in accordance with law and I consider that, to the extent that the right may be limited, it is not impermissibly limited and the provisions are reasonable and justified. I am also satisfied that the process set out in new Part 4.6A is fair and transparent and does not limit the section 24 charter right to a fair hearing. Insofar as a pilot may be required to provide personal information if the pilot makes a submission explaining why their licence should not be cancelled or suspended, the section 13 charter right to privacy is neither unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with and the right is not, therefore, impermissibly limited. I am also

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2899

satisfied that the right not to impart information, which forms part of the right to freedom of expression under s 15 of the charter, is not impermissibly limited. A licence holder may choose whether or not to make a submission to the Safety Director. In any event, the provision is intrinsically connected to its purpose and a pilot will have a reasonable expectation that information will need to be provided to the Safety Director if the pilot does in fact intend to continue to act as a pilot. I consider the provisions are reasonable and justified in the context of the regulatory scheme. Registration as a pilotage service provider Insofar as the effect of the provisions in clause 13 of the Bill relating to the registration of a pilotage service provider requiring the Safety Director to grant a registration if satisfied that the applicant has the competence and capacity to carry out pilotage services safely engages the right to privacy in section 13 of the charter (as the applicant will need to provide various information in the applicant’s application), the process is again neither unlawful or arbitrary. An applicant in a regulated safety industry will have a reasonable expectation that such information will need to be provided to the regulator, and no less restrictive means of achieving the objective of the provisions is available. As such I consider that, insofar as the right may be limited, any limitation is reasonable and justified. Insofar as the provisions may engage the section 15 charter right to freedom of expression, the provision is again intrinsically connected to its purpose and I consider that no less restrictive means are available to achieve the intent of the provisions, which is to regulate pilotage service providers. A person engaged in a highly regulated industry will also have a reasonable expectation that information, including personal information, may need to be provided in appropriate circumstances. I again consider that insofar as the right may be limited, any limitation is reasonable and justified. Extension of zero blood alcohol concentration for pilots As explained above, clause 9 of the Bill extends the requirement for a zero blood alcohol level for pilots of all vessels by amending the definition of prescribed concentration of alcohol in the Marine (Drug. Alcohol and Pollution Control) Act 1988. Section 28 of that Act provides that it is an offence to be the pilot a vessel while more than the prescribed concentration of alcohol is present in the pilot’s blood or breath. While that Act also contains provisions requiring a pilot to undergo breath or blood tests in specified circumstances, no change is made to provisions in respect of testing. If the provisions in the Bill nevertheless engages and may limit the right to privacy in section 13 of the charter, I consider any limitation reasonable and justified to protect the safety of that person and, importantly, the safety of other users of Victoria’s waterways. In any event, test carried out under that Act are in accordance with law, are undertaken in specific circumstances and are not arbitrary. Pilotage service provider incident reporting Insofar as the provisions in clause 14 of the Bill introducing a new requirement for pilotage service providers to report safety incidents to the safety regulator may involve disclosing personal information and engage the section 13 charter right to privacy, in my view the right to privacy is neither unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with and that, insofar as the provisions may limit the right, any limitation is reasonable and justified. Insofar as the provisions may engage the freedom of expression (section 14 of the charter), the provision is intrinsically connected to its purpose and I consider that no less restrictive means are available to achieve the intent of the provisions, which is to improve compliance monitoring and enforcement of marine safety laws. As explained above, a person engaged in a highly regulated industry will also have a reasonable expectation that information, including personal information, may need to be provided in appropriate circumstances. Insofar as the right is limited, I again consider that any limitations are reasonable and justified. Power to enter marine premises Clause 17 of the Bill amends the definition of marine premises in the Transport (Safety Schemes Compliance and Enforcement) Act 2014 to include premises associated with the design, manufacture or supply of a recreational vessel or marine safety equipment, and premises owned or occupied by pilotage service providers for the purpose of providing pilotage services. The effect of the amendment is to extent the application of provisions in that Act enabling transport safety officers to undertake activities for compliance and investigatory purposes to conduct compliance monitoring and enforcement, including entering marine premises without warrant or consent. Under Division 2 of Part 2 of that Act, a transport safety officer who enters marine premises may exercise a number of investigatory powers, including searching, inspecting and examining the premises, making inquiries at the premises and seizing any thing (including a document) at the premises if the officer reasonably believes the thing is evidence of an offence against the Act or a transport safety or infrastructure law. An

BILLS 2900 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

officer may also require a person at the marine premises to give the officer reasonable help to exercise certain of the officer’s powers. It is an offence not to comply unless the person has a reasonable excuse. The exercise of powers mean that a person may be required to temporarily remain at a place, for example to provide reasonable help to a transport safety officer. However, the powers are limited to requiring help to enable the officer to exercise specific compliance and enforcement powers for investigative purposes and do not authorise the detention of individuals. Insofar as the powers limit the freedom of movement of individuals (section 12 of the charter), I consider them to be reasonable and justified given the purpose of the transport safety scheme, which (in this case) is to best secure marine safety, so far as is reasonably practicable. Such powers are necessary to monitor compliance with the regulatory scheme, and to detect non-compliance. I consider that, insofar as the powers interfere with the section 13 charter right to privacy, such interference is in accordance with law and is not arbitrary. The powers are essential to the investigative and compliance functions of Victoria’s marine safety regulator. They are exercisable in constrained circumstances, are directed at important regulatory purposes and are subject to a range of safeguards, including procedural requirements. The powers of entry, and powers on entry, are available in respect of premises used for the specified commercial purposes in which individuals have a limited expectation of privacy, namely premises which transport safety officers reasonably suspect to be marine premises. An officer who enters a place that is not marine premises is required to leave immediately. The processes under that Act for entry and search under warrant also apply to the extended definition of marine premises, but are subject to the safeguards of the warrant process. Any interference with privacy is again in accordance with law and is not arbitrary. I consider that the provisions and any limitations on charter rights are, in each case, reasonable and justified. Provisions relating to seizure may in certain circumstances amount to deprivation of property. However, I consider they do not impermissibly limit the section 20 property rights and are again reasonable and justified. The circumstances in which property can be seized, secured, forfeited or otherwise interfered with are clearly specified and constrained, including by reference to the reasons for which powers can be exercised and, as noted, a range of safeguards are provided. In relation to the imposition of an evidentiary onus on the accused with respect to the offence of failing to give an officer reasonable help, which may limit the section 25(1) charter right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in accordance with law, I consider this is reasonable and justified. The reasonable excuse will be within the knowledge of the accused, and it will be relatively easy for the accused to offer evidence of it. Once the accused has pointed to evidence that a reasonable excuse may exist, the burden of proof passes back to the prosecution. A transport safety officer also has the power, under section 22 of the 2014 Act, to require production of documents, devices or other things and answers to questions. Section 23 of that Act provides that a person is not excused from answering a question or providing information or a document under Part 2 of the Act on the ground that the answer to the question, or the information or document, may tend to incriminate the person or expose the person to a penalty. The section 25(2) charter minimum guarantees in criminal proceedings include the right to be free from self-incrimination. Evidence obtained compulsorily may offend this right. This is also an important element of the section 24 charter right to a fair hearing. However, section 23 of the 2014 Act contains a use immunity (which extends to both direct and indirect, or derivative, use) which protects the privilege and ensures that neither the person’s answer, nor evidence obtained as a consequence of that answer, can be used against that person in criminal proceedings other than a proceeding arising out of the answer being false or misleading. Exceptions to these immunities (in section 23(3) of that Act) apply where the information or document that is obtained directly or indirectly as a consequence of the answer is information or a document that is required to be kept under the regulatory scheme, or is contained in such a document. Pre-existing documents and information required to be kept under a regulatory scheme are generally afforded less protection under the privilege against self-incrimination and are documents or information that a person is required to keep and produce as a consequence of their election to participate in a regulated industry. Ensuring they are available and able to be used in criminal proceedings is essential to achieving compliance with the marine safety scheme in Victoria. To the extent that the exceptions may limit the section 24 and 25 charter rights, I consider that they are justified and reasonable. Hon. Melissa Horne MP Ports and Freight

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2901

Second reading Ms HORNE (Williamstown—Minister for Ports and Freight, Minister for Public Transport) (10:23): 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: We know Victorians love their fishing, with Victoria being home to an estimated 830,000 recreational fishers who contribute around $2.3 billion to Victoria’s social and economic wellbeing each year. In recognition of this, the Andrews Government, in its first term, committed $46 million to growing recreational fishing in Victoria under the Target One Million program. Following the success of this initiative, the Andrews Government has renewed this plan and committed a further $35 million towards Phase 2 of the program. This is the largest injection of funds into fisheries on record. A part of Phase 2, the government has committed to ending commercial netting in Gippsland Lakes with a compulsory buy-out of the remaining licences. This will return the lakes system to recreational fishing and boost local tourism and jobs. It will also facilitate future stock rebuilding for species such as black bream and flathead. To deliver this initiative, it proposed that the Fisheries Act 1995 (the Act) be amended to phase-out the ten Gippsland Lakes Fishery Access Licences over a two-year period with all Gippsland Lakes Fishery Access Licences cancelled by 1 April 2021. This is an important initiative that has substantial benefits. However, the Government acknowledges that commercial fishing has a long history in the Gippsland Lakes, with many of the current licence holders having a direct multi-generational family connection to fishing in the area. The Government also recognises that this decision impacts on people’s livelihoods and their families and that commercial fishing for some of the licence holders is more than a just a business or workplace. To help offset these impacts, the Bill will provide affected licence holders with a fair and clear exit strategy. The Bill will create a new Division in the Fisheries Act that will apply specifically to the cancellation of the Gippsland Lakes Fishery Access Licence class and will detail the process and timing of cancellation, and the compensation to be provided (and when). Similar legislative amendments were used to achieve the phase-out of commercial netting in Port Phillip and Corio Bays. The Bill will provide that Gippsland Lakes Fishery Access Licences are to be phased-out over a two-year period, with all affected licences cancelled by 1 April 2021. However, affected licence holders may elect to surrender their licence before then, with the surrender to take effect on 1 April 2020 (i.e. the licence holder ceases fishing on 1 April 2020). The Bill states that compensation will be offered to licence holders on surrender or cancellation of their licence. Compensation for the surrender of a licence by 1 April 2020 will comprise of: 1. $371,000 for the licence—which is the market value of the licence as assessed by the Valuer General; and 2. an allowance of $60,000 for redundant fishing vessel(s) and all commercial fishing equipment (noting that vessels and equipment continue to be the property of the licence holder); and 3. compensation for loss of income, based on three times the average annual catch value taken under each licence over the five-year period between 1 April 2012–31 March 2017. This amount will differ by licence holder as it is based on their individual previous catch history. The Bill provides that licence holders who wish to continue fishing until 1 April 2021 will be offered cancellation compensation in early 2021. The cancellation package will be calculated in accordance with the same metrics as the surrender package. However, the overall amount offered will be reduced by a factor of 20% to encourage licence holders to exit the fishery early. The Bill will also establish an exemption from the regulation which prohibits the possession of commercial fishing equipment without a fishing licence, for a 12-month period following the surrender or cancellation of the licences (whichever is sooner). This will provide fishers with time to sell the equipment. Following the amnesty, it will be illegal for individuals to be in possession of commercial fishing equipment without a fishing licence. The Victorian Fisheries Authority will arrange for the collection and disposal of any remaining equipment at the conclusion of the amnesty, at no cost to the fishers.

BILLS 2902 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

The commitment will cost around $8.8 million, depending on when fishers exit the fishery and will recognise individual investment and loss of income to licensees. Rural Finance (RF) will be engaged to administer the compensation payments. This provider has experience in administering previous buy-outs. The approach balances the need to allow sufficient time for affected fishers and businesses to make decisions about when to exit, with the early realisation of the expected economic benefits of improved recreational fishing. Commercial bait, eel and mussel fishing will not be impacted by this commitment and will continue to be permitted in the Lakes. Victorian and Commonwealth offshore fisheries that use the Lakes as a port will also remain unaffected, ensuring that prawns and other species sold into the food market continue to be available to consumers. The Bill will implement a range of measures to improve marine safety laws. In 2018, the Department of Transport reviewed the regulatory scheme for pilotage service providers and sea pilots. The Department recommended a range of measures to reduce marine safety risks and improve public confidence in the safety of shipping operations by making changes to the operation of the regulatory scheme for pilotage service providers and pilots. The Bill will amend the Marine Safety Act 2010 to give the Director, Transport Safety more discretion when considering applications for registration of new pilotage service providers. Applicants for registration will need to demonstrate to the Director, Transport Safety that they have the competence and capacity to provide services safely. The Bill will also improve the powers of the Director, Transport Safety to regulate inactive sea pilots. The amendments provide power to suspend or cancel a pilot licence if the person has not acted as a pilot for a period of at least 12 months or does not intend to act as a pilot. This amendment will ensure that the skills of a pilot are current, and that inactive pilots be required to go through a refamiliarisation process if intending to resume providing services. An amendment will introduce a requirement for pilotage service providers to report marine incidents that involve pilots that are employed or engaged by that provider to the Director, Transport Safety. This reporting requirement will complement existing reporting by owners and masters of vessels and improve the level of information available to Transport Safety Victoria to support compliance monitoring and enforcement of marine safety laws. The Bill will amend marine drug and alcohol laws to ensure that sea pilots are required to have a zero blood- alcohol concentration when providing pilot services on any classification of vessel. The Bill will amend the definition of marine safety worker to exclude a person who is a volunteer. This will ensure that volunteers involved in undertaking boating activity events that fail to fulfil their duty to take reasonable care will not be subject to much higher penalties to those that apply to recreational boaters. The amendment will make marine safety laws fairer and more consistent with the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 with respect to the treatment of volunteers. The Bill will provide additional powers to the Director, Transport Safety and Transport Safety Officers to ensure that those officers are able to efficiently and effectively enforce the general safety duties under the Marine Safety Act 2010. The Bill will enable those officers to enter the premises associated with the design, manufacture or supply of vessels and equipment and the premises of pilotage service providers for compliance and investigatory purposes. In conclusion, the Bill will make important changes to Marine and Fisheries Legislation, improving outcomes for recreational fishers and boaters, providing fair compensation to affected licence holders, and improving the safety of shipping operations. I commend the Bill to the house.

Mr T BULL (Gippsland East) (10:23): I move: That the debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. Ordered that debate be adjourned for two weeks. Debate adjourned until Wednesday, 11 September.

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2903

RENEWABLE ENERGY (JOBS AND INVESTMENT) AMENDMENT BILL 2019 Second reading Debate resumed on motion of Ms D’AMBROSIO: That this bill be now read a second time. Mr R SMITH (Warrandyte) (10:24): I rise to lead the coalition’s debate on the Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Amendment Bill 2019. Those opposite might be surprised to hear that the coalition will not be opposing this bill, but there are some concerns that we have, and I will certainly be outlining them today. Those concerns induce me to move a reasoned amendment in this house. I move: That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government has demonstrated to Victorians that legislating a 50 per cent target of electricity generated in Victoria to be sourced from renewable energy by 2030 will not: (1) have the effect of increasing electricity and gas prices for Victorian families; (2) contribute to the premature closing of Victoria’s baseload generators; (3) have a detrimental effect on the security of supply; (4) contribute to unemployment in the Latrobe Valley; (5) have a detrimental effect on the Victorian economy; and (6) force further costs on to Victorian energy consumers due to the additional investment required to expand the transmission network’. The problem with this bill, which is only a couple of pages long, is that there is very little background information to back up the government’s claims of what it is going to achieve. Besides the title, which has the words ‘jobs and investment’ in it, there is actually not anything in the bill or anything in the explanatory notes, or indeed in the briefing that the member for Mornington and I attended, that would tell us that this bill is going to have any impact on jobs and investment at all. In fact history will show us that Victoria’s renewable energy target has had a significant negative impact on jobs and investment in this state. There is a lack of detail and there is a lack of rigour around what the government is putting forward, and the current situation has shown us that over the last five years we have seen supplies become more and more uncertain, we have seen the cost to Victorian energy consumers go up and we have seen jobs lost in the Latrobe Valley—and I will come back to those in detail. But my challenge to the government is that if this is not just about ideology, then present the facts to us. Make sure that we in this chamber, but also broadly across Victoria, understand what modelling and what research has been done to prove the claims that are being made. I would just refer members to the second-reading speech, which says that this particular bill will amongst other things: bring forward significant new investment in renewable energy capacity, increasing total electricity generation in Victoria by 9 per cent … It says it will:

generate annual electricity bill savings of around $32 for households, $3,100 for medium businesses … It will: support additional economic activity of up to $5.8 billion in Victoria by 2030 … And it says that it will increase employment by up to an average of over 4000 full-time jobs a year and reduce Victoria’s emissions from electricity generation from 35.9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent to just 33.9 million tonnes. They are all laudable aspirations, but unfortunately we just do not have any evidence to say that this bill will actually achieve those things. I asked, along with the member for Mornington, in the briefing for the background work to be shown to us so that we could have an informed debate. This is what the Parliament is about. It is not about just saying, ‘Here’s a great idea. Let’s talk about it’. It is about

BILLS 2904 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019 actually having an informed debate. The minister’s office clearly does not want to have that informed debate. Whether they are unwilling or unable to produce that information is up for debate, but we certainly are unable to have a proper debate without that information. As I said, we would love to have this bill withdrawn and be able to come back here with the information that shows members in this house but also Victorians more broadly that this bill is not going to have a detrimental effect in the manner that I have talked about. So it is telling that the government is unwilling to produce this information, and it does not have to be. This particular issue, because it is so wideranging, because it affects so many people, does not have to be adversarial. Given the enormous importance it has for Victorian households and Victorian businesses and the impact that it has on the economy, it does not have to be an adversarial debate if the government just produces the information to let us have that informed debate. I am happy to have an honest and open policy debate based on the facts, but if no facts are presented in this house, if no facts are presented to the opposition or indeed to Victorians more broadly, you can only come to the conclusion that the claimed outcomes, the claimed aspirations of this government, have very little credibility. We would say that particularly based on the experiences of the last five years. In the debate on the Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Bill 2017 in September 2017 the opposition made a number of forecasting statements about what a renewable energy target might do. I myself mentioned during that debate that again the government had been unable to show anyone how these jobs were going to be created. I make the same point again today, and certainly that is an issue that I raise in my reasoned amendment. I also look to other members of this place and members of the opposition. Indeed the member for Malvern, the now Leader of the Opposition, said that the Victorian renewable energy target (VRET) bill would cause bills to skyrocket in the state, forecast that small businesses would struggle as a result and also mentioned that the Labor Party is unable to show us how renewables will actually save us money. The member for Murray Plains, the Leader of The Nationals, said that rolling blackouts would become a way of life in summer, and we certainly saw that in the summer periods just earlier this year. The then Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources, the member for Caulfield, said that the bill would drive up energy prices and threaten security, and indeed the member for Ripon also said that the renewable energy target would continue to force the highest growth in power prices across Australia. All those issues that were raised back in September 2017 have come to pass. We have seen the renewable energy target force household bills and business bills through the roof, and we have seen energy supply just get worse and worse. That is not a matter of opinion—that is a matter of fact. The Australian Energy Market Operator’s recent electricity statement of opportunities that came out just last week—in a very timely manner, may I say—points out these issues; it points out the facts of the matter, not necessarily political opinion. Certainly the AEMO would not be described as partisan but simply comes out with a statement of facts, and they are facts that should make any government sit up and take notice. They are facts that should ring alarm bells and raise the red flag to any government and certainly to any minister who has responsibility for ensuring that we have a supply that is reliable in this state, and they certainly should raise the red flag to a minister who has overseen price rises, as I have said, go through the roof. There are very few of our constituents who would be telling you that they are happy with what they are paying for power bills, because they have seen them just go up and up. Just to read some comments from this particular report, and I will just quote a few things that, as I said, should make the minister sit up and take warning. The report says:

… all regions other than Victoria expected to meet the current reliability standard … That means that all areas that AEMO looks after will meet reliability standards but Victoria will not. The report goes on to say in the executive summary that:

… if no additional supply was secured, involuntary load shedding may be experienced in Victoria during extreme weather events, potentially over multiple events, equivalent to between 260,000 and 1.3 million households being without power …

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2905

This report does not talk about those issues with any other state in Australia. It is specific to Victoria, and again, if 1.3 million households being without power is not something that makes this minister and this government sit up and take notice, well, I do not know what is. The report goes on to say on the issue of the three-year strategic reserve that: … in view of the current risk in Victoria, AEMO believes its inability to procure reserves over a three-year duration is posing unnecessary risks and costs on Victorian consumers. That is a real concern for all Victorians and should be of concern to this government. Now, we heard the minister say in this place during question time yesterday that the introduction of renewable energies will have a huge positive impact on supply. I made the point yesterday and I make the point again today that that is the exact opposite of what AEMO says in its statement of opportunities. What AEMO is actually saying is that—and I quote from page 12 of this report: The new renewable generation coming online makes only a small improvement to the reliability outlook. Victoria, in particular, remains vulnerable to uncontrollable, high impact events such as prolonged or coincident generator outages, as experienced last summer … What AEMO was saying is, as I said, quite contrary to what the minister is saying—that the introduction of renewables is actually making nowhere near the impact that the government is claiming. As the report says: At the same time, the large amount of renewable uptake increases the variability in the system. This increases reliance on the remaining thermal generation fleet … What that means is that the introduction of renewable energy is actually causing variability that is not helpful to supply in this state. It is certainly not helpful at all. And what we are seeing is a government that has a very blinkered view in this regard and is not understanding the impact of their ideological policy on what is actually happening in this state. If I put it more simply, the Australian article, which I will read because it does actually put it quite succinctly, says: In Victoria the brown coal generators are old but with good maintenance and proper care they are capable of producing power for some decades. But with no certainty of their long-term life the owners of the generators spend what is required on the maintenance but no more. And worse still, because of the vast changes in price they are forced to run coal plants more flexibly, like hydro or gas plants. These old coal generators were never designed for such operating style so not surprisingly they are breaking down at a rate that is much higher than would be the case if they were to operate more consistently. So that article says that the introduction of renewable energy is actually causing our coal-fired generators to become more unreliable because they are being forced to operate in a way that they were not meant to operate. We know that supply is going to be an issue going forward, not just from the AEMO report but from the experiences that we had last summer. When we look at what the government’s responses to those blackouts were prior to those blackouts coming but also afterwards, we can also have very little confidence that this government and indeed this minister are up to actually dealing with the problem. In September 2017 the minister said, and I quote: There are concrete steps that have been taken right now by both our government and the market operator to ensure that Victorians will have sufficient energy supplies to meet our needs for this coming summer. In January of this year we had our first blackouts, but prior to those blackouts on 25 January the minister said in regard to the state’s energy supply: We are absolutely confident— that there will be supply going forward. ‘Absolutely confident’! Unfortunately it was just a couple of hours after that statement that over 200 000 houses lost power, and that power was out for some time. The minister went on to say:

BILLS 2906 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

Where you can cut back please do so. Avoiding, postponing turning on your washing machine, your dishwasher, your pool pump is absolutely important today. It is at least telling that just last week on the Neil Mitchell program on 3AW the minister did finally say there is risk that we will not have sufficient supply, although she did say that we would have to rely on the reliability and emergency reserve trader and that that would come at a cost—a cost of course that is going to be borne by the Victorian energy consumer. Now we going to face real problems, as the AEMO report says, if Yallourn or Loy Yang A closes down, and the problem that we have is that the government has declined to give us any reason to think that those power stations will not close down to meet this target. In the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearings the minister was asked if any work had been done to ensure that Yallourn would not close down prematurely—and I will come back to that. The minister was reluctant to produce any documents or any research or work that had been done to assure the employees in the Latrobe Valley, but consumers more broadly, that there was not going to be a problem in that regard. We can move onto cost. Now, as I said before, all our constituents would tell us, whether they be talking about their own households or their businesses, that energy costs have gone through the roof in recent times. Certainly over the last five years we have seen significant increases in energy prices. When Hazelwood closed down the Premier said that it would have an impact on prices, but that impact would only be in the order of 85 cents a week, or just 4 per cent. I think it is pretty clear that we have seen those prices go up significantly more than that. Indeed household prices have gone up by over 20 per cent, and some businesses have seen price rises of between 100 per cent and 300 per cent, as we have heard in this place many times. The Premier said in November 2016, with the closure of Hazelwood, that: Experts tell us wholesale prices will go up, and that will be passed on to households. That modelling says 85 cents a week. He also dismissed claims that they would go up by as much as 25 per cent as ‘wild’ and ‘inaccurate’. It is fair to say that the Premier’s statement at that time proved itself to be wild and inaccurate. So we have an issue where the government has overseen those price rises. The minister often says, ‘Well, it’s because the Liberals and Jeff Kennett privatised all the electricity generation’. That is simply not true, and it is not true as evidenced by comments from former Deputy Premier John Thwaites who is quoted in an article in 2015:

John Thwaites, who was deputy to former Premier Steve Bracks in 2002 when the government deregulated the retail electricity market, told Fairfax Media the reform had failed to deliver lower prices for households. ‘Clearly, that part of the policy has not worked’, Mr Thwaites said. ‘Other areas of costs have been kept down, but the retail component has increased very substantially’. He went on to say:

… in developing the policy to deregulate energy retailers ‘everyone expected that there would be more competition and therefore a reduction in bills’. ‘The figures show that that hasn’t happened’. So although we hear the minister, and indeed I am sure we will hear those opposite, talking about the fact, according to them, that it was the privatisation of the generators that actually caused prices to rise, albeit 25 years ago, former Deputy Premier John Thwaites actually said something different. He said that the deregulation of the retail market actually caused the price rises, and that Labor got it wrong when it came to that particular position. So it is important to note the facts rather than just spouting the ideology. I move on to the issue of jobs and the loss of jobs as a result of the Hazelwood closure. Overnight we saw something in the order of 700 direct jobs lost as a result of that power station closing, and indeed many hundreds more indirect jobs. This happened in an area of Victoria that was already experiencing 17 per cent unemployment at the time. The government talks about this particular bill increasing the amount of jobs, and I have with me the Victorian renewable energy target progress report. In the table

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2907 of jobs that are going to be brought into the state as a result of construction activity through renewable energy generators, there are claims about job increases in Central Highlands, Barwon and Great South Coast, the Mallee and the Wimmera Southern Mallee, but it does not even mention jobs in the Gippsland area. Now the government has totally got its eyes shut not only to the jobs lost but is actually in its own progress report showing clearly that there is going to be no jobs growth at all in the Gippsland area as a result of the pursuit of this renewable energy target. It is a real concern obviously for those who live in that area that there are no plans to ensure that they are going to have ongoing employment going forward. I think the government really needs to, as I have said in my reasoned amendment, assure people in the Gippsland and Latrobe Valley areas that they are confident that jobs are going to be kept and that they are not going to be left in the lurch as a result of these policies. I go back to the minister’s comments in the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearings, where the member for Gippsland South asked the minister, and I quote:

Given that the target is for 50 per cent by 2030, what modelling have you undertaken to guarantee the 50 per cent target is going to be achieved by 2030? The minister said: Well, we have done a lot of internal work to ensure our targets are ambitious but achievable. The member for Gippsland South went on to ask: Are they achievable without any of the Latrobe Valley power stations closing? The minister said:

Yes, we are confident of that ... Now the minister was asked during those hearings if she would provide that work, and she was reluctant to do so. Indeed as the months have gone by we have not seen any work that would assure employees in the Latrobe Valley or even energy consumers across Victoria that that power station in Yallourn is not going to be closed prematurely. If the government has evidence to say that there is no need for those coal-fired generators to close prematurely in order to reach the target, then, again, please give that work to Victorians so that they understand the basis of those claims. It would be very helpful if the material were there, as the minister claims, to actually put it out in the public arena so that we all understand what the plan actually is. I guess that is the basis for the reasoned amendment: to understand what the plan is, because a target is just that—it is aspirational. In many ways I will even concede that it is laudable, but if there is no plan behind it, it is just words on a page. We need far more than that if we are going to guarantee supply, if we going to guarantee cost and if we are going to guarantee jobs. Now there are alternatives to the government’s approach of having a renewable energy target, and the approach taken by New South Wales is different. The approach taken by New South Wales is one of net zero emissions by 2050, and I think we will all agree that the pursuit of the renewable energy target is indeed to pursue that reduction in emissions. Rather than having Victoria’s blinkered approach of focusing virtually solely on renewables to meet the target, the New South Wales government is actually taking a whole-of-government approach to reduce emissions. After all, as we said, the endgame is to actually reduce emissions. The New South Wales government is seeking to achieve net zero emissions in the most cost-effective way. Net zero emissions is consistent with the approach of leading Australian corporates such as AGL, Amcor, Wesfarmers and Telstra. So New South Wales has taken the lead of the corporate sector. As I said, Victoria is taking a very different approach. In the New South Wales approach we also found that they are looking at a whole range of different things, not just the introduction of renewable energies. They are looking at advanced energy. They are looking at energy efficiency to boost energy productivity to put downward pressure on energy bills. They are looking at managing price impacts of external policies, climate change adaption, and managing impacts of natural resources, ecosystems and communities. They also have some review

BILLS 2908 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019 mechanisms. While the Victorian government has the VRET progress report, what the New South Wales government has actually put out there is the framework by which they seek to achieve net zero emissions—again, something this government has not done. It certainly has not done it in this place and certainly not done it for the Victorian people to show them that there is a plan, there is a framework and it is more than, as I said, just an aspirational target but there is actually some rigour around the work that is being done. We have not seen any of that. I asked the government in the briefing, and I ask the government through my recent amendment just to provide that information so that we understand there is some rigour and work that is actually being done around this particular policy. The Victorian government can take some criticism for its approach to the National Energy Guarantee that was put forward by the federal government. Again, there was some rigour around the work that the federal government did, with work done by the Australian Energy Market Commission to show that there would indeed be price reductions and surety of supply. The Victorian government chose to walk away from that particular guarantee and indeed grandstanded. When the Victorian energy minister speaks about there not being a COAG meeting of energy ministers for some time, the reason for that, I can only assume, is that every time they had a meeting the Victorian minister used it to grandstand and was very reluctant to take a non-partisan approach to the situation and instead used it for politics rather than for actually delivering good policy for the people of Victoria. Can I say also that there is more rigour required in a whole range of approaches that the government is taking in its pursuit of the target, and policies that are related to this particular target need to be implemented in a way that does not affect Victorians. There is no example that is better than the botched Solar Homes scheme that has seen so many businesses shut down, so many people lose their jobs. I have stood in front of 200 people from the solar industry on the steps of this Parliament and again a few weeks later outside the Premier’s office, all of whom—almost to a man and woman—said they were Labor voters but would never vote Labor again because of the damage Labor had done to their industry. In this house I gave notice to move that the Standing Committee on Environment and Planning inquire into and consider a whole range of things related to the government’s Solar Homes program—again a motion that was opposed by the government, because once again, as we have seen with issues around this particular bill, they are unwilling to put on the table the empirical evidence that supports their claims. Now I will show you some evidence that I have about the Solar Homes implementation. I have stood outside and had grown men in tears because the Solar Homes project has shut their businesses, in tears because they have had to let workers go who are considered family. I sat in a solar installation proprietor’s factory on 1 August when they tried desperately to get a job and had gone from doing 100 jobs a month to not getting one rebate through, and that meant no jobs because that is the situation. It is pleasing, although it is disappointingly belated, that the government has finally made some moves on that Solar Homes program. Although we have raised issues in this house on many, many occasions on behalf of the solar industry, we saw complete denial from the minister that there was actually a problem—complete denial that the survey results that the Smart Energy Council had put together were actually real. If I can talk to some of those: the Smart Energy Council surveyed many of the business that they represent. We had, in question 1 that was put to the industry:‘... has the solar rebate scheme been positive or negative for you and your business?’. And overwhelmingly, at almost 90 per cent, business said it had been a negative. Further questions were: ‘Have you had to make staff redundant?’. Over 40 per cent said yes, and just over 30 per cent said ‘No, but I expect to soon’. Have you had to lay off staff? Businesses said that on average they had to lay off five staff as a result of the program. ‘Have you been forced to close your business as a result of the solar rebate scheme?’. We had just over 15 per cent of businesses say that they had to close their doors as a direct result of the scheme. If I could just look further to a more recent survey that the Smart Energy Council did, and may I say that it is the pressure of the Smart Energy Council and the unrelenting advocacy of the Smart Energy

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2909

Council on behalf of their members that finally forced the government to move today. Earlier this week we saw some results from the Smart Energy Council survey, which said:

• 90% said the solar rebate had been negative for their business. • 43% said they had made staff redundant and 36% expected to soon. A staggering 80% of businesses had made staff redundant or expected to do so. • 10% of businesses had been forced to close and a further 73% were concerned that they might be forced to close as a result of the Solar Homes program. Those are some pretty telling statistics from the solar panel installation industry, who raised their hands almost unanimously on the steps of Parliament when I was there with them, saying they just wanted the program to be thrown in the bin frankly, because it had hurt their businesses so much. Some of these businesses reported financial losses as a direct result of the Solar Homes program. The first one said they had lost $620 000 in revenue, plus a loss of 12 jobs. Another one said, ‘Our business has collapsed’. Another one said they had stopped trading. Figures of $620 000, $600 000, $200 000 are all amounts of revenue that have been lost as a result of the botched implementation of this program. And indeed at the Australian Industry Group function yesterday, which some of you may have gone to—taking into account the recycling crisis, the Solar Homes crisis and the AEMO report, which shows that reliability of supply is going to get worse and prices are only going to get higher—one participant said, ‘Well, you must be very pleased that Lily is actually bringing down the government all on her own’. So it was very telling that that is what industry thinks. That is what industry are having demonstrated to them. And there is certainly something wrong with that Solar Homes project, because demonstrations do not just happen. As I said, the parliamentary inquiry was voted down, and it is clear based on the backflip that the government have made today on that project that they knew all along that there was a problem but just were reluctant to face those problems and actually acknowledge that there were issues that needed to be addressed. It is a shame that so many businesses have had to shut their doors and so many people have had to lose their jobs as a result of this program, and if the government had moved a little bit quicker when it first was flagged to them back in April that there was a problem and growing problems, they might have been able to save some of those businesses and save some of those jobs. There are effectively two or three areas where the government needs to do work in order to make sure that a transition to renewable energy is smooth. There needs to be far more and greater investment in large-scale storage capacity to ensure that the energy generated by wind and solar actually can be used during peak periods, and there also needs to be a significant investment in the transmission network. Anyone you speak to who is connected to this industry says there has been a chronic underinvestment in the transmission network, and that really needs to be addressed as soon as possible. There have been some articles just recently where Snowy Hydro chief executive Paul Broad said: … the Victorian government must bring forward the building of a crucial transmission link if it wants to prevent summer blackouts hitting the state. Broad went on to say: The answer to keeping the lights on in Victoria is simple: invest in transmission … The government certainly needs to address that particular issue, and in this pursuit of a renewable energy target it has failed to understand that the transmission network is an integral part. While you are putting out solar and wind farms, you actually need to upgrade the transmission lines, and we are woefully behind where we need to be in that particular situation. We also need to give added support to the Victorian universities who are doing some fantastic research into renewables. They need to have far more support given to them. Just look at RMIT, Monash, Deakin, Victoria University and Melbourne University. They are all doing some really, really good work, and I am not sure the government is giving enough support in that area to make sure that our

BILLS 2910 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019 reliance is not solely on solar and wind. We need to make sure that the reliance is not solely on those two means of power generation. There is some concern if the government does not incorporate or accept or support the reasoned amendment that I have put forward. It means that they are fully aware that their policies actually do not stack up. There can be no other reason why they are not willing to make the empirical evidence behind their claims public. There can be no other reason. It is simply that they know that it does not stack up, and they just will continue to pursue the ideology. As Emma King from the Victorian Council of Social Service said, we should not pretend that the VRET will magically drive down prices. There has to be evidence behind it, and there is plenty to be concerned about because the record is terrible. Over five years in the portfolio of energy policy we have seen costs go up and we have seen supply get more unreliable. Implementation of the various aspects of the pursuit of this target has been botched, and it has cost jobs in particularly the Latrobe Valley. It is clear that the minister is not up to the job, and indeed a Herald Sun editorial just recently on 23 August made that case. It said: Premier Daniel Andrews must take control of the portfolio as his Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Lily D’Ambrosio, is clearly out of her depth. It goes on to say:

Mr Andrews must take leadership on this crucial issue because Ms D’Ambrosio is clearly not up to it, and she risks damaging the state. Again I make the point: this is not a matter of opinion— (Time expired) Mr EDBROOKE (Frankston) (10:54): It is an honour to rise on the Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Amendment Bill 2019. I would like to start by congratulating the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change and her staff on this bill but also on the announcement this morning of extra solar energy rebates for the 2019–20 financial year—so we know more savings are coming. I would like to frame my contribution from the outset by reminding colleagues that we barely have a decade left to keep global warming to a maximum of 1.5 degrees Celsius and avert a climate change catastrophe, and not leave it to the kids of the future. As Parliamentary Secretary for Police and Emergency Services I am very cognisant of the fact that a climate catastrophe will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat, bushfires, loss of ecosystems and poverty for hundreds of millions of people across the globe. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is the UN’s body for assessing climate science, put out a report last October, and it makes it very clear that urgent and unprecedented changes are needed to reach that 1.5 degrees Celsius target. We cannot afford to be parochial on this. We have to look to the future, and that is one thing we did not hear from the opposition just then. The question then becomes: what can we do in this Parliament to recognise the science, to do our part in mitigating climate change and to make sure no community is left behind in the process? On this side of the chamber we believe the facts and we believe the science, and that is why we promised at the election to increase Victoria’s renewal energy target, or VRET, to 50 per cent by 2030. And that is why we are delivering our promise in this historic legislation. There are huge benefits to this legislation. The economic case for renewable energy is clear across the globe. It is already the cheapest and cleanest source of energy supply. The legislation ensures we seize those opportunities afforded by renewable energy and that we achieve its economic, environmental and social benefits for current and future generations of Victorians. As colleagues will make abundantly clear, I am sure, the increased VRET means we obtain the best value from our abundant wind, solar, biomass, marine and other renewable energy resources to drive investment and create thousands of new jobs across Victoria. This is a game changer, have no doubt. While those opposite will talk about privatising electricity generation, driving up prices and putting profit over reliability—and they will make sure they distance themselves from that privatisation that

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2911 occurred under their government—we are helping to actually square the ledger by supporting up to $5.8 billion of additional economic activity in Victoria by 2030 and ensuring energy production benefits all. By growing a supply of renewable energy in the market and putting downward pressure on wholesale prices Victorians will reap the benefits of falling costs of energy, and this is very significant to constituents of mine in Frankston. It means that they will have more money in their pockets, which is vital to our economy and to families who are struggling with the rising costs of living across the board and stagnating wage growth. The economic case for this legislation is strong. The crux of the challenge faced in our energy market is pretty simple: how do you increase the ability of a privatised electricity system to deliver reliable, cheap, clean energy to power our economy? The answer is not so simple though. A 50 per cent VRET is the mechanism by which to do so because it provides industry with continued policy certainty to invest in renewable energy projects, and local supply chain development as well. Australians are practical people. We have proven ourselves big fans of real things, like solar panels, with 2 million households having already installed them and more on the way with our $1.3 billion Solar Homes program. That makes us a world leader in the domestic solar uptake market—a world leader in domestic solar uptake. It is worth noting that we are also the third largest domestic battery market despite our small population. We certainly support the uptake of renewables in this country because it makes sense. This legislation means we get more renewable energy production into the grid by providing investments— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! If members could be quiet, please? Mr EDBROOKE: Just as we have successfully supported six large-scale wind farms across the state. This is about putting power back into the hands of Victorians, and as a result of the VRET 2030 target we expect households to save around $32 a year, $3100 a year for medium businesses and $150 000 a year for large companies. These savings for businesses mean that they have the certainty to go out and invest that capital in our economy and hire workers at a time when consumer confidence is flagging and we are facing strong economic headwinds. The cost of inaction is very high. Those opposite will speak today about today, but they will never speak about tomorrow and those generations of the future. It is not only the net economic benefits of this legislation which are important but also that high cost of inaction. Those opposite will no doubt talk today about the cost of decarbonisation, which is wholly misleading, because by cost it is effectively investment. What they really mean is that some future generation should pay for it, even though future action is inevitable and it will cost more in the future. We know they are no fans of renewable energy. When they were last in government they made it effectively impossible to build wind farms, which was shameful. Then at the 2018 election they promised to scrap our renewable energy targets—which worked out so well for them, as we can see from this side of the benches. Business interrupted under sessional orders. Questions without notice and ministers statements WASTE AND RECYCLING MANAGEMENT Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (11:01): My question is to the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change. Yesterday the government announced it would give $10 million—or loan $10 million—to SKM to ‘help clear waste stockpiles’. Will this money clear any waste at all stockpiled in warehouses leased by SKM?

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 2912 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes) (11:01): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. We have been very resolute in making available a $10 million loan to the receivers of the SKM facilities. Our priority, and the priority purpose of this loan, is to get recycling back on its feet in Victoria. The priority therefore is to allow the receivers to clear the existing stockpiles at those four facilities, because ultimately it is those facilities that will then need to be able to start receiving recyclable material from kerbside collections. That is our priority, and of course if there are any funds that are available potentially beyond that, certainly the receivers have the opportunity to look at other stockpiles of materials. Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, this is $10 million of taxpayers money. My question is: will this clear any of the stockpiles in warehouses leased by SKM? The SPEAKER: I understand the question, the point of order is to relevance. The minister is being relevant to the question that was asked. Ms D’AMBROSIO: Thank you, Speaker. As I said, our priority is to get those dangerous stockpiles cleared up, get the machinery tested and up and running, and actually get councils to be able to continue with kerbside collection that actually goes to reprocessing. Those are our priorities. We continue as we have been, engaged with landlords of other warehouses that have stockpiled materials that they have chosen to take on over a period of time through contract arrangements. We continue to work with them to work through ways that we can provide assistance to them. Those conversations are ongoing and we will continue to have those discussions. Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (11:03): Marwood Property Group has been told that not one dollar of this money will be available to them to reduce even 1 tonne of SKM’s 10 000 tonne stockpile of waste sitting in its warehouse in Derrimut. Why is the government loaning $10 million of taxpayers money to SKM while innocent businesses such as Marwood properties are stuck with 10 000 tonnes of SKM’s waste? Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes) (11:04): Thanks to the Leader of the Opposition for the supplementary question. Absolutely we have great sympathy for those landlords and businesses that have fallen foul of a recycling business that has been unable and unwilling to run a business that has given the confidence to councils, ratepayers and of course their contracted parties to be able to deal with their waste appropriately. As I have said, our priority is to get recycling back on its feet. Fifty per cent of Victoria’s recycling system has been handled through one provider— Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, on relevance, the question goes to why $10 million has been given to the company that helped create the problem and the victims get nothing. The SPEAKER: I understand the point of order. The minister is being relevant to the question. Ms D’AMBROSIO: I do wish to correct the Leader of the Opposition, because he obviously does not understand the situation that we are in right now. Right now the debt— Members interjecting. Ms D’AMBROSIO: The debt that SKM had to a bank has been bought by the receivers. The receivers own that debt— (Time expired) Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Essendon and the member for South-West Coast not to shout across the chamber.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2913

MINISTERS STATEMENTS: ROYAL COMMISSION INTO VICTORIA’S MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Equality, Minister for Creative Industries) (11:06): I rise to update the house on the progress of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System, the first of its kind in the nation. The royal commission recently concluded its first round of formal hearings that saw over 90 witnesses give evidence, including many experts and members of the community speaking about their lived experience of our mental health system and its failings. One of the key themes that has emerged from those hearings and through public submissions is the powerful and disempowering role that stigma and discrimination play in our community when it comes to mental health. The negative impact that stigma and discrimination can have on people with mental health issues, including those with addiction, cannot be understated. In too many instances we know that these barriers are one of the many reasons that contribute to not only people not seeking support but sadly, in too many extreme episodes, people taking their own lives—an issue that the Prime Minister has rightly identified as a national priority. People are not their illness, they are not their addiction and it is unacceptable in this day and age to discriminate against people based on their illness. Mental health issues are not something that happens to others. In my time here as Minister for Mental Health I have been approached by members privately on all sides, including some of those opposite, seeking mental health support for their constituents, for their families and for themselves. Members of Parliament are not immune from mental illness—a fact that we know to be true given that one of the first people to give evidence at the royal commission was former federal MP and cabinet minister Andrew Robb, who spoke powerfully about a lifetime of discrimination and stigma that he had to overcome. So for those opposite to sink to the depths of perpetuating stigma, particularly the Leader of the Opposition and David Davis, to perpetuate discrimination against the member for Burwood is— Ms Staley: On a point of order, Speaker, it is well established that question time is not to be used to attack the opposition or members of it, and I would ask you to remind the minister of that. The SPEAKER: The minister’s statement has concluded. MILLEWA DROUGHT Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (11:08): My question is to the Premier. Farmers in the Millewa region have received less than 10 per cent of their annual rainfall this year, the worst season since the 1944–45 drought. Will the Premier go to the Millewa and meet with farmers there within the next two weeks? Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (11:09): I thank the member for his question. There are a number of communities across Victoria that are experiencing record-low rainfall. Some of those, based on rules that are agreed at a national level, have had the two requisite fail seasons and therefore qualify for support, and the government has provided the best part, I think, of around $50 million worth of support. I have indicated that we are monitoring the situation very carefully. Agriculture Victoria as well as the minister, the Victorian Farmers Federation and others are in constant contact with them about the fact that—and this is deeply frustrating, I know, for many communities—the season, it would seem, is unfolding in a very patchy way. I was talking to some farmers not very long ago—just last week actually—and they were indicating that they anticipated that it looks like a very good season for them. At the same time, though, others not that far away are experiencing real hardship. That is why the— Mr Walsh: On a point of order, Speaker, on relevance, I appreciate the background from the Premier but the farmers of the Millewa feel that they are forgotten. The Premier was in Mildura last week and could have gone 15 minutes down the road and met with them. The question was

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 2914 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019 specifically: will he go to the Millewa in the next two weeks and meet with those farmers? I appreciate the background, but the question was very specific about meeting with those farmers. The SPEAKER: Order! The question was in two parts, and the Premier has been answering the question for less than 2 minutes. The Premier is being relevant to the question. Mr ANDREWS: As I was indicating, there are communities, including the community that the member cites, that are dealing with very real challenges. That is why the government has already provided significant support and stands ready, based on rainfall and how winter moving into spring unfolds. We are monitoring those affected communities—rainfall, temperatures, how the season unfolds—very, very carefully. That is what you would expect the government to do. I meet with many different communities. I and the minister and the government more broadly stand ready to support those communities in any way that we can, just as we have done over the last four and a half years. Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (11:11): Almost seven months ago I asked the Premier to provide shire rate relief and payment of fixed water charges for drought-affected farmers. The government has refused to act on this request, so I ask the Premier again: will he now commit to providing shire rate relief and payment of fixed water charges to help drought-affected farmers? Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (11:12): As I indicated in my answer to the substantive question, the government through its agencies is monitoring conditions in a number of different communities, many of which are doing it very, very tough. We know that and understand that, and that is why we are monitoring those circumstances. As I have said many times, including just a few moments ago, the government stands ready to provide any and all support we can to deal with the impacts of record low rainfall. Mr Walsh: On a point of order, Speaker, I ask you to bring the Premier back to actually answering the question about whether he will provide shire rate relief and the payment of fixed water charges for drought-affected farmers. These people are under severe financial and emotional stress and they need the support of the government of the day, and at the moment they are not receiving that support. So I would ask you to bring the Premier back to actually answering the question please. The SPEAKER: I do ask the Premier to come back to answering the question. Mr ANDREWS: As I have indicated, the government has provided some $50 million worth of substantial drought support to communities that have been affected. We stand ready to do more, but I have no announcements to make in relation to drought support today. The government is monitoring the situation, as you would expect, and if and when I have more to say, I will make announcements in the usual way. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: NORTH EAST LINK Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure) (11:13): I am pleased to rise to update the house on the terrific progress the Andrews Labor government is making in delivering the North East Link, the missing link—the long talked about missing link— between the Eastern Freeway and the ring-road. I am very disappointed, though, to also have to advise the house of some threats to its progress that the Andrews Labor government needs to very carefully manage through the delivery of this important project. There are many benefits of the North East Link. Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Kew is warned. Ms ALLAN: We know it will cut over an hour from a return trip to the airport from the eastern suburbs of Melbourne, there are the trucks off local roads—there are many benefits for this project. Through the planning process for the North East Link we have identified that perhaps the biggest threat to this project comes from people sitting in this chamber—those opposite in the Liberal Party and their

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2915 determination to stop at nothing to prevent this government from delivering the projects Victorians voted for. We committed to this project. We are determined to deliver it. Why do we need to keep an eye on this? Well, as we have got on and delivered our record transport infrastructure agenda we have seen those opposite have form on these matters. On the Metro Tunnel the Liberal Party tried to use heritage legislation to prevent that project from proceeding. They even roped in the federal Treasurer to help them with this work. Mr Wells: On a point of order, Speaker, ministers statements are about what projects and what good news and positive news they have for the state of Victoria, and it is quite clear now that they have run out of positive, good news and are spending their ministers statements attacking the opposition. I would ask you to caution—of all people—the Minister for Transport Infrastructure and bring her back to delivering a ministers statement without attacking the opposition. Ms ALLAN: On the point of order, Speaker, it is a well-established practice of this house— Mr Andrews interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Without the assistance of the Premier. Mr M O’Brien interjected. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition! Ms ALLAN: It is well-established practice in this house and it has been established through numerous rulings from the Chair that in canvassing government policy in answers to questions or indeed in ministers statements that the government is allowed to canvass risks and challenges to the progress of its policies and commitments, and indeed that is exactly what I am doing. The irony of a point of order like this from those opposite, who delivered nothing, is further evidence that they just do not understand what it takes to deliver projects. The SPEAKER: Order! I do not uphold the point of order but I do ask the Leader of the House not to use a ministers statement as an opportunity to attack the opposition. Ms ALLAN: I can move across to level crossings, where we are getting on with removing 75. Twenty-nine have gone, and there have been some challenges with that as well. I know the member for Oakleigh remembers well that there was an attempt by some in this place to heritage list Carnegie and Murrumbeena stations to stop us from removing those nine level crossings. The open space has been created. Now we know the member for Kew is out there, campaigning in the area trying to stop the North East Link Project as well. Ms McLeish: On a point of order, Speaker, the minister knows full well that this is not an opportunity to continually attack the opposition during a ministers statement. I ask you to draw her back to what she is supposed to be doing rather than what she likes to be doing. Ms ALLAN: On the point of order, Speaker, I simply renew my previous response to the previous point of order, which you did rule out of order. It is entirely relevant to government business to address threats and challenges to the progress of projects. If those opposite do not like their actions, they should get up and defend themselves and explain to the public why they are taking this action. Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr T Smith interjected. The SPEAKER: The member for Kew— Mr M O’Brien interjected.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 2916 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

Ms ALLAN: I reckon you are the pot calling the kettle black, mate. The SPEAKER: The member for Kew has already been warned. Ms ALLAN: He is a bit excited over there. He must be excited about his opposition to the North East Link! The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House, to continue without attacking the opposition. Ms ALLAN: I would simply say that I am entirely within the precedent that has been set by this house when we are discussing government policy. The SPEAKER: The Leader of The Nationals on a question. Ms ALLAN: Hang on, I haven’t finished. Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: I apologise. The clock was at zero so I thought the minister had concluded her time. The minister has 7 seconds left. Ms ALLAN: That is all right. I will cede to the Leader of The Nationals. DJAB WURRUNG SACRED TREES Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (11:19): My question is for the Premier. The route of the duplication of the Western Highway between Buangor and Ararat has been approved by the registered Aboriginal parties, Martang Pty Ltd and the Eastern Maar Aboriginal Corporation. Premier, when will the construction start? Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (11:19): I thank the member for his question. As he would be aware, and as I think all of us in this chamber would be aware, there is a protracted dispute as to the cultural significance of a number of trees in the proposed corridor where this vitally important road needs to be built. I have made it very clear as recently as when I was in Stawell just a couple of weeks ago. I made the point then, and I will make it again now, that there have been I think some 11 fatalities on that stretch of road in about as many years. Mr Walsh interjected. Mr ANDREWS: Twelve. Well, again, that just makes the point. I would have thought—perhaps I can say—that we are in agreement on the importance of this road to save lives and to deal with the sheer volume of traffic on this road. Now, there have been some amendments made to the proposed alignment of the road. We had hoped that that would deal with some of the cultural heritage issues. Sadly, I cannot report to the member and to the house that those issues have been resolved. They are still outstanding. The Minister for Transport Infrastructure, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and others are working with all affected parties to try and find a way through where we can— Mr Wells interjected. Mr ANDREWS: The member for Scoresby asks when. I am not in a position—because those matters have not yet been resolved— Mr Wells interjected. Mr ANDREWS: Well, I am not in a position to provide you with a date. That is the simple answer to your question, but I would hope that from my answer I give you not just the impression but I make it very clear for all honourable members that this road is regarded by the government as critically important for safety, and we are working through these issues in a sensitive way with a view to getting this road built. I cannot report to you that these matters have been resolved because they have not been.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2917

But we are continuing to work in good faith to try and find a way forward that involves building the road and making sure that that transport corridor is as safe as it can possibly be. Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (11:21): Ms Onus of the Djab Wurrung protesters on the Western Highway at Buangor has said: This fight with Djab Wurrung will destroy the romance of the Labor government’s strive for treaty. It will be a defining factor. Will the Premier support the registered Aboriginal party’s decision to approve the route for this road, or will the government side with the Djab Wurrung protesters? Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (11:21): The member refers to comments made by a number of interested parties. The key point here—I think I alluded to this in my answer to the substantive question—is that there is a disagreement or a dispute. I make no judgements about the validity of these claims, but there is a dispute between those who under some statute are recognised as speaking for that country and others who assert that they have not only the opportunity but the obligation, as they see it, to speak on these issues. In terms of treaty, the government’s position on treaty is well understood, as is the position of others. When it comes to this road, though, we know it needs to be built— Mr Walsh: On a point of order, Speaker, on the issue of relevance, the question goes to the nub of: will the Premier and will the government support the registered Aboriginal party that has actually approved this route— Ms Allan interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the House! Mr Walsh: or cave in to the protesters who are coming— Ms Allan interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr Walsh: The road is not being built—this is the whole point—because the government— Ms Allan interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the House will come to order! Mr Walsh: I am actually talking to you, Speaker, not to the Leader of the House. Will the Premier come back to actually answering the question of supporting the registered Aboriginal party that has approved this route or having the project held up by the protesters? The SPEAKER: I understand the question, but the Premier is being relevant to the supplementary question that was asked. Mr ANDREWS: Thank you very much, Speaker. I had hoped to maybe have a point of agreement with the member who asked the question about the importance of this road but also the importance of trying to find a consensus where at the moment there is none as to the cultural significance of certain trees. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: NAPLAN RESULTS Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education) (11:23): I am delighted to inform the house that Victoria is leading the nation on NAPLAN. Victoria’s primary schools achieved the best results in the country in seven out of 10 measures, up from 2018 when we led on four out of 10. Primary schools improved on their own excellent results from 2018 on six out of 10 measures, including numeracy, where we achieved higher average scores and levels of excellence than all other states and territories. In reading, writing and numeracy our year 7 students are the best in the country and have

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 2918 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019 improved since last year. This confirms that the Andrews Labor government’s Education State reforms are working. I want to thank our excellent principals, teachers and support staff and our students on their efforts. While these results are excellent, we know there is more to do to lift year 9 performance. Year 9 results across the country are flat. It is the hardest cohort to engage in their education. Teachers know that and parents of teenagers know that. We must do more to make the test relevant for students so they give it their best shot and take it seriously. So there will be ideas, such as the introduction of a proficiency certificate for students that they can include in their careers portfolio, or changing the year level in which the test is conducted. A test in grade 6 makes common sense as they transition to secondary school. A test in year 10 makes sense as they head into their final years of VCE. We are removing mobile phones to reduce distraction. We are investing in mental health practitioners in our secondary schools. We are investing $183 million for intensive literacy and numeracy support for students falling behind. And that is much better than cutting education—which is what those opposite would do. (Time expired) Mr Wells: On a point of order, Speaker, this is the third minister that has used ministers statements to attack the opposition. So it is obvious that they are struggling in their portfolios. This is our third point of order about the third minister attacking the opposition. I ask you respectfully to request that the ministers stick by the guidelines that have been set out in the house, stick to ministers statements and try and find some positive news. Mr Merlino: On the point of order, Speaker, struggling in their portfolios—the best NAPLAN results in the country! The SPEAKER: Order! The minister made a valid ministers statement until the very end, when he jumped into attacking the opposition. I warn ministers again not to use ministers statements as an opportunity to attack the opposition. GIPPSLAND TRAIN SERVICES Mr NORTHE (Morwell) (11:27): My question is to the Minister for Transport Infrastructure. As you are acutely aware, Gippsland commuters continually have to contend with replacement V/Line services and ongoing disruptions and delays, which have had enormous impacts on the lives of so many people, with work, travel and medical commitments interrupted. Subsequently my constituents often comment to me that when utilising public transport they are required to pay more to travel shorter distances on inferior services. In relation to these ongoing disruptions, much is attributed to works on the Gippsland line upgrade project and other associated works. Our community is generally very understanding and patient. As you would expect, we are very keen to know what the benefits will be once these works are completed. So Minister, can you advise Gippsland commuters if travel times will improve on any services once these works are complete, and if so, what services and by how much will these travel times be reduced? The SPEAKER: Again, without detracting from the importance of the question raised by the member, I do ask members if they can keep questions as brief as possible. Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure) (11:28): I thank the Independent member for Morwell for his question. I do note, for the record, over the years he has been an ongoing advocate for the improvement of rail services in the Gippsland region. Mr R Smith interjected. The SPEAKER: I ask the minister to resume her seat. I warn the member for Warrandyte not to reflect on the Chair. Mr R Smith: I am talking privately.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2919

The SPEAKER: I warn the member for Warrandyte. The Minister for Transport Infrastructure, to continue. Ms ALLAN: Thank you, Speaker. As I was saying, I note the Independent member for Morwell’s ongoing advocacy for rail services on behalf of his community. Like me, as someone who is proud to represent a regional community, he understands well the importance of having good rail connections in and out of Melbourne to support our communities. It is for that purpose that the Andrews Labor government has—I will note, for completeness—partnered with the federal government on the big Gippsland line upgrade. I would also like to acknowledge the work of the other—federal—member for Gippsland, Darren Chester. We were able to put together a package of upgrades to every single regional rail passenger line in regional Victoria. We are very pleased to see that there is progress on the Gippsland line upgrade. In answer to the member’s question about improvements to travel times and numbers of services, that is exactly why we are embarking on this nearly $450 million project for the Gippsland line. I would like to acknowledge that Gippsland passengers have experienced significant periods of disruption as we have both gotten on with and improved the metropolitan part of the network—which they use—through the removal of level crossings and the significant power and signalling upgrades that are about improving reliability for regional services as much as they are for metropolitan services. We are now also deep into the work on the Gippsland line because the purpose of this work is to provide a reduction in travel times and an increase in the number of services. The exact answer to those parts of the member’s question comes as we head towards the completion of the project and we finalise the train timetable and improve paths. I should also note, for completeness, that the work we are doing in removing three level crossings at Pakenham and the construction of a super-station at Pakenham will involve the construction of a third platform that will allow for improvements for Gippsland line passengers. If they choose to interchange with the metropolitan network there, they can. It will also provide for the improvement of services in and around Pakenham, which I acknowledge—and the member for Bass knows this well—can be a bit of a bottleneck for Gippsland line services. So I am pleased to advise the member for Morwell that Rail Projects Victoria is currently seeking contractors for the major corridor works. Expressions of interest for this have closed, and we will be undertaking a detailed evaluation ahead of works commencing. As I said, I acknowledge the member’s ongoing advocacy. I would be happy to follow up with further information if the member would like some additional advice. Mr NORTHE (Morwell) (11:31): Minister, Gippsland commuters have previously expressed concerns that a Pakenham interchange for Gippsland V/Line services has not been ruled out as part of the Gippsland line upgrade plan or as an option for the future. Minister, can you confirm if your government supports or opposes a Pakenham interchange for Gippsland commuters? Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure) (11:31): If I understand correctly, the origin of the member’s supplementary question goes back to some issues that came up a few years ago about how Pakenham and Gippsland passengers were impacted by the movement of passengers around Pakenham station. What we are doing with the construction of the super-station at Pakenham, as part of the level crossing removal program there, is looking at how we can provide for both circumstances. One, for Gippsland line passengers who wish to stay on their Gippsland line service and travel through Pakenham station—that is why we are constructing a third platform as part of the station with the removal of those level crossings—or if they choose to interchange onto the metropolitan service, remembering of course in the future they will be interchanging onto the new high-capacity metropolitan trains that will be coming in and out of Pakenham. Both opportunities will be provided, which will give people from Gippsland more choice about how they use their public transport network. I again thank the member for his ongoing advocacy.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 2920 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

MINISTERS STATEMENTS: HOME AND COMMUNITY CARE PROGRAM Mr DONNELLAN (Narre Warren North—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers) (11:32): I rise to update the house on the unacceptable delays for home care services older Victorians are being confronted with and the impact this has on the provision of aged- care beds in the state. Home care packages are funded through the commonwealth government, and they provide in-home support for our elderly. They ensure our elderly citizens can stay at home, in their community, and not be forced prematurely into hospital or aged-care facilities. But the fact is there are almost as many Victorians waiting for an appropriate home care package as there are those receiving them. As of March this year the waitlist for Victorians was more than 22 000 people—some were waiting more than 18 months. Nationally the waitlist is more than 120 000 people. The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety heard that 16 000 people have died waiting for a home care package they were assessed as needing but never received. Data recently released by Leading Age Services Australia in March showed that almost 43 per cent entered a residential aged-care facility while they were waiting on the queue. This is simply unacceptable. This concern has also been echoed by a number of members of Parliament, in correspondence with my office, including the member for Ferntree Gully, who asked me to act on behalf of his constituent— which was reasonable—who wrote in desperation: I want to remain at home and I sincerely want to minimise the impact I have on the health system and my family. You would have thought it was surprising that, as the Shadow Minister for Ageing and coming from a party that wanted to privatise our aged-care sector, the member was blissfully unaware of who runs the home care program. Obviously that would be the Morrison government. So what I would suggest the member do, which is what I have done, is write to his Liberal colleagues in Canberra and ask them to fix this mess. Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: I warn the member for Mordialloc. YOUTH VIOLENCE Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (11:34): My question is to the Premier. Jayden D’Abaco is autistic and was 17 years old when he was bashed by a gang of teenagers on a bus in Tarneit in 2017. Last weekend the now 19-year-old Jayden was seriously injured by a gang of eight teenagers in another bashing, this time in Werribee, fracturing his cheekbone, bruising his body and throat and cutting his head open. Given the Premier’s ministers prefer euphemisms such as ‘network youth offenders’ and ‘affiliations of young people’, will the Premier just be honest with Victorians and admit that we have a serious youth gang problem in this state? Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (11:35): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I will come directly to his question, but first I think it is important on behalf of all members of this house and all Victorians to say how sickened we were, not just as politicians, but as a parent I can barely imagine the difficulty that the D’Abaco family will be going through at the moment. We send our best wishes to them, but also we send our resolve to continue supporting the chief commissioner with the resources, the equipment, the technology, the recruitment and the statute book that he needs. I meet with him often, and he knows that he has only to ask and the government will respond to give him exactly what he needs. On the specifics of what the Leader of the Opposition asked, I think it is best answered by the fact that it is this government that established, in partnership with Victoria Police, and provided the resources to do so, a gang task force. The suggestion that anyone in the government does not take these issues seriously is simply wrong and is best rebutted by the fact that we have established a task force to deal with this very issue.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2921

I am on the record many, many times making exactly this point, and we will continue to support Victoria Police with the resources that they need and with a resolve to support them with whatever is necessary to continue to fight crime and make the community safe. To suggest that anyone in the government does not take community safety seriously—well, there are 3300 more police that would perhaps rebut that argument. The notion that anyone is not prepared to accept that there are gang issues in our state—the gang squad established by this government would rebut that claim as well. We will continue to support the chief commissioner and all members of Victoria Police with the recruitment, the resources, the equipment and the statute book that they ask for and that they need. Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (11:37): Premier, Frank D’Abaco is Jayden’s father, and he is here today in the gallery. He wants to meet with you to explain what his son has been through twice. Will the Premier meet with Mr D’Abaco at the conclusion of question time and explain what his government will do to ensure that his son, Jayden, will not be bashed on the street again? Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (11:38): Again, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. As I indicated in the answer to the substantive question, I think we are all terribly saddened by the fact that this event has occurred, and it would be a very, very difficult time for the family. We know and appreciate that as best we can. Mr M O’Brien interjected. Mr ANDREWS: Well, what I would say to the Leader of the Opposition is that the minister for police and senior police from the western suburbs of Melbourne have a meeting arranged with Mr D’Abaco, and I think that is the most appropriate thing to have happen. That meeting is scheduled to occur next week. Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, relating to relevance, I met with Mr D’Abaco this morning. He wants to see the Premier. That was the question I put to the Premier, and Mr D’Abaco deserves a straight answer. Will the Premier meet with him or not? The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier is being relevant to the question asked. Mr ANDREWS: The minister for police has reached out to the D’Abaco family, and a meeting has been arranged, not simply with the minister for police but with senior police from the western suburbs. I believe that is the appropriate thing to do to make sure that his concerns can be heard and that a direct response can be provided to him. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (11:39): I am delighted to be able to rise to update the house on the government’s record investment in early childhood education. I was in Stawell just a few weeks ago with the member for Carrum, the Parliamentary Secretary for Early Childhood Education, with happy kids, teachers, staff and parents, all very pleased to think that we are getting on, wasting no time at all, with our massive reform of early childhood education—the rollout of three-year-old kinder. We had a big review— A member interjected. Mr ANDREWS: Yes, in November last year. The result of that review was that the government’s positive and optimistic plan for early childhood education, leading our nation, was endorsed and is being rolled out. It is a great point of pride that regional Victoria is where this rollout is beginning. We are very pleased to think that a number of local government authorities—some 15 LGAs in 2021 and a number in 2020—will be among the first to enrol students for three-year-old kinder, heavily subsidised and for many families free. We are very pleased to be delivering in full on the commitment that we made. It starts in regional Victoria, and that is something that I think all members should be very proud of.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 2922 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

Certainly the community that we visited, the Marrang Kindergarten, were very pleased indeed to know that the commitment is being honoured and that they are at the forefront of that reform. We know that investing in those first precious years makes such a profound difference to life opportunities for every child. Two years of kinder is better than one, 15 hours is better than any less than that, and we are supporting parents and children in communities across Victoria, delivering on the commitments we made, delivering on the positive and optimistic leadership agenda that we put to the community and that was endorsed in resounding terms in November last year. That was the review that matters, and that is the one we are delivering against. Mr Wells: On a point of order, Speaker, in regard to the ministers statement, there is no point in every single one of us getting up to complain and to put a point of order about ministers statements attacking the opposition. It is quite clear that over the last few weeks and this week again we have seen the same pattern. So we are just wondering what action can be taken by you, as Speaker, with the Leader of the House to address this problem. Otherwise we are going to be up every single time after ministers statements putting points of order to you that the rules are not being followed by the government’s ministers. Ms Allan: On the point of order, Speaker, I simply draw the Manager of Opposition Business’s attention to sessional order 7, ‘Ministers’ statements’, which says: 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. As I indicated earlier during question time, it has been the longstanding practice of the house for ministers to canvass threats and challenges to the delivery of our government policies. I will perhaps anticipate something you may be suggesting: I would be delighted to meet with you and the Manager of Opposition Business again to discuss this further. We are willing to have constructive conversations around this. However, not liking a ministers statement is simply not enough of a reason to seek those statements to be ruled out of order. Mr Walsh: On the point of order, Speaker, we have repeat offenders, recidivists, who continue to effectively defy your rulings on these things. Even though you may not uphold the point of order, you do ask the ministers to come back to making a ministers statement. No amount of meetings in your office is going to change people unless you start making rulings from the chair and sit ministers down when they are not making appropriate ministers statements. I would urge you to reflect on the rulings you have been making and the need to actually demonstrate some authority to the house and sit people down when they are not doing the right thing. Ms Hennessy: On the point of order, Speaker, the manager of government business has made a very compelling argument around the consistency of our ministerial statements with the sessional orders. By ‘consistent’ let me make it clear that they are compliant, and your rulings have reflected that. The manager of government business has made an incredibly reasonable offer to come and meet with you, with representation from the opposition, to further discuss those issues. Indeed I do not think that we should necessarily have a discussion around the sessional orders that invite people to adversely reflect upon orders of the chair. To that end I think there is a sensible way forward that has been proposed, and I encourage those on the other side of the house to take it. Mr T Smith: On the point of order, Speaker, the Leader of the House, for example, constantly attacks the opposition in her ministers statements. We are having boohoos and all these sort of comments coming from the Leader of the House. They are not even factually accurate either. For example, she alleged in question time that I oppose the North East Link. My submission to Planning Panels Victoria says I support the North East Link— The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Kew can resume his seat.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2923

Mr T Smith: The Leader of the House constantly misleads the house and attacks the opposition. She’s not a very pleasant person either. The SPEAKER: Order! Ms McLeish: On the point of order, Speaker, what remains as the nub of this issue is the fact that time and time again ministers continue to denigrate members of the Liberal Party and the opposition, and we know that is not what ministers statements are for. They have at times defied your rulings, and I think it is time that they actually as a collective realise that ministers statements are not to be used for that purpose. The SPEAKER: I will check Hansard, but today my recollection is that in ministers statements if ministers did—and on a number of occasions they did—transgress by attacking the opposition, they did so right at the end of the ministers statement, which makes it very difficult to sit a minister down because they are effectively sitting down at the time anyway. This matter would probably be better progressed not through an individual meeting between the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business but by the Standing Orders Committee, which currently has a review of our sessional orders and standing orders, and I think it would probably be the best forum to look at the operation of ministers statements and indeed potentially questions without notice as well. I am not sure if the Manager of Opposition Business is a member of that committee— Ms Staley: I am. The SPEAKER: The member for Ripon is. So we will place that item on the agenda for the next meeting of the Standing Orders Committee, and I will continue to remind ministers of their obligations under the sessional orders. Mr Wells: On a further point of order, Speaker, we obviously accept your ruling, but the point you did make is that it is an obvious tactic that at the very end they put in the kick to the opposition. So as part of your direction for the committee to review this, it also needs to be part of the investigation or rulings in future that you cannot attack the opposition—not at the start, in the middle or at the end, or in the last 7 seconds, as in the case of the Minister for Education. Ms Allan: On the point of order, Speaker—I am compelled to respond to this point of order—I would suggest that it is well beyond the powers of the Standing Orders Committee to write the answers to ministers statements and that it is well beyond the powers of the Standing Orders Committee to predict and look into a crystal ball as to what ministers might say in either their answers to questions or their ministers statements. I think the Manager of Government Business has made the point on a number of occasions— Members interjecting. Ms Allan: I said he is the Manager of Opposition Business. None of us get paid for doing this, so I think we both acknowledge that we— Members interjecting. Ms Allan: As I said, we are very happy to continue this discussion, whether it is through the Standing Orders Committee or whether it is through conversations in your office. However, there are well-established sessional orders and standing orders and, as many members have noted already, you have the powers to enforce those, and I would suggest that we can continue the discussion within those confines. The SPEAKER: Order! I renew the ruling that I gave before.

CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS 2924 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

Constituency questions MURRAY PLAINS ELECTORATE Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (11:49): (1064) My constituency question is to the Minister for Public Transport, and it is on behalf of the residents of Echuca. Twelve months ago Transport for Victoria visited the Campaspe Shire Council and advised they did not have a time line for a review of bus routes and bus stops in Echuca. Will the minister advise the residents of Echuca when a review of the public transport in Echuca will be undertaken? CARRUM ELECTORATE Ms KILKENNY (Carrum) (11:49): (1065) My question is for the Minister for Education. School breakfast clubs have been an incredible success since their rollout in 2016. In my electorate alone seven schools are serving up breakfast each week to make sure students are starting their day with food in their bellies as well as benefiting from the social interaction before school. This year’s state budget includes additional funding to enable us to expand breakfast clubs into more schools and to include lunch as well where needed. Minister, my constituents would like to know which additional schools in my electorate will be included in the school breakfast program and what they need to do to sign up. BRIGHTON ELECTORATE Mr NEWBURY (Brighton) (11:50): (1066) My question is to the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change. With the public consultation process for the Draft Marine and Coastal Policy recently closing, I ask the minister whether the government will immediately confirm that it has amended its policy, which called for the removal of bathing boxes from the Brighton foreshore. The Brighton bathing boxes have been a feature of our foreshore for almost 150 years. Since the policy was released thousands of people have contacted me and called on the government to stop the removal of these much-loved icons. Indeed not only are the bathing boxes internationally recognised, but the Dendy Street Beach site is also listed on the Victorian Heritage Register. The boxes are a major tourist attraction for this state, and their removal would be akin to scrapping the penguin parade at Phillip Island. It is absurd to think the government has released a policy which encourages the removal of these iconic boxes. I look forward to the minister’s response. ESSENDON ELECTORATE Mr PEARSON (Essendon) (11:50): (1067) I direct my constituency question to the Minister for Fishing and Boating, and I ask: what is the latest information on the progress of the Maribyrnong River native fish revival project, and are there any plans to look at the history of the river in terms of fish habitat and the fishery? SANDRINGHAM ELECTORATE Mr ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (11:51): (1068) My question is to the Minister for Planning: With remediation works due to have been completed by the middle of this year, I ask the minister to clarify whether zone 2A of the former Highett Gas and Fuel site has yet been declared safe for human use and development and seek his express undertaking that no sale or development of this land will occur until such a declaration is made. In spite of the Highett community’s widely expressed preference the Andrews Labor government remains committed to selling off this 6.3-hectare site on Nepean Highway, Highett, for residential development rather than community use and conservation. I am advised, however, that zone 2A of the site, namely, the stretch of land running parallel to the adjacent rail corridor, was identified in a report commissioned by the Department of Treasury and Finance as requiring further and intensive remediation works to adequately remediate the soil, even to a depth of just 1 metre below ground level. This is due to the current and historic presence of underground gas and infrastructure on that site.

CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2925

NORTHCOTE ELECTORATE Ms THEOPHANOUS (Northcote) (11:52): (1069) My constituency question is for the Minister for Small Business and Minister for Local Government in the other place. Minister, the Northcote electorate is home to a great many small businesses, from cafes and bars to clothing stores to artisan shops and everything in between. I have had the pleasure of speaking with many local business owners, and I hear the challenges faced—particularly by new businesses—as they navigate the various aspects of running a business. Whether it is balancing the books, managing staff, ordering stock or putting together a business plan, there is a lot to take on. I want to see small businesses in Northcote continue to thrive. I know the Andrews government funds Small Business Victoria to run the Small Business Bus program. The bus comes out and offers friendly, expert advice from an experienced business mentor and helps develop your business ideas and capabilities. Minister, can you tell me when the Small Business Bus will next visit the electorate of Northcote? PRAHRAN ELECTORATE Mr HIBBINS (Prahran) (11:53): (1070) My question is to the Minister for Housing, and I ask the minister: what is the latest information on the Bangs Street public housing estate redevelopment in the Prahran electorate? Many local residents in the area are concerned that the buildings are now sitting apparently vacant. People are seeing an increase in antisocial behaviour and a build-up of rubbish in and around the area, with a concern for personal safety. The amenity of the area is significantly impacted by having this a vacant site. With no confirmed dates for demolition and a rebuild, who knows how long they will have to live with this happening all around them. It is all the more galling that it sits vacant whilst homelessness is on the rise and more and more people are on the public housing waiting list. The Bangs Street site, along with other public housing sites in the Prahran electorate, including Essex Street and Browning Walk, have been neglected for decades and are a prime location for new and increased public housing homes to reduce homelessness and the public housing waiting list. I urge the minister to redevelop Bangs Street and public housing estates to 100 per cent public housing as soon as possible. TARNEIT ELECTORATE Ms CONNOLLY (Tarneit) (11:54): (1071) My question is directed to the Minister for Transport Infrastructure. Minister, my community live in one of the fastest-growing corridors in this country. In fact in Wyndham over 100 babies are being born every week, and over the next two decades close to a quarter of a million additional people will call Wyndham home. Transport is critical to livability in my community, and that is exactly why I along with residents in my community were very, very happy to see $100 million allocated in the budget towards the Western Rail Plan. Apart from ensuring a fast rail to Geelong, the plan also aims to lay the groundwork for electrifying a new metro line from Wyndham Vale to the city. Therefore, my question is: what benefits can commuters in Tarneit expect to receive from the Western Rail Plan and the electrification of a Wyndham Vale line? BENAMBRA ELECTORATE Mr TILLEY (Benambra) (11:54): (1072) My constituency question is for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure. The Melbourne-Wodonga train line needs new passenger trains. The Victorian Auditor-General told you so two years ago. You say they are in the budget, but there is no line item and, despite repeated requests, no detail. So I was pretty excited when the jungle drums started beating in Benambra with news that you have been talking to staff about the finishing touches on the new carriages, promising delivery in 18 to 20 months time. So, Minister, for the sake of my weary train-travelling constituents, can you confirm the trains are ordered, when they will be delivered and their configuration.

BILLS 2926 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

IVANHOE ELECTORATE Mr CARBINES (Ivanhoe) (11:55): (1073) My constituency question is to the Minister for Housing. I seek from the minister the latest figures for my community on the relocation of residents in the West Heidelberg Bell Bardia and Tarakan estate redevelopments. We have already seen several hundred local residents agree to relocations as part of the redevelopment of the Olympic Village and West Heidelberg estates at Tarakan and Bell Bardia. These are very significant public housing estates that have provided homes to people for many decades, and as part of that redevelopment my community and I, as the consultative committee chair, are keen to just get the latest information on the relocations—those numbers that are outstanding. I would appreciate updated statistics from the minister to report back to my community. Bills RENEWABLE ENERGY (JOBS AND INVESTMENT) AMENDMENT BILL 2019 Second reading Debate resumed. Mr EDBROOKE (Frankston) (11:56): As I was saying, there is a great price if we do not take some action. What those opposite want is for future generations to take that responsibility and pay for our transition, which is inevitable. Our transition is indeed inevitable, and it will cost more if we do that. The situation is certainly no better at a federal level, where there has been a total lack of long- term, integrated energy and climate change policy. This destroys investor confidence and puts a halt to creating clean energy jobs and investment. This is despite the commonwealth Treasury’s website making a compelling case for renewables, and I quote:

… the economic and environmental benefits are tangible, the need for action is clear. It is not something that gets easier the longer we leave it. In fact the opposite is true. The longer we leave acting, the more it will cost the Australian economy. I could not agree more, but those words are hollow if we do not take action. Let me make one further point for our pro-enterprise friends opposite. On this side of the house we actually believe in strong markets, strong businesses and also strong returns. The Economist magazine estimates that the cost of inaction on climate change would result in expected global losses of private assets to the tune of US$4.2 trillion, roughly on par with the total value of all the world’s listed oil and gas companies and Japan’s entire GDP. For Australia, inaction on climate change could cost Australia $131 billion per year, excluding natural disasters that generally cost Australia around $18 billion per year as well. Now it is not uncommon for states to show leadership despite the cognitive dissonance of federal governments or other levels of government. Despite President Trump pulling the US out of the Paris accords, New York has a target of 70 per cent renewable energy by 2030 and 100 per cent by 2040 and California has a target of 60 per cent by 2030 and 100 per cent by 2045. Atlanta has a target of 100 per cent by 2035 and Los Angeles has a target of 100 per cent by 2045. If they can do it, why can’t we? The winds of change are indeed blowing across the globe, and in 2017 there is actually more solar installed globally than gas and nuclear and coal combined. If those opposite are looking for some inspiration in this field they may want to seek advice from their conservative government friends in the UK, where renewable energy sources like wind and solar power now generate almost a third of the UK’s electricity. The conservative government in the UK are so keen on the idea that apparently they are secretly lobbying the commonwealth government to be more ambitious on climate change. The UK has prioritised climate action and last month became the first G7 country to legislate a target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Since 1990 the UK has reduced emissions by more than 40 per cent, while the economy has grown by around 70 per cent.

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2927

Just on some of the supposed facts given to us by members opposite, the fact is a Liberal government actually privatised our energy production, and those companies have let these power stations age and become unreliable. These companies see the writing on the wall—they are divesting from coal, and that is why this government is investing so heavily in the renewable energy market. The biggest threat to reliable supply in the coming years is the complete lack of national energy policy. Angus Taylor, the federal minister, needs to have a good look at the facts staring him in the face. Not only does an increased Victorian renewable energy target drive policy and investor certainty, it drives local industry, it creates jobs, it drives down prices and it cuts emissions. It will also save this state and its people a bucketload of money in the future. The lack of vision for the future is on display here by the Luddites opposite—you only need to tune in and listen. I commend the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change and the Premier for their leadership, and I commend this bill to the house. Mr NORTHE (Morwell) (12:00): I rise to speak on the Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Amendment Bill 2019. Firstly, the purpose of the bill is to amend the Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Act 2017 to establish a target of 50 per cent of electricity generated in Victoria to be sourced from renewable energy by 2030. I do not have an objection to the notion of increasing renewable generation in this state; indeed I recognise it is an important part of our future mix of energy generation. I find it disappointing in many respects that you are either categorised as being pro-coal or gas as against being pro-renewable. I do not put myself in that basket. I put myself as having common sense, as many people in the community do. I hope through my contribution that I am not targeted in one basket or the other, other than having common sense with respect to these matters. We should be having an informed debate about this legislation because it is very important. It is certainly very important to my community and people within the Morwell electorate and indeed the wider Gippsland region. But the facts are we are not having an informed debate about this legislation. There is a vacuum of information and there is a lack of modelling with respect to this legislation. Therefore I move the following amendment to the member for Warrandyte’s reasoned amendment: That all the words after ‘until’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘the government conducts and makes available: (1) modelling demonstrating how Victoria will achieve a 50 per cent renewable energy target including whether such a target will result in a partial or full closure of coal-fired and/or gas power stations in the Latrobe Valley; and (2) a business impact statement with regards to the effects of the bill upon the Latrobe Valley community and economy’.

My amendment is not dissimilar to the theme mentioned in the reasoned amendment provided by the member for Warrandyte. It is probably more locally specific to my community, but nonetheless the tenor of this is similar. When asking for information about the modelling that had been undertaken with regard to the legislation before us and the potential impact that it might have on my community and indeed the gas and coal sectors, the response that we have received is really that there is none. There has been no modelling undertaken. I just find that absolutely unbelievable. It is just simply unacceptable that you can try and legislate a specific target that we know is going to have an impact upon certain communities and industries, yet there has been no modelling undertaken to understand what those impacts are going to be. I just cannot believe that we are even debating this legislation, which is on 2030 targets. We are not even at 2020 and 2025 and the government has already put those targets in place. I am incredulous that we are having this debate today without the information and the evidence that is really necessary to make informed decisions about this.

BILLS 2928 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

I go back to questions on this issue that I asked of the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change earlier this year. On 19 March I posed two questions to the minister. The first was:

Minister, your government has pledged a Victorian renewable energy target, VRET, of 50 per cent by 2030. Minister, I ask if any modelling has been undertaken to understand what energy generation sources and associated percentages of those same sources will be required to meet this target. If so, what impact will the VRET have on future operations of Latrobe Valley power stations? Now, whilst we have some widespread information, I think that is a very legitimate and real question to ask because people in my community are asking me this very question. But the minister was unable to provide any specific information or answers to that question. My supplementary question to the minister was basically saying that the government’s own report: ... shows that coal and gas still account for more than 80 per cent of Victoria’s energy generation ... given that all existing Latrobe Valley power stations have licences to operate beyond 2030, do you concede that at least one of these power stations will have to close prior to 2030 so your 50 per cent VRET can be achieved? Again, there was the same type of answer. Yes, there is a little bit of information in there, but with the minister and the government not being able to answer those questions about what the target will mean for power stations within my community and for the businesses and people who work and rely on those industries, I just cannot fathom that we are debating this legislation today without that evidence or information. We need to heed the lessons of the closure of Hazelwood power station. It is just unbelievable. We know that the evidence that came out at the time of the Hazelwood power station closure was that the price of electricity went through the roof for homeowners and for businesses. Security of supply was threatened. We lost hundreds of local jobs. Businesses are now being compensated to close their operations on peak days. Diesel generators have been installed. It is just unbelievable where we are at the moment, and to further potentially threaten all those things or worsen those situations by way of this legislation without knowing the information or evidence is startling. In relation to local jobs, earlier this year I submitted a whole range of questions on notice in the Parliament asking what the current employment status was of former Hazelwood workers and contractors, and the government’s own response to me actually showed that there were 342 people in non-full-time roles. There were a further 185 former Hazelwood workers looking for work. Those numbers are appalling. It is something that we need to be factoring into these conversations. That is the information around the closure of Hazelwood power station more than two years after it has closed, yet the government and the minister are saying, ‘Well, we don’t know what impacts will happen with the current power station in the Latrobe Valley’. I can tell you that that is what will happen. Local jobs are a key part of it and we need to know the detail and information. Surely you would want to know if further generators in the Latrobe Valley would have to close under this legislation and what impacts this would have, and therefore I ask all members to support my reasoned amendment. The member for Warrandyte talked about security of supply. We have had the Australian Energy Market Operator report come out recently. Victoria is now a net importer of electricity. It is crazy. There has been substantial newspaper and media around this over the past few days. We also have got to consider too how the system is going to manage this. The reality is there are more renewables coming on line, and I am not saying that is a bad thing. But as more renewables come on line, networks are going to have to upgrade, and who pays for that? Well, consumers pay for that. So there is a whole range of issues around this legislation. As I have said, just debating this today without any modelling or evidence is really disappointing. One of the recent media articles I just wanted to refer to was in the Australian Financial Review on 21 August under the heading ‘Tanna issues fresh warning on risks to coal power’. It states:

EnergyAustralia chief executive Catherine Tanna has insisted that Victoria’s renewable energy and emission reductions targets could force an early closure of the company’s Yallourn brown-coal generator in the Latrobe Valley, disputing the assertions of state energy minister Lily D’Ambrosio.

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2929

I raise that quote to make the point that we have the minister in government intimating that, ‘Yallourn won’t have to close down through our targets’, yet we have the chief of Yallourn power station saying, ‘Well, if you set these targets, I dispute that. It’s likely to force an early closure’. And that is why it is imperative that we do the modelling and that we have the information and the evidence before us before setting these targets. In closing, I talk about my community particularly. People talk about, ‘Oh, well, you know, we can get jobs in the renewables sector’ and so forth; people will not be affected by the closures. That is just not reality. It does not work that way. On the government’s own statistics they have provided to me through a range of questions on notice, we know that there are more than 500 former Hazelwood workers who are working in non-full-time positions or actively looking for work, and that is not good enough. So in closing, this bill should not be debated until the modelling and evidence is provided to the house. Ms HORNE (Williamstown—Minister for Ports and Freight, Minister for Public Transport) (12:10): I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of the Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Amendment Bill 2019. Once again I want to express my pride in being a member of a government that is doing the hard work to safeguard our future and the future generations, not just here in Victoria but worldwide. As we know, the effect of greenhouse gases from non-renewable energy sources is not confined to where they are produced. This bill will continue the Andrews Labor government’s commitment to building a world-class energy future by legislating the Victorian renewable energy target of 50 per cent by 2030, which when achieved will have put more clean energy into the grid, increasing investment and driving down energy prices. This will be phenomenal progress towards our long-term target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, which was legislated in the Climate Change Act 2017 along with a duty on the Premier and the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change to ensure it is met. It is decisive leadership and progressive policies like these that are encouraging unprecedented investment in Victoria’s renewable energy sector and reducing our greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation. This government is serious about meeting that target and serious about managing the risks climate change presents to us all, unlike the Victorian Liberals and The Nationals, who despite all the evidence went to the last election promising to scrap the targets—and we know the results of sticking with that policy—and unlike the federal government, where there is an absence of any long-term integrated energy and climate change policy. In contrast the Andrews Labor government has in place a comprehensive integrated policy and a sustainable transition plan to get Victoria to its net zero target by 2050. This includes legislated interim but achievable targets of 25 per cent of electricity generated in Victoria being sourced from renewable energy by 2020 and 40 per cent by 2025; a suite of innovative, interconnected schemes and projects that provide industry with certainty to invest in renewable energy projects, create new local jobs, including apprenticeships and traineeships, and reduce Victoria’s greenhouse gas emissions; and strong accountability to Parliament and the public on progress towards meeting the targets. On accountability can I add that in September 2018 the government published the first Victorian renewable energy target progress report, which found that Victoria is well on track to meet the 25 per cent by 2020 renewable generation target. Climate change is a pervasive, long-term challenge, and we need clear policies and actions and an enduring path to guide our response. I am by no means going to attempt to cover the myriad of issues and concerns that have been raised about the impact of climate change daily. We have been reminded of these throughout the proceedings and media coverage of the recent Pacific Islands Forum, but I think it is important to remind ourselves of the impact our reliance on non-renewable energy sources has had. The Bureau of Meteorology’s State of the Climate 2018 advises that Australia’s climate has warmed by just over 1°degree Celsius since 1910 and oceans around Australia have warmed by 1 degree since that time. Predicted future impacts on Victoria of an even warmer planet will be devastating, with more frequent and longer heatwaves, which will cause more deaths than any other natural disaster; an increased burden on public and private infrastructure from increasing frequency

BILLS 2930 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019 and intensity of extreme weather conditions such as flooding, fire and heatwaves; adverse effects on many crop yields and livestock due to increased temperatures and altered water availability; increased flooding of lower lying coastal areas, dune erosion, loss of beaches and damage to coastal infrastructure; and of course the likelihood of irreversible change and damage to many ecosystems and their disappearance. The Andrews Labor government recognises that climate change is one of the most critical issues facing us today and has, since coming to government in 2014, undertaken a series of reforms that have reinstated Victoria as a leader in driving climate change action. In 2016 it recognised the substantial role government could play in efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 to 2°degrees Celsius when it committed to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and legislated this commitment through the Climate Change Act in 2017. What a momentous piece of legislation that was. We know that only by reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that we are putting into the environment can the apocalyptic future predicted for our children and our grandchildren be averted. Achieving the 2030 target is predicted to reduce Victoria’s electricity greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 to 33.9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, roughly 46 per cent below what the sector emitted in 2005. This equates to taking 655 000 cars off the road a year. We know how important it is to bring online new renewable energy projects to help drive down emissions, so our government has ensured that our ambitious target sits within smart initiatives and concrete support for the renewable energy industry. As the title implies, this bill will not only boost Victoria’s renewable energy target but also investment and jobs, including apprenticeships and traineeships, particularly in regional Victoria. We have been clear about driving our renewable energy agenda through innovative projects that drive jobs and investment, like the 2017 renewable energy reverse auction, the largest to be held in Australia, which successfully funded six large-scale wind and solar projects in regional Victoria, totalling 928 megawatts of renewable energy capacity expected to generate $1.1 billion of investment and more than 900 new jobs; the renewable certificate purchasing initiative, which is bringing forward around $700 million of new investment in four renewable energy projects, providing a total 351 megawatts and creating around 700 jobs during construction; and dear to my heart, solar trams. Since November 2018 Melbourne’s entire tram fleet has been powered through this fantastic initiative using power from Bannerton and Numurkah solar farms. Over the eight months that zero-emission trams have been running, over 60 000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions have been saved. This is expected to rise to 80 000 tonnes every year, reducing the total Victorian public transport emissions footprint by 10 per cent. And of course we are making sure that all Victorians can share in the benefits of renewable energy through our $1.3 billion worth of investment in the Solar Homes program, predicted to save Victorians more than $500 million a year in electricity bills and reduce carbon emissions by almost 4 million tonnes. And this investment is paying dividends for the people of our great state. Victoria has been named the top economic performer in the nation in July’s CommSec State of the States report. We were declared the outright winner, claiming top billing on four of the eight key indicators including jobs, economic growth, retail trade and construction work. The report noted that Victoria had the strongest job market, with unemployment at 4.7 per cent—16.5 per cent below the decade average—while employment was 14.1 per cent above the 10-year average. More than 470 000 jobs have been created in Victoria since November 2014 and there are more to come. We know that much momentum can build when a government leads good policy and actions like those of this government. As the member for Williamstown I am witnessing a transformation to clean energy in the western suburbs of Melbourne. Traditionally the home of higher greenhouse gas-emitting industries, it is fast becoming lit up with big rooftop solar panels like those on top of Sunshine Plaza shopping centre, along with Laverton Cold Storage, the Hickory Group in Laverton North and other

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2931 industries across the west with large rooftops. We are seeing big thinking and acting on solar. I strongly recommend this bill to the house. Mr D O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (12:21): I am pleased to rise to speak on this bill. This bill is a bill about politics, not a bill about addressing climate change—all the lecturing and hectoring that we get from those opposite will not change that fact. I begin by talking about climate change and renewable energy. Despite what they like to profess on that side, I personally and most of my colleagues, I am sure, understand and accept the science of climate change. If someone asks me again if I believe in it, I think I will throw a wobbly, because I am sick of people talking about it like it is a religion. The facts are there and I accept those facts that the climate is changing. I pay tribute to the member for Euroa, the Deputy Leader of The Nationals, for organising at our state conference this year a specific climate change forum at which Professor Snow Barlow—who from memory I think is at the University of Melbourne, certainly he wears a lot of hats—presented a very, very clear outline of climate change. As the member for Morwell said, from my perspective this is not about being pro-coal or pro-gas or pro- renewables. We will need a transition and we will need a mix of technologies into the future, particularly to address the issues of reliability and affordability, and I will come to that in a matter of time. On renewables I am very pleased to see progress happening on the proposed Star of the South offshore wind farm which is proposed for my electorate off the coast of Port Albert. I had a briefing from the Star of the South company this morning. It is still a number of years away and there is a lot of work to happen before they actually get that enormous project off the ground, but it is one of the ways that we can address climate change issues and ensure that we have renewables. Indeed, the scale of that proposal would deliver huge numbers of jobs to my electorate—particularly if they utilise Barry Beach in South Gippsland as the base for the operations going forward—as opposed to most on-land wind farms. I note that the bill is actually called the renewable energy, in brackets ‘jobs and investment’ amendment bill, because the ongoing jobs, certainly in my electorate, from wind farms are very, very small. I would like to pick up on—and I would be happy to stand corrected but I think it was the member for Macedon yesterday who talked about—how regional Victorians love renewable energy. Well, that is true that some love renewable energy. Indeed, almost all love renewable energy until someone wants to put a renewable energy facility in their backyard. That is something that is never acknowledged by those opposite. It was rarely acknowledged until recently by those who sit next to me in the Greens but even their former leader, Bob Brown, has recently changed his view on wind farms. It is interesting and hypocritical that they have finally woken up to this. So let us not believe that it is all going to be good and there are going to be jobs. It is certainly not universal love for wind farms. I say to the government—and I have asked the minister this question time and time again—we constantly hear that additional renewable supply into the electricity market is cheaper than the traditional forms of energy and therefore will drive prices down, so if that is the case, why does it need a subsidy? If it is cheaper to produce wind and solar power, and I understand it is, then why would the taxpayer be subsidising its construction? That is the key question that needs to be addressed by the government. I heard the member for Frankston earlier say that they love markets and they support markets on that side. Well, this is the point that I am making: if you want a market to flourish, why are you interfering in it? We have no better example than indeed what has happened today with respect to the solar programs that this government has completely botched. Only Labor could botch a program to give free stuff away. They have given free stuff away and they have completely ruined what had been a very good industry that had been ticking along happily on its own. For base political reasons—to be seen to be all about climate change and providing free stuff to the punters at the election last year— the government has completely ruined this industry. Today the minister has had to make a significant climb down to try and fix the mess that she created in the solar industry. That is what happens—and the member for Essendon knows this; he is sitting there, thinking, ‘The member for Gippsland South

BILLS 2932 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019 understands this, I am not going to agree with him, but he is right’. When you interfere with massive subsidies in a market like this you have an impact. When Labor governments do it they generally stuff it up. That is another reason that this bill should not be debated until some of these questions are answered. As I said, on the issues with respect to climate change we hear a lot of bleating from those opposite. We as a nation have agreed to a set of targets as part of the Paris agreement that has been agreed globally. It is my understanding that Australia is on track not only to meet those, but to meet them ahead of schedule. For all the ‘The federal government’s got to be doing more for climate change’; for all the protest in the street, for all the people gluing themselves to roads and schoolkids taking time off and saying, ‘Act now on climate change’, we actually are. We are already acting on climate change and we are ahead of most of the rest of the world. I might add, according to the International Energy Agency, Australia in 2015 was 16th on the list of global emitters, with 380 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions from fuel sources, as opposed to China at number one with 9040 million. Mr Pearson interjected. Mr D O’BRIEN: Even per capita we are— Mr Pearson interjected. Mr D O’BRIEN: Per capita actually does not matter in the context of the overall— Members interjecting. Mr D O’BRIEN: The atmosphere does not say, ‘Actually, Australia is worse. We’re going to put more climate change down there’. It is about the total. We can be perfectly pure in this and have zero emissions. It will not make a difference to global carbon dioxide and therefore to climate change. My point is—and the member for Mordialloc should listen more than just yabber away, as he always does—we can take action. We can take action on climate change, and we should be moving towards a renewable future. But we should not do a single thing— Mr Richardson interjected. Mr D O’BRIEN: How about you listen for a minute? How about you listen for a minute, because you do not seem to actually understand it. We should— The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Spence): Member for Gippsland South, you are actually addressing the Chair when you say that. Mr D O’BRIEN: I apologise, Chair. We should be taking action to the extent that it benefits our economy or has no net cost, and that is what the problem with this renewable energy target is and the problem with those opposite who do not listen, who just want to be out there making political statements. We should be doing that, but we should be doing it at zero cost to our nation, because if we cut out all our emissions tomorrow, it would have a negligible impact on global climate change, from the figures I have just read out. That is why per capita is irrelevant. Mr Richardson interjected. Mr D O’BRIEN: No, I did not say that. Again, Acting Speaker, the member for Mordialloc just cannot listen. He cannot help himself. Mate, you have got two ears and one mouth—use them in that proportion, because you might actually learn something. I say again: we have the— The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Spence): Again you are speaking to the Chair when you say ‘you’—again. Mr D O’BRIEN: I apologise, Acting Speaker. Again, we can do this, but the government, as the member for Morwell said, has given us no assurances about what the impact of this will be. Everybody in the energy sector knows that if this 50 per cent target goes through, the likelihood—the very, very

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2933 strong likelihood, and indeed they have almost said as much—is that Yallourn, owned by EnergyAustralia, will close early. That will have a big impact not only on jobs in the Latrobe Valley and in my electorate as well but on the security and reliability of our supply. In all the rhetoric I just heard read out by the Minister for Public Transport, who could not even deliver a speech without reading the whole thing, I did not hear anything about reliability. We hear figures about the actual megawatt hours to be produced but not about reliability. It is critical that we have that reliability, and the government has done nothing to give any assurance to the people of Victoria that it will make sure that, as we transition to renewable energy, we will have the baseload dispatchable power that continues to ensure that when we turn the switch on, the lights will actually come on. The government has not defined that target. It is saying it will do it in 2025. So is it 50 per cent of available power? Is it 50 per cent of actual power dispatched? So when we say it is a 3000-megawatt wind farm, is that actually taking into account the 30 per cent capacity factor, meaning that they only deliver power 30 per cent of the time? These are the questions that the government has not answered, and it needs to do so because it needs to ensure that we have reliable, affordable power as we transition to a climate change future with zero emissions in the future, which I believe must happen. The government should listen to that, and that is why I support the reasoned amendment moved by the member for Warrandyte so that the government actually answers the questions for the people of Victoria and delivers reliable and affordable power. Mr PEARSON (Essendon) (12:31): Thank God that is over—listening to the member for Gippsland South. I mean, really, I would have thought the member for Gippsland South would know that you need to speak through the Chair at all times, but anyhow. Nonetheless, it is wonderful to be afforded the opportunity to speak on an important issue like climate change. I am aware that there are a number of new members in this place, and I thought it would be useful to unpack in a little bit more detail what a reasoned amendment actually is. I first came across a reasoned amendment in the last Parliament. For the new members, what the member for Warrandyte is saying by a reasoned amendment is, ‘Look, we don’t want the bill to pass. We want the government to go back to the drawing board, do further work and then re-present a bill’. So a reasoned amendment is basically saying, ‘No, stop what you’re doing and go back’. Now, I think in this case this is quite telling, because the member for Warrandyte was a member of the former government, a government which was conspicuous in doing very little and achieving nothing. And so when those opposite bring forward a reasoned amendment, I cannot help but think they have failed to learn the lessons of the past and they want us, as a government, to conduct ourselves in the same way in which they conducted themselves, which was to do nothing. So here is an opportunity to try to do something on climate change, to make a sustained effort to find ways in which we can produce our greenhouse gas emissions. Australia is a very high per capita pollutant. I do appreciate the member for Gippsland South’s commentary around nations with a larger population emitting more CO2 emissions, but we are in a situation where we need to do something, and the response from those opposite is, ‘No, stop right there. Go back and do further work and then come back later’. I do not think we can do that. I think the challenge laid before us is too great. The member for Gippsland South talked about the cost of this policy. My response to the member for Gippsland South is: what is the cost of inaction? What if we do nothing? What happens then? The reality is that in this space technology is changing so rapidly, and we are seeing such a transformative approach in terms of the way in which renewables are being deployed and delivered. If you go back to 1992 when Loy Yang B was under construction, solar panels would have really been almost unheard of. I think, Acting Speaker, you and I are of an age where we would recall the solar cars that would drive from Alice Springs to Adelaide in the 1980s. If you look at the output of those cars and you compare that to now, the transformational change is quite extraordinary. Coal-fired power stations are old technology. It is old technology. I think the challenge with baseload coal-fired power stations, as the member for Gippsland South would well know, is they are capital

BILLS 2934 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019 intensive, they are labour intensive, they require a long period of payback and they are old and outdated technology. So even if you turn around and say, ‘Look, let’s ignore the science, let’s ignore what we are seeing around us in terms of the impact that climate change is having on our community and particularly on electorates like Lowan, Gippsland South and Ripon; we’re going to proceed with building a baseload coal-fired power station’, the reality is you will not find a bank here in Australia which will lend you the money, because they know that you would effectively create a stranded asset. A stranded asset, as the member for Gippsland South with his economics degree I think would know, is an asset that cannot be sold off, cannot be harvested and cannot be realised. It is basically money that you throw in a pit and write off, and that is effectively what would happen if we did not act. The reality is that these are really challenging times in our society, and it is really challenging for regional communities, particularly down in the valley. I value and I respect the work of these communities and of these employees. I value the fact that you have got people down there who have worked for generations, previously for the State Electricity Commission of Victoria (SECV) and now subsequently, and I appreciate deeply the contributions they have made to our state. As a government we recognise the contribution that these communities have made and these workers have made, and we are standing with them. So we have to look at working with these communities as we go through this transformational change by making sure that we have got the investments occurring into renewables so that we can find a way in which we can try to tackle climate change in the immediate future, because we do not have a choice. We have to act. We also know that the cost per unit of photovoltaic solar panels has come down significantly. We also know the cost of battery storage has dropped quite significantly and that there will be the opportunity to look at having a situation whereby you can generate power on your roof, it is stored in a battery and you draw down on that. You might have a set of circumstances where you have smaller cells—so you might have, say, two households with batteries servicing a small network of houses in their surrounding area. You can put in power and draw it down as you require it. It is through more of a collective structure. That will mean that there will be a lesser requirement for baseload coal-fired power stations in the valley, and it will put less pressure on the grid in terms of electricity lines and in terms of that sort of high variability that you find with renewables when they come on strongly. That is what it is like now in 2019. Over the next five years or 10 years there will be further changes as you see technology adapt. Indeed in response to some of the commentary made by the member for Gippsland South, China is shutting down many of its baseload coal-fired power stations. President Xi indicated earlier this year that he wants a clean, green, sustainable China. He has got aspirations for—and he uses these terms— a moderately prosperous society. A moderately prosperous society is a clean society. It is not one full of contaminants and pollutants. That is why China is similarly getting out of these polluting industries. So a bill like this that is before the house is important. Now is the time we have to take action to address these matters. For the opposition to say, ‘Oh look, just go off and come back later’—well, that was the way in which they governed for four years when nothing happened. Nothing happened. They did nothing for four years and now they want us to be like them. Well, we are not going to be like them because we have no interest in being like them. That is what they did and they were punished by the voters. People have sent us to this place with a strong electoral mandate—a very strong electoral mandate—which is why the member for Gippsland South is sadly stuck sitting next to the Greens political party over on that side of the house. We have been asked to come and do a job, and our job is to try and address the cause of climate change and to try and increase the uptake of solar panels throughout our community. We are making these necessary investments to tackle it because if we do not do this, what will be the cost? They will be burying their heads in the sand. It will be electorates like Gippsland South which will disproportionately pay the true cost of climate change if we do not act. This is about having a sensible approach to the way in which we tackle climate change. It is about making sure we reduce our emissions and it is about

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2935 standing with these communities as well. We will not leave these communities behind. We will work with these communities, and we value and respect the contributions they have made, not just in 2019 but for decades. You need to make these sorts of investments now. You need a government that will show leadership. You do not need a political party to come in here and basically say, ‘Look, let’s just kick the can down the road. Let’s abdicate our responsibilities. Let’s not take the tough decisions. Let’s not make the necessary investments. Let someone else worry about it’. That is what those opposite did. They spent four years pushing problems down the road. We are embracing the challenge. We relish the opportunity of tackling climate change. A bill like this is an important weapon in the armoury of tackling climate change and supporting our regional communities. Mr RIORDAN (Polwarth) (12:41): I rise to join many of the comments my colleagues made earlier, in particular the member for Gippsland South. We are beyond frustrated that this government wishes to bring yet another policy in to appease its inner urban electorates rather than to think of the consequences of what they are doing. They are cheaply using and abusing country communities in their quest to be able to say they have a 50 per cent renewable target. So what are those consequences and what are the costs going to be to our community? This is a significant policy with enormous potential for climate good but at the same time, because they have refused to talk honestly and openly with communities about how to go forward, the costs that country communities will bear for a lifetime will be enormous. We will just start with some of those things. For example, this government, despite a report put out by the independent wind farm commissioner only two months ago in which he said Victoria has got its setback policies on renewable energy wrong—it is not climate deniers saying that, it is not the Liberal Party saying that; the independent government commissioner on wind farms says Victoria has its policy wrong—has a policy that was written 10 years ago when wind farms, for example, were only averaging 90 to 100 metres tall. Wind farms now are closing in on 300 metres tall—that is taller than the Rialto. This government has not got a decommissioning policy. This government spent a lot of time yesterday talking about the importance in mining of making sure that when we have an effect on the environment and we make a commitment that changes the landscape we also have a corresponding commitment to clean it up and manage it into the future. That is an admirable concept, but when it comes to renewable energy this government is refusing to put the necessary steps in place at the start of its process to manage what even a five-year-old would be able to figure out is going to be a problem. For example, with the thousands and millions they are throwing at their solar rooftop problem, has 1 minute been spent by these people on the Treasury benches to think about what is going to happen in 20 years time when all those solar panels come to the end of their natural life? Who is going to be responsible? Do the taxpayers have to fork out again? Do we have to pay millions and hundreds of millions to put them on everyone’s roof and then hundreds of millions to take them off? Who is going to be responsible for that clean-up? Who is going to be managing it? Where are the resources going? Has the government in its quest to give fistfuls of dollars to households ensured that the product being installed is recyclable, can be reclaimed, can have a full product life cycle? No, they have not. With the endless stories of cheap installations, people are not thinking about the consequences down the track. It is the same too with the wind industry. The wind industry is going, at taxpayers expense, hell for leather across the landscape, making changes that will affect communities for a lifetime. Where is the thought on how you manage it? We spent yesterday talking about how we will manage mines, but this government refuses to talk about it. They have not got a plan in place. No-one is going to be responsible, and this chamber at a future time will be sitting here debating what we are going to do. Who is going to pay? Do we have to put taxes up? Do we have to charge people more for their energy in order to clean up the messes?

BILLS 2936 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

The member for Essendon in a big swathe in his debate today made much of the fact that technology changes rapidly, it changes all the time. I absolutely agree. This is why the government must put thought, effort and energy into how this is going to work. As the member for Gippsland South said, wind farms in his patch are at around 30 per cent. The wind farms in my patch operate at between 24 and 34 per cent. That is by anyone’s standard incredibly inefficient. You do not have to be a rocket scientist or a renewable energy expert to realise that as other technologies such as hydrogen, such as more efficient waste to energy—a whole number of renewable energy sources—become available into the future, companies including energy companies will very quickly transition from inefficient solar and inefficient wind. They will do that because solar is always below 30 per cent efficiency and wind is not much better. You do not need a crystal ball to realise that when the opportunity arises industries and companies will move to those options. If we look at today—just to prove the point, pick a random day in the middle of the week. The wind farms in my community, which the government will have you believe can power 800 000 homes today, are all operating at below 20 per cent. So there are not 800 000 homes. It is a lie. When we talk about wanting 50 per cent renewables under this current process, we have already got huge swathes of our landscape covered. As the member for Gippsland South also pointed out, are we talking about a capacity for 50 per cent or an actual 50 per cent? On a day like today, we would need the capacity physically at two or three times more in order to generate that much electricity. This is a wishy-washy, hocus-pocus belief. Combine it with two examples that are currently at play in Victoria at the moment. The interconnector to Tasmania, an important part of supplying renewable energy to Victoria, is out of action again for the second time in only a couple of years. What reliability is in place for that? What is this government doing to ensure that we can in fact use Tasmania as a hydro battery for the state of Victoria? We saw in the last three years that the interconnector to South Australia, where there is an option for renewable energy, breaks down. It is not necessarily 100 per cent reliable. These are important considerations that have not been undertaken by this government. The member for Essendon and the member for Mordialloc, who probably do not have wind farms in their communities, unlike myself have probably never met with wind farm operators. Even the wind farm operators tell you that to maximise the efficiency of wind energy particularly you must have high-level, large-scale backup and battery operations. The only thing that will deliver that for the state of Victoria will be large-scale hydro. Where are the plans, where is the support, where is this government meeting with our water agencies, whether they are Melbourne Water or Barwon Water? Where is it talking to them about opportunities for large-scale hydro? Oh, no, none of that is happening. There is no thought—there is not a scintilla of thought—by the government on how to manage the transition to renewables. The simplest thing it can do is turn up with a three-page bill that seeks to transform forever the reliability and the efficiency of Victorian energy in three bits of paper that I have got to say have hardly got anything in them anyway. With those three bits of paper it will not only irrevocably change large areas of our landscape but it has no plan for the future, and it does not seek to answer simple questions put out by people in my community and other regional communities, the obvious questions that arise. Another issue that this policy does not seek to work with or address is transmission. I would probably liken what the government is doing with this policy to a Stalinist approach. They have said, ‘Right. We want 50 per cent’. It would be like saying, ‘We’re going to produce the car bodies. We’re going to have everyone, or 50 per cent, with car bodies. But we’re not going to put wheels on them. They’re an optional extra someone else will have to think about’. We would end up with car bodies stacked all over this state and no wheels to transmit them. Mr Pearson interjected. Mr RIORDAN: The member for Essendon would not realise it, but the only thing that is going to slow down renewable energy in country Victoria is that this government has not put a scintilla of

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2937 thought into how we are going to transmit the energy. Does he realise, for example, that most of the renewable energy that has already been built—and we are only at the 20 per cent mark—is already consuming most of our transmission lines? How do you plan, who are you working with, what communities are you working with? What energy companies is the government working with to create the transmission systems we need to move the renewable energy? If we have got to more than double what we have now, you have got to be able to move it around. This government has not given thought to that, and that is not without consequence. In my community of Mortlake, there is a huge fight to try and get some of the transmission lines put underground, not only for aesthetic reasons and cultural heritage reasons but, most importantly in rural communities, for bushfire reasons. That is another thought that this government has not given any consideration to in this bill. These are questions that are legitimately out there in our communities, raised by people who really want to know. It is easy to win votes in Brunswick and Northcote—and even that you struggle with sometimes—by coming up with these 50 per cent policies to appeal for cheap votes. There are real people’s lives and there are real communities left abandoned with a policy like this, because you are refusing to put any thought, and most importantly investment, into the necessary infrastructure and planning and future planning for this energy policy. Today it is disappointing to think that no matter how often this is raised, even with our shadow minister putting a reasoned amendment for the government to at least start to consider the costs and questions, this government refuses to do anything. The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Ward): To take us through to lunch, the member for Mordialloc. Mr RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (12:51): It is great to take us through to the bails being knocked off at 1 o’clock. The only thing that was missing from that contribution from the member for Polwarth was the tinfoil hat. That was an extraordinary piece. What was it—‘a scintilla of thought’? That was just streams of consciousness from the member for Polwarth. Think of him at a branch meeting. He would get up and he would give his 45-minute report to his branchies and they would go, ‘What on earth was that all about? Really, what was that about?’. The member for Polwarth is passionate about yelling at clouds, yelling at wind farms, tourism— Mr Pearson interjected. Mr RICHARDSON: Yes, wire rope barriers. We know that that is a consistent theme. This bill importantly sends a signal to the market. It says that Victoria is open for business for investing in renewable energy, plain and simple. If you were to look at the leadership of those opposite in renewable energy, you would be at a loss. If you were looking for research and development in Victoria in renewable energy and those opposite were in control, you would not know where to invest, you would not have any certainty. I think there are 20 members of Parliament in the Liberal Party and six in The Nationals. They all have different thoughts and positions that they bring to this place on renewable energy or on their opposition to renewable energy and their application of policy. I want to take up something that the member for Gippsland South said. I know that he has a federal view on things, that he looks to national policy. I would love the member for Polwarth and the member for Gippsland South to try to rock up to the intergovernmental climate change round table and try to lecture nations and other states and territories that suddenly per capita has no relevance in climate change abatement and action. I expected better from the member for Gippsland South than the comment that per capita is completely irrelevant. We are at a stage now where there are developing nations that are heavy polluters with substantially more population, but we are 14th on the pollution table and one of the worst per capita across the world. The notion is that you can just say, ‘Oh, sorry. It’s someone else’s problem. There can be no action and there can be no investment’. You cannot have this halfway street. The member for Gippsland South tries to have this halfway street where he says, ‘Oh, we support action on climate change and

BILLS 2938 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019 renewable energy, but not in this way, not in that way, not in any way’—which is exactly what the opposition’s reasoned amendment is saying. What an extraordinary position, that you can just abrogate your responsibilities. What that does is it sends a signal internationally, it sends a signal to all the other states and territories that Victoria and the nation are opposed to investment, research and development and it says that Australia will not take it seriously. The member for Gippsland South made a more absurd point as well, about intervention and support and subsidy in this industry. They are on different curves and trajectories. We see the expense for coal- fired power stations going up, the expense and capital outlay going up. We see the technology advancement in renewable energy substantially coming down across sectors. So you have got a different curve level. Mr Riordan interjected. Mr RICHARDSON: The member for Polwarth and the member for Gippsland South are encouraging investment substantially, a substantial investment that is, as industry experts have said to me, like dog years—seven years advancement for one year. We are seeing exponential growth in this area, and Victoria wants to be a first mover in this space, so investment in this area is absolutely critical. As the member for Essendon said, no-one is lending money now and no one is lending research and development coin to coal-fired power stations; it is not happening. That is the truth of it. When we go and talk about China and India as jurisdictions, look at the emissions trading schemes and investments that they are making in their technology and advancement. You see, this is a clear issue of the coalition’s, because this reasoned amendment is really a bluff. The Nationals and the Liberal Party are still in a culture war on what to do on climate change, and it is playing out substantially in Victoria. Victoria is the most progressive state for a reason, and we are investing in renewable energy the likes of which have never been seen before. This bill sends a clear signal to the market that Victoria is open for business and is taking action on climate change—meaningful action on climate change. When those opposite move this pathetic reasoned amendment to basically say, ‘Park this bill; tell the market that there’s still complete uncertainty and lack of investment’, that says that Victoria is closed for business. When you look through the election results you can see why they got absolutely smacked at the last election, because they cannot stand for anything. They do not stand for anything. There would be 26 different views on how to take action on climate change, from belief to undermining climate change scientists all across the world—the many, many thousands that have put forward the need to take action and to abate. Did anyone tune in to the comments made and the engagement and debate that was had with our Pacific Island neighbours and the Asia-Pacific region? There is the notion that we are abrogating our responsibilities as a leading economy in this jurisdiction, and we should be empowering each other through the COAG process and rapidly investing in technological advancement and infrastructure to offset the damaging effects of climate change into the future. We have an obligation as Victorians and as Australians to make sure that we offset the burden, pain and impact that will be had on industry and on individuals into the future. Without that action we will be abrogating our responsibility to ourselves in the years to come and to our kids into the future, who will live with the greatest impact of climate change in action in the future. Importantly as well this is about jobs. We have seen a substantial increase in jobs in renewable energy, and we are going to continue that. This is why this bill is so important. I meet with people about solar and about wind, and I spent time with the former federal Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. There was so much uncertainty around the rhetoric and around investment. With the changes in governments and the uncertainty at a federal level, the industry and market are looking for where they can park their investment. Victoria wants to be a first mover in technological advancement and investment in renewable energies. That is the take-up that we want to see. There is disappointment again felt that there is not bipartisan support in this Parliament for investment in renewable energies; it is a terrible shame. There is opposition once again to solar panels, once again

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2939 to wind and once again to investment in renewable energies. The member for Polwarth represents the Liberal Party in this place, and basically the contention made was, ‘Don’t invest in renewable energy— in wind farms and solar’. That is the view that is being put forward when you say that it will be superseded. The notion that we walk away from our responsibilities is absurd, and Victorians would be disappointed in the Liberal-Nationals for taking that position and that view. But we can hold out hope for the great people of Victoria. If the Leader of the Opposition is listening back in his office, the review is still pending. There is still time to get on board and invest in renewable energy. There is a root, branch and all review going on, a bit like Don Pyke at the Adelaide Crows— he is feeling a bit nervous with a root, branch and all review at the moment. But there is a review underway, so let us think about renewable energy and a review into renewable energy. They should stop their tinfoil antics approach to climate change in Victoria. It is time to step up, and it is time to listen to the Victorian people and invest in this critically important industry. It means jobs. It means action on climate change. Those opposite skirt around the issue saying, ‘We want to see this’ and ‘We want to see that’ and ‘We want to stop investment in renewable energy until such time that we see this and that’. That is code for inaction, lack of belief, undermining scientists and undermining the message here, which is putting at risk tens of thousands of jobs into the future, jobs and opportunities that will be available in the opposition’s communities and in my community. That is what they are saying. They are putting tens of thousands of jobs at risk and condemning Victoria and our nation to further inaction on climate change. Just front up. Just call it for what it is. You still do not have a coherent policy in shadow cabinet. Everything is still under review. Despite the fact that we are nearly a year through this term, those opposite still cannot get their house in order on something as fundamental as investment in renewable energy. Goodness me. They are a complete rabble in this space, and no wonder the Victorian people condemned those opposite. If you stand for nothing, that is exactly what you get. As the member for Essendon rightly said, a reasoned amendment is a no. The member for Warrandyte was previously described by all the sectors and the Age in an editorial around 2013 or 2014 as the worst environment minister in 70 years—across jurisdictions. Extraordinary. We get stuck into him about youth unemployment numbers. He was the worst in 70 years. Extraordinary. And he moves this garbage. I mean, come on. Get on board, get underway with the review and get on with it. Ms Staley: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I simply draw your attention to Speaker Maddigan’s ruling from the Chair. My version is from October 2018, and she said: Whilst all members can expect robust debates, offensive comments and personal reflections are out of order … The member for Mordialloc strayed beyond complying with Speaker Maddigan’s ruling from the Chair, and I would ask you to counsel him. Ms Green: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, I listened very closely to what the member for Mordialloc said, and I do not believe that he was reflecting personally on the member for Warrandyte. He was merely referring to newspaper reports but also referring, as he was completing his contribution, to the reasoned amendment that has been moved by the member for Warrandyte. Mr Richardson: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, I am very happy to provide to the member for Ripon, who was not a member in the place at the time, and for Hansard’s reference, the newspaper reference and article about the member for Warrandyte’s record as environment minister. I am very happy to provide that to the member for Ripon. I can read out verbatim, if you would like, the reflections. It was about 70 years. It is right here; I could read it out. If you want to have lunch, you can have a think about the record of the member for Warrandyte over lunch.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 2940 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Ward): Order! I am sure everyone is keen to get to lunch. I will rule on this in a second. The member’s time has expired. It is time for lunch. There is no point of order. Sitting suspended 1.03 pm until 2.02 pm. Business interrupted under sessional orders. Matters of public importance LIBERAL PARTY POLICY REVIEW The SPEAKER (14:02): I have accepted a statement from the member for Essendon proposing the following matter of public importance for discussion: That this house notes the Victorian Liberal Party’s review of all policies and the following historic reforms of the Andrews Labor government that could be cut by the Liberals: (1) building the Education State, including free TAFE, 100 new schools, dental vans and three-year-old kinder; (2) the record $2.5 billion investment in the health system to deliver world-class health care for all Victorians; (3) the state-changing infrastructure agenda, including the Suburban Rail Loop, Metro Tunnel, West Gate Tunnel, North East Link and removal of 75 dangerous and congested level crossings; and (4) the hundreds of thousands of jobs created by these projects and reforms. Mr PEARSON (Essendon) (14:02): This is a very important issue. I think this is the most important matter of public importance (MPI) that I have ever spoken on in my brief time here. We know that the Liberal Party is going to review all the policies it took to the election last year. It was reported by ABC News on 6 December last year that the Liberal Party was, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, ‘a mainstream party with mainstream values’. The Leader of the Opposition indicated that the election was a humbling experience and that the party would review all the policies it took to the public. He said that they were going to be a team that would listen and learn the lessons from this election. A review is about choices, and this review will have an impact not just on 2019 but it will have an impact that will reverberate across the 59th Parliament and into the election in 2022, because a review is about the choices that those opposite will be making about the agenda they will take to the election in 2022. Why I think this is so important and why I was so keen to bring this to the house’s attention is because of the track record of those opposite. I draw the house’s attention to the interview on the ABC AM program on 16 December 2011. It played a recorded interview between the then Leader of the Opposition, Ted Baillieu, and Tony Eastley. Tony Eastley said: You’re saying that they’d be reductions in the public service but surely … Ted Baillieu responded:

No Tony. Let me stop you. Tony Eastley: Alright. Ted Baillieu: Absolutely no reduction in public servants. I’m not going to cop this line from the Labor Party. Yet in that interview the member for Rowville said:

Our policy is to reduce the VPS numbers by 3600 by the end of 2013. We’ll achieve this through voluntary departure processes and through non-renewal of a number of fixed-term positions across the VPS.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2941

Now this had come after Mr Baillieu had said that the government would increase the number of public sector workers by 4000. When you have got a political party that in the previous two times it had occupied the Treasury benches it had cut the public service to the bone, and when you are confronted with the fact that those opposite are now conducting a review, you are right to ask yourself: what are they hiding? What are they proposing to do? There is just so much at stake. In the years between 2010 and 2014 we saw the economy in the state of Victoria stagnate. We saw a lethargy that seemed to permeate in every department, in every portfolio right across the Baillieu and Napthine governments. It was a time when nothing happened. I recall talking to people in business and in industry throughout those years. You would try to get a sense about their engagement with the government of the day, and they were not getting any engagement from the government. You would try to get a sense from a private sector perspective of what government was doing, and they would say that they were not doing anything. The problem with that is that when you have a public sector that is worth 25 per cent of gross state product, if a government sits on his hands, if it does not provide any direction, any leadership or any focus other than slashing the public sector by 10 per cent and reducing the capacity of the public sector to be able to govern the state, then what you see is a form of lethargy emerging right across the state. We saw a lack of job creation and a very dire set of circumstances in terms of economic growth. If you look at the last budget that was handed down by the Napthine government, when the Leader of the Opposition was the Treasurer—budget paper 2, page 13—it shows that gross state product was forecast to grow by 2.5 per cent in the 2014–15 financial year. This is a very, very mediocre level of growth. Certainly the economy was not contracting, but after four years in office the economy was just going through the motions. It was just trundling along, not doing particularly much. Frankly, why would it? Because those opposite did nothing. If you look at the gross state product in the most recent actual figures—so these are not forecasts, these are actual for 2017–18—it was 3.5 per cent. Victoria is now the powerhouse of the Australian economy. For five quarters in a row, I think, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia has recognised that we are driving the nation through our strong stewardship. The other thing I think it is worth pointing out—budget paper 2, page 48, ‘General government fiscal aggregates’ table 4.1—what was happening with debt at that time? If you look at 2012–13, it is 5.9 per cent, and then in 2014–15 it increased to 6.3 per cent. So debt under the government of those opposite actually increased compared to 2010–11, and they had nothing to show for it. So you have a set of circumstances when those opposite occupied the Treasury benches where the economy was stagnating, you had debt increasing, and effectively you had a rudderless economy and a rudderless government. If you look at the last Brumby government budget, it shows that as a percentage of gross state product net debt peaked at 4.3 per cent, which is the right measure. You should be measuring debt as a percentage of the total state economy rather than in raw numbers. This is why I am quite concerned about what would happen if those opposite were to win the 2022 election. Again, the Leader of the Opposition has made it very clear that everything is up for grabs, everything is up for review, apart from of course the east–west link— Ms Thomas: Including the leadership. Mr PEARSON: I suspect, indeed, including the leadership, member for Macedon. So when you see a government like the former government not making these sorts of investments, you can see why the private sector would be saying, ‘Well, if you’re not going to invest, why would we?. If we have no sense that there is a pipeline of activity, if we’ve got no sense that you know what you are doing, then why should we be risking our capital, why should we be allocating resources to the Victorian market when nothing is happening?’. Seriously, Melbourne and the state of Victoria under

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 2942 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019 the Baillieu government—you would have had more fun on a Saturday night in Adelaide than in those four years under those opposite. They were just hopeless—four wasted years. When you have got a focused administration, when you have got a government that is committed to trying to make the necessary investments, then you see a strong economy result. This is really important because we are making sure that we are creating a fair and equitable society and we are meeting the challenges of population growth—this is so vitally important. I draw the house’s attention to an article in the Australian Financial Review of 13 August 2019 which refers to a report from Infrastructure Australia which talks about the fact that if we do not act, road congestion will cost the economy $38.8 billion a year by 2031 and a crowded and congested public transport system will cost the economy $837 million. This is why we are making the sort of investments that we are making in terms of metro rail and the North East Link and by removing 75 of our most dangerous level crossings. But at every step of the way those opposite oppose us—at every step. I am yet to see a level crossing which those opposite have not tried to stop, stymie or delay or which they have objected to. It is just in their DNA to block and to try and slow us down, to ensure that we cannot get on with delivering on the mandate that was given to us by the people of Victoria in 2014 and 2018. If we do not do these things, then the costs are enormous. Similarly, Infrastructure Australia found in their report, as reported in the Fin Review, that better functioning cities and towns could deliver a $29 billion increase in GDP in the longer term. This is what the economy is needing. We need to have this sort of level of investment to be able to make sure that we are investing in good, productive infrastructure. It is not some sugar hit for the economy that is just being frittered away; this is an investment now and into the future. It is visionary, and it is no different to some of the work that was undertaken by Sir Rupert Hamer in his work in terms of building the Melbourne loop in the early 1970s, which was, if you believe Tim Colebatch’s biography on Hamer, solidly opposed by Henry Bolte. But Hamer recognised that you need to make these sorts of investments, and it was visionary. It was visionary of the Hamer government to champion the loop, and I think when you look at it these sorts of investments will play a similar role in the decades to come. What would Melbourne be like if we did not have the loop? What would it be like if we were only now building the loop in the 21st century? These sorts of investments are vitally important to ensure that we create a growing economy. A member interjected. Mr PEARSON: I take up the interjection about the east–west link. The east–west link is a dud— it is a dud. What this demonstrates is that those opposite cannot manage money and cannot manage the economy. That is why they drove the economy into a ditch over their four years in office. Frankly, the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Treasurer, was a semicompetent clerk who was good at adding up numbers. That was kind of it, even though he did actually preside over a budget deficit because of changing accounting standards. He did not understand how to run an economy. These numbers that were handed down in the May budget this year he would have loved to have presided over, but he is not capable of doing that in government. That is why when those opposite talk about a review where everything is up for grabs what they are really talking about—what they want—is semi- educated clerks coming back in here, focusing like feral abacuses, playing around without a broad appreciation of what the economy needs and what they need to do. The economy is a partnership between the public sector and the private sector. It is about making sure that the public sector sends a very clear signal about making these sorts of investments so the private sector can respond. Look at education: the long-term average of those opposite in capital expenditure on the education portfolio was $200 million over the course of their four years in government. My good friend the member for Mordialloc has been running all around regional Victoria and metro Melbourne visiting newly completed schools. We are investing on average over $1 billion a year. This plays a huge role in terms of growing the economy and providing that level of stability and certainty. The private sector knows that it has got a government here that is committed to growing the economy

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2943 and that is making these critical investments in effective infrastructure, productively boosting infrastructure, which will mean that it can plan forward with confidence. Imagine if you were a small subbie at the moment in, say, the electrical trades—a noble profession which you were once a member of, Speaker. If you had picked up a job on the Metro Tunnel project, you could see employment for 10 years—well, probably less now because we will open in 2025, but you can see the point I am making—and then beyond that if you are looking at the level crossing removals. What does that mean? If you can see a pipeline of activity, you will invest—you will take on staff, you will upgrade your property plant and equipment, you will have that vision of the fact that you have got good, solid work coming down the pipeline and you will invest—and that is what you need. That is what real leadership is about—it is about having a government that is absolutely steadfast and committed to making these sorts of investments. Indeed it is not just about economics; it is not just about the dollars and growing the economy. This is about creating in its own form a degree of wealth distribution, because as we know from Thomas Piketty’s book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, on page 25 he talks about r as being greater than g, where the rate of capital return— Ms Staley interjected. Mr PEARSON: Well, I would encourage the member for Ripon to read it. She might learn a thing or two if she reads Piketty. She might actually enjoy the read. She might furtively refer to Piketty during shadow cabinet meetings and hope the Leader of the Opposition does not catch her reading it. I am sure Thomas Piketty is on the proscribed reading list of the shadow cabinet—‘Don’t read Piketty; you might think about wealth redistribution. Oh, heavens!’. But page 25 talks about r being greater than g, where the return on capital is greater than the growth in wages, and it talks about the profound impact that will have in terms of creating a just and equitable society. If you have got a government that is making these sorts of investments, where you are talking about increasing the skill base of workers, where you are talking about providing people with a greater opportunity to participate in working in good, solid employment that is paying well, then you will find that g will actually be greater. Indeed if you look at wages growth in Victoria, the latest figures show an increase of 2.7 per cent. Now, okay, it is not like the heady days of the 1980s, when we were talking about 4 or 5 per cent, but equally I would say to you that the rate of inflation now is considerably less, and so these sorts of investments are vitally important to ensure that we can create a fair society and indeed we can create a great society here in Victoria. But of course you cannot take anything for granted, and come 2022 it will be on for young and old again, and we just do not know. We do not know what we will be confronting. We do not know what they have got hidden, what they are working on, their secret review. We know their form. Their form is that they will say anything to win an election, and when they get in they will just return to type. They will slash the public sector; they will drive the economy into the ditch. The reality with those opposite is that they just cannot manage money. They cannot manage an economy. They are economic derelicts. Ms STALEY (Ripon) (14:17): I rise to speak on the matter of public importance (MPI) in the name of the member for Essendon. We have just had his opening remarks, his opening batting, and that has got to be one of the flattest and most lacklustre contributions we have heard from the member for Essendon. His heart was not in it. I am actually going to give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest that he might not have written this matter of public importance, because it is nonsensical. I did note though that he spent probably about 14 of his 15 allocated minutes talking about those on this side of the chamber instead of the achievements, as he perceives them, of the Andrews Labor government, which suggests that even he recognises that that might have been drawing too long a bow. The reason this is a very strange topic as a matter of public importance is: why would any review of the Liberal Party’s and National Party’s promises that we took to the last election have any impact on the Labor government’s implementation of its own policy, except of course that maybe they were

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 2944 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019 going to steal more of the ones that we took to that election? They have already taken the regional payroll tax changes that we took to the election, but why would our policies matter to them? Then I think about another review that we should consider in this context, and that would of course be the warts-and-all review of federal Labor’s election loss. What we have seen in recent days is a tsunami of commentators within the Labor Party putting forward their reasons why Bill Shorten did not win the last federal election. I suppose I would have to start with former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who noted that in his view Bill Shorten had committed a ‘cardinal political error’ by proposing the negative gearing and franking credits tax changes from opposition, labelling the strategy ‘nuts’. If we look at those tax reform measures, we see that Labor took to the last election a series of tax measures that would have increased taxes by $154 billion over 10 years, and the people of Australia quite rightly rejected those tax increases from the federal Labor Party. But I suppose on the member for Essendon’s logic, federal Labor would not be reviewing any of the policies that they took to the federal election, so that we can therefore be very confident that federal Labor will continue to have a policy to remove dividend imputation, they will continue to have a policy to limit negative gearing and they will continue to have a policy to halve the capital gains tax discount. Clearly they would not be wanting to review all these policies because, on the logic of the member for Essendon, they just would not be doing that. We move to some of their energy policies. Of course one of the energy policies that the federal Labor opposition took to the last election was a renewable energy target of 50 per cent electricity generation by 2030, and they lost. One of the reasons for the loss put forward by those on the Labor side at the federal level was that that was seen by people to be a policy that would directly increase their power prices. So Labor took a policy to the federal election which, on the logic of the member for Essendon’s MPI, they cannot cut. Mr Pearson: On a point of order, Speaker, I do like and respect the member for Ripon for making an earnest contribution, but the MPI before the house has nothing to do with federal Labor, has nothing to do with the federal election at all and does not mention energy prices. I would ask that you draw the member back to the MPI. The SPEAKER: The member for Ripon is entitled to draw parallels between the review that is mentioned in the matter of public importance before the house and the review that she is mentioning, but she must continue to draw that connection. Ms STALEY: I will move to the three areas that in fact the member for Essendon barely mentioned in his contribution on his own MPI. The first one was around the free TAFE policy. Now, if we want to go to free TAFE, what have we seen about TAFE under this government? We have seen 24 per cent fewer students enrolled in government-subsidised training now compared to the number in the Premier’s first year in office. So we have seen reductions in government-subsidised places under this government. Their free TAFE plan did not have a plan, and they have had an 82 per cent blowout in the free TAFE budget in the first year alone. If we want to talk about that policy, that is just not going too well, because between 2016 and 2017 there were 37 000 fewer enrolments in vocational education and training, with a particular decrease in enrolments in regional Victoria. So that is their first one. Then they talk about the dental vans. Why they put that in the MPI I have no idea because, firstly, ScoMo, the Prime Minister, is funding those dental vans, and, secondly, this is a broken promise by the Labor government. The Labor government have cut $74 million from dental care for Victorian students, and now they are using the child dental benefits schedule—which is the federal scheme—to fund these buses. I do not know why that would be the one; why you put that in your MPI. And then we move to three-year-old kinder. Now they have gone very quiet on three-year-old kinder since the federal election, because of course that was the policy that was meant to be funded by a Shorten victory. But there was not a Shorten victory, and so now they have gone a bit quiet on how they fund the three-year-old kinder.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2945

But then we move to point (2) of the MPI, and that is around health. Now, this week what we have seen in Victoria’s health system is a 78-year-old woman lying on a mattress on the floor for over an hour in the Goulburn Valley hospital. And how do we know about this? That would be because the ambulance took her there and the ambos told the media. So the kind of health system we have under this government has 78-year-old women left on the floor in hospital corridors. Now, if you really want to bring that up as one of your great achievements in government, I think your priorities are wrong, and that is the nicest way I can put that. That is not a success. It is not successfully running a hospital system when elderly people in particular are being left on the floor. Then when we move to where the government is spending money in health, well, they are certainly not spending it in cancer treatment because they have cut $45 million from cancer treatment targeted at Victoria children. I mean, who takes cancer treatment off Victorian children? This Andrews Labor government does—a $45 million cut. The Minister for Health, Jenny Mikakos in the other place, had previously promised money for a proton beam therapy centre, and then she took it away. She is not doing that anymore. She is cutting children’s cancer services. At the same time we have seen significant cuts: $56 million from Monash Health’s acute admitted patient services and $42 million from Western Health. The Labor Party pretends to care about those in the western suburbs, and then they go and cut the health services of those in the western suburbs by $42 million. And then in my own patch it is $10 million cut out of acute admitted patient services at Ballarat Health Services. Ballarat Health Services is growing very quickly. Ballarat the region is growing very quickly. So why on earth would acute admitted patient services be cut by this government? It beggars belief that they think they can stand up and say they are running a good health service when they are cutting acute admitted patient services. Then we move to the infrastructure agenda of the government, and what do we have to say there? Well, let us start with the Transurban deal for the West Gate Tunnel Project. So we discovered through the independent Parliamentary Budget Office that a daily CityLink commuter will be paying $87 060 in extra tolls over the life of the agreement that Labor has struck with Transurban for this road. So 71 per cent of the value of that agreement is being paid for by Victorian motorists, and ones that do not even use this road. This is for CityLink motorists that are using the other roads, not the West Gate Tunnel, and they are paying for it—$87 060 over the life of the agreement. When we look at some of the other projects that the government likes to talk about, we could probably start with the North East Link. We all agree that the North East Link is a needed project. It is a good project. There has been a lot of growth in Melbourne, and we support that project. But that project is already $10.8 billion over budget and no sod has been turned. I mean, where are we going to be by the time we actually even get to having the thing built? I dread to think, because this is where you come to when you come to talk about this government’s projects. They are well over budget in every way, shape or form. As a result Victoria’s debt is now projected to go to 10 per cent of GSP in four years. The ratings agencies are starting to say, ‘We’re getting a bit tight there. We said if you went to 12—’ Mr Pearson: Who said that? Ms STALEY: Well, the actual phrase was from Standard & Poor’s, and they said the government was running out of headroom. At 10 per cent debt to GSP, they said that the government was running out of headroom and they could not continue to increase debt at that rate. Because the government in the week before the election said, ‘We will take debt to 12 per cent GSP over 10 years’. And now in this budget, the budget that came down earlier this year, we see that they are taking debt to GSP to 10 per cent in four years. Well, no wonder the ratings agencies are starting to say, ‘Whoa, here! Look, you’re spending very quickly’. And what are they spending on? They are spending on cost blowouts across their infrastructure spend. We agree that we need an infrastructure spend. We agree on North East Link. We agree on your projects. Most of them are fine, but you are managing them really badly. They have all got massive cost overruns, and you need to manage them better. You just need to manage them better.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 2946 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

That brings me to the final point of the MPI, which of course was not mentioned by even the mover of the MPI, and that would be because it was in fact the Liberal-Nationals government during our tenure who created the most jobs of any state. We led Australia in jobs growth during our tenure. And yet what have we seen? In this government’s most recent budget they are out there and they are cutting the jobs and innovation budget. They are doing that. So we have seen $130 million cut from the government’s programs in just one year. So they have gone from $250 million in 2018–19 down to $120 million in 2019–20. The industry, innovation and small business budget has been cut by 21 per cent and the jobs budget by 19 per cent. So I do not see that this government is investing in jobs. They are cutting their jobs budgets. They are actually moving hundreds of millions of dollars out of those programs. Yet what do they do when they get their MPI, a chance for their backbench to stand up and talk about the achievements of their government? What do we get? We get 14 of the 15 minutes about this side of the chamber, and then the things they pick in their MPI that they might want to focus on are not even great winners for them. This government is becoming more and more ramshackle. I do note that they did not have any energy or recycling or any of those sorts of— Mr Newbury: Solar. Ms STALEY: Solar; thank you, member for Brighton. None of that was mentioned because of course that is working out so well for them. They have destroyed an industry of small business. The Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change is just a catastrophic failure in all of her portfolios, and it has just become embarrassing. However, we did not get any of that in this MPI. We did not get any of that. Of course the member for Essendon must find it very hard to watch her every day. Ms RICHARDS (Cranbourne) (14:32): I thank the Speaker for the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance and thank the member for Essendon for once again bringing to the attention of the chamber the great risk to this state if those opposite get their hands on the levers of government. Now, I have a lot to say about the terrific programs that are being offered in Victoria, but I cannot start without commencing with a discussion on public dental care and the $30 million cut that was made by the federal Liberal government—the $30 million cut that left 30 000 people added to the waiting list. So I will talk about how important it is that we look after people in our community, and of course I will always go and start talking about the incredible importance of these programs to Cranbourne. I just had to start by absolutely recognising that I have been in this place only a short amount of time but I have been around long enough to know that it is in the DNA of those opposite that every time they get their hands on the levers of government federally or here they cannot help themselves—cuts, cuts, cuts to the bone. So it is all up for review, we have learned. Everything is up for review. You know, I wish I did not have to speak on this. I wish that there was a strong bipartisan commitment to health and education. I wish that we were able to relax and know that those opposite would be able to sing the praises of our free TAFE system, that they would be able to relax and know that three-year-old kinder is safe for those who live in Cranbourne and across the state regardless of how much they earn. But of course we cannot because we know that is all up for grabs. Cuts, cuts, cuts to the bone—it is in their DNA. And as the member for Essendon reminded us there is so much at stake. So let us talk about what is at risk in the community that I represent. What is at risk is the Education State, because we are building the Education State in Cranbourne: a new secondary school in Clyde North—the community of my friend the member for Bass and my own community will be attending that school—Clyde North East Primary School, Clyde North Primary School and Casey Fields (Five Ways) Primary School, and I will be talking about a trip I did there recently with the member for Moorabbin. There is also Botanic Ridge Primary School, a sparkling new primary school that will also be providing early childhood development opportunities. The member for Carrum, I am sure, will be one of the first people to come and visit. There is a refurb of Cranbourne South Primary School and a refurb of Cranbourne Secondary—they are getting a brand-new performing arts centre—money for

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2947

Cranbourne West Primary School, a school that is doing some really heavy lifting in my community, money for St Peter’s College in Clyde North and a new secondary school in Cranbourne West. But also what is so at risk is programs like the announcement we made that there will be a new special development school in Cranbourne West. There is nothing I am prouder of than the fact that children who would normally have to travel a long way are going to have access to a topnotch state public school in Cranbourne West and a topnotch special development school—the contrast. I decided to have a look at what the announcements were in the lead-up to the last November’s election, specifically in Cranbourne, and I could not see much actually around education. It was telling that Michael Kroger and John Howard spent a bit of time—quite a lot of time actually—wandering around Cranbourne telling their story, but of course the young families of Cranbourne need to get access to good schools. I noticed, and I was discussing this with the member for Bayswater just earlier, that one of the announcements that was made, the big headline announcement that was made, was that they were going to have police in schools. Well, we already have a program, and in fact the member for Bayswater as a previously serving police officer told me he was part of the school liaison program. Well, we are offering free dental in schools—what a contrast. We are bringing in oral health professionals so that we can actually make sure that the families in Cranbourne have access to dental care regardless of how much income they have—so that children get access to dental care in schools. All of this will only happen under an Andrews Labor government, under a Labor government, because these phenomenal programs only happen when Labor is in government. So we have committed to dental vans in schools, and of course this dental van program is a game changer because we know that one of the greatest reasons for avoidable hospital admissions is dental ill health. It should not matter how much money you have in your bank; you should be able to afford to get good-quality dental care. The fact that there were so many brutal cuts undertaken to the dental program by the federal Liberals just shows that this is just part of their usual business. Of course the Deputy Premier, our Minister for Education, has presided over a $1.82 billion investment in school infrastructure. That brings the total investment over five budgets to an unprecedented $5.6 billion, and people are aware of this unprecedented investment in schools. They know that it is the greatest investment in Victoria’s history. I am the mother of a state school teacher, and I hear every day about the importance of kids getting access to topnotch mental health professionals. Our investment is a huge relief to local principals. It is a huge relief to teachers, it is a huge relief to parents and of course it is providing what kids in our schools need, and that is professional, high-quality care. So the greatest gap there could be between Labor and those opposite is in the areas of education and health. We have got a rollout of 100 new schools planned and 1400 upgrades across the state, so it is extraordinary to think that in 2016 there were no new schools built in this state—no schools opened in this state. Do you know why? It is because it actually takes planning. We need to buy the land, we need to make the investments, and there is no doubt that when it comes to planning for education and planning for schools, those opposite just revert to type. Review, review, review—it is just a euphemism for a cut. I was very fortunate that the member for Mordialloc, our Parliamentary Secretary for Schools, came to visit Casey Fields recently, a new primary school. And how much joy was there actually talking to the people who are working on this site? We heard a great story about the grandfathers of Casey Fields, who walk past in the morning on the way to drop off their little ones at three-year-old kinder—and in the couple of moments I have left I am going to talk about three-year-old kinder—very enthusiastic and excited. They are mostly from the Sikh community. They are looking forward to sending their grandchildren to this great new school, and they know this is all up for review. That means there is no guarantee that this school will even open if the people on the other side of the chamber get their hands on the levers of government. There are so many jobs.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 2948 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

I have so much to talk about, and kinder is something that is incredibly important to my heart. The member for Carrum has so much passion for early childhood education that we have already had a visit to Cranbourne and also meetings with local community groups. The member for Carrum, in her role as Parliamentary Secretary for Early Childhood Education, wants to make sure that she joins with the Deputy Premier and Minister for Education to ensure that there are enough people to teach our youngest Victorians, because we know—just like schools, just like the fact that in 2016 there were no schools opened—we need to plan for the future. We know that access to early childhood education ought not depend on your bank balance—again. I started my community life many years ago as the vice-president of the local kindergarten. I remember learning for the first time how expensive three-year-old kinder is, and I remember discovering that not many people could afford it. It is just extraordinary to think that something as important as early childhood education could be up for grabs—could be reviewed—and, as I said, there is nothing like a euphemism for cuts to the bone. So we know that we are planning for the future. We are making sure that we are going to have the workforce in place. We are going to make sure that we have the infrastructure in place so that our youngest Victorians will have access to topnotch early childhood education as they ought. In the couple of seconds I have left: TAFE, education—it is all up for review. Mr WAKELING (Ferntree Gully) (14:42): It gives me pleasure to contribute to this debate on the government’s matter of public importance (MPI). It is interesting that we are having a debate which is looking at the review of policies that were taken to an election. The next major election which Victorians will be participating in will of course be a federal election, and I would like to give some context to this debate by pointing out that it has been very interesting looking at reviews of policies that were taken to elections. One might want to look at recent commentary that was made by a former Prime Minister, Mr Kevin Rudd, when he did an assessment of the crazy policies that were taken to the previous federal election by Mr Shorten. In fact he said that the Labor Party had committed a cardinal political error by proposing the negative gearing and franking credits tax changes from opposition, which he labelled as a strategy which was ‘nuts’. To those opposite, I put it in the context that if those opposite are actually saying to Victorians that the opposition should stand by their policies at the subsequent election, then they need to stand up in this place and say they stand by Mr Shorten’s crazy policies around franking credits. I ask those opposite to stand up and tell Victorians where they stand on this important issue. Let me tell you that residents in Knox where I live were gravely concerned about those policies, which actually saw a significant increase in the vote for my federal colleague Alan Tudge, the federal member for Aston, where people significantly rejected the policies of the Labor Party. I am interested also in the view of the Labor Environment Action Network, LEAN as many others would know it, who were gravely concerned at the environment policies that were put forward by the Labor Party. I will just put that in context if I may, and I appreciate that this is a debate in regard to Victorian policy, but I think it is really important that those opposite, the government, need to articulate their position on this very important issue. That is an important issue to my residents in the City of Knox. I turn to the policies that the government is spruiking as part of this MPI. I look at point (1), which talks about building the Education State. I would like those opposite to come out to my community and visit schools in my electorate that have received no capital funding from this government in the last five years. Mr Carbines: Bad luck. Mr WAKELING: Bad luck—that is what they say, bad luck. Let me tell you: I have stood up in this place for years on behalf of local schools like Fairhills High School, a good local school which has not received one cent of funding from this government. We had committed to provide $8 million, and then $9 million, to upgrade that school, but this government did nothing. For the four years that we were in government we upgraded Fairhills Primary School, Wattleview Primary School, Mountain Gate Primary School, Ferntree Gully North Primary School—schools that were ignored by the Labor Party in their previous terms in government.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2949

Where is this party standing up for local schools? For my students in the gallery, from Wantirna College, for other students, what is this government’s plan and vision to help schools in my community? The answer is zero. I had to stand in this house two weeks ago fighting to try to get funding to upgrade Knox Gardens Primary School to get their roof fixed, because every time it rains the carpet is destroyed and fittings are destroyed. The school has had to find $50 000. The parents have had to fundraise to try to fix this mess. It should not come down to parents fundraising to fix a problem that this government, through the Department of Education and Training, could have stepped in and fixed. But of course this government does not care about my community. This government says, ‘Bad luck. You didn’t vote for us so we’re not going to help you’. Let me tell you: children’s education in Knox is as important as children’s education in other parts of Victoria. All children, regardless of who their local member of Parliament is, deserve the best educational facilities possible. I accept the fact that you cannot fix every school in one year. I never said that, never asked for it. But it would be nice to at least get one school funded per year—one! It would just be nice to open a budget paper and when you go through the capital works program under the education department to see one school, just one school in my electorate listed. But of course year after year it does not happen. That is the way this government treats education in my community. Let us look at transport. When we are talking about policies and changing policies, let us, firstly, start with the east–west link. Whose policy was it? Who initiated the policy about east–west link? Who was the one that came up with the idea of the east–west link? I remember sitting on this side of the house when John Brumby stood up as Premier of the state of Victoria proudly championing the fact that he had commissioned a report through Sir Rod Eddington to actually construct the east–west link. Speaker, I am sure that you will remember, and I will not ask you to comment, that it was a Labor Premier who stood up and said the two major issues that were affecting Victorians with respect to transport as identified by Sir Rod Eddington were the metro rail tunnel and the east–west link. Can I just say, if you want to talk about a change of policies, for heaven’s sake, we had an opposition under the leadership of the member for Mulgrave who said, ‘We support the Liberal Party’s position on east–west link’. Then he said, ‘Well, we don’t support it, but we’re going to honour a contract’. Then he saw polling that said he was going to lose seats in the inner city to the Greens, and he turned around and said, ‘We’d better change our position. Now we’re opposed to the policy’. I mean for heaven’s sake. Do not lecture us about a review on policies. You could not even keep your own policy in opposition. You changed your position three times. Do not stand up and lecture us on this side of the house about policies, for heaven’s sake. This government is going to be building a tunnel in the western suburbs of Melbourne which my residents in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne, who travel on the Monash Freeway and get off at Punt Road to come to the city for work, and then get on at Punt Road to travel back along the Monash through EastLink to get home, are going to be paying tolls on for an extra 10 years—for a road they are not even using. For heaven’s sake, that is your answer to my community. Mr Pearson: Is that the best you’ve got? Mr WAKELING: ‘Is that the best you’ve got?’ Seriously? It just shows the disdain with which those opposite treat my community. Mr Pearson interjected. Mr WAKELING: Oh, it is a lazy argument? Because your residents are not paying for it, you do not care. That is what that answer is. Your residents are not going to be paying for an extra 10 years. Mr Pearson interjected. Mr WAKELING: Okay, so you pay taxes, alright. It is a toll. It is not a tax that is paid by every Victorian. It is a payment that Victorians pay to a private company to use their road. That is what a

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 2950 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019 toll is. It is not taxation paid by the entire state. It is a toll that is paid by the users to use that road. That is what toll roads are all about. Those opposite—their response to people in my community is, ‘We don’t care’. And that is exactly why the government was rejected by residents in my community. I just leave with this point, where I started, that the government needs to provide clarity: does it back the policies of Bill Shorten for the next election, because residents have a right to know? Mr RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (14:52): Whoever said that the member for Ferntree Gully sleeps with the lights on—he is out of the gates today, and he is pumped up and up and about. Goodness me, that was a spirited effort, a spirited campaign. He is not being reviewed—surely not, because he has fallen so many times off the front bench, he is hanging on for dear life. He was one of those that committed to a pay cut in the last Parliament just to stay on the front bench with the shadows—one of the 25, even though there were 22 government ministers—but he has given it a fair shake today, so well done to the member for Ferntree Gully. The review in the matter of public importance here is very critical, but I wish it was not. I wish it was something new. I wish the member for Malvern had come out of the gates after the winter break—I think the slumber was about seven weeks—and come up with something novel and appropriate. But guess what? We have been here before. We have been here before with reviews. We have been here and it has been called another thing. And I just think he is going to be termed ‘Bulleen Lite’, because I do not think he is any speck of dirt on the shoe of the member for Bulleen. He has does not have the passion, the fire. I sat on the back stall just over there, and I used to watch the member for Bulleen get up. He was spirited. He had a contest. We did not always agree, but he was up and about all the time. And those behind him were spirited in their campaign. They looked forward, they were energised and there were a few knocked out of question time. Not this time. For eight months, sitting here, I have been keeping a tally: eyes down, reading the phone, checking Twitter, having a look up at the journos to see if there is just a speck of hope or glee or glory. And if you do not believe me, let us just go to the scoreboard here. And I have got the fancy new iPad here now, so I will read this out. This was a profile piece—a pleading profile piece—to get the contest running some eight months in from Matt Johnson in the Herald Sun: ‘Invisible man must become action man’. Just give it a go: ‘Invisible man must become action man’. This was in August, and that a little bit back before— Mr Battin: On a point of order, Speaker, the member is directly quoting from an article on the iPad. We ask him to table the iPad. Mr Fregon: On the point of order, Speaker, surely you could table the link to the article if it is on the internet. The SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Mount Waverley. You have just channelled the advice from the Clerk. If the member for Mordialloc is quoting from an article, I would ask him to provide the article, not the entire iPad. Mr RICHARDSON: Just to let the good member for Gembrook know—he is rumoured to be a leadership contestant in the future, who knows—the article is from Matt Johnston. It was from 4 August 2019. And the headline, if the member for Gembrook is looking, the pleading headline, is ‘Invisible man’—that is, referring to the Leader of the Opposition and member for Malvern—‘must become action man’. It is trying to encourage him, the said member for Malvern, to become the action man. I am happy to provide the link to the member for Gembrook, and maybe in a party room coming up next sitting week he can give him a bit of a rev up and a bit of a charge and say, ‘Come on, mate; be the action man that we all want you to be’. But we have been here before. We have been here before because at the end of 2017, and this is nothing new—another review, another look into things, looking across the cupboard—we had the commission of audit. We have the former Leader of the Opposition and member for Bulleen come forward with a

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2951 commission of audit that was confirmed by the now Leader of the Opposition. This is where you crack the code. This is where you crack the code on the intention. What did the member for Malvern, the now Leader of the Opposition, say at the time? He described—in attacking the public service—public sector workers including teachers, police officers, nurses, corrections officers, custody officers and paramedics, which are all part of the public service, as bloating the public service. So with that commission of audit—call it a commission of audit, call it a review—the now desired action man has already been down that pathway, which leads to cuts, which leads to closures and which leads to worse outcomes for the state of Victoria, and that is the poor outcome. This is the contrast in the choices. Maybe a review would have been something novel in the first few weeks of becoming opposition leader to rev up the forces and look at the policies. I mean, in terms of some of the policies that were announced, I think there was the $8 million to $10 billion intersection traffic removal policy that was going to destroy half of my electorate. That was the biggest flop. That was the biggest flop since the member for Warrandyte’s environment minister tilt. I mean, that was an absolute shambles. They mentioned it once, and they never came back again. It did not get on a DL. Out our way there were three of them; it did not get on a DL. I am hoping that one is up for review because of the absurdity of that one, a laugh-out-loud moment of the campaign. There was pushing back the level crossings into the never-never. The Mentone and Cheltenham level crossings, in the little fine print—you had to go search and dig deep—had six-year delays to 2023–24. We are digging them out right now because we had an infrastructure agenda that was endorsed by the Victorian people. Is that up for review? That is up to 2025, that program. There is a lot more to deliver during that time. We saw what happened when the Baillieu-Napthine governments came to power at the end of 2010. In 2011 the Metro rail tunnel had planning money allocated to get on, and it was the biggest infrastructure priority in our state. What happened? It could have been opened. It could have been opened in a couple of years time, had they got on with it and started it. Our biggest infrastructure priority was put back. That was subject to a policy blank canvas by those opposite in their previous regime, the 57th Parliament, that had nothing to offer the Victorian people. So when we talk about reviews, we know what that means. That means stripping back the public service. That means cutting the vital services that Victorians rely on. And when they talk about the tax that is paid and the savings that they want to make, that means hardworking Victorians and their families will suffer. Hardworking Victorians, their jobs and their families will go backwards under those opposite. As the Parliamentary Secretary for Schools, I have had the great honour and privilege to visit some amazing schools across our state—up in the far north-east, the Mallee, out west and out to the outer east and south-eastern suburbs—and you see the passion in education from our teachers and our principals to deliver the best quality outcomes for our students. We should all agree on the principle that every child, regardless of their circumstances and regardless of their postcode, deserves the very best opportunities. And that is why we are investing $1 billion on average in infrastructure for our schools. It is why we delivered critical education equity funding in 2015–16 to change the outcomes for our students. But it is unconscionable to think that when we came to government by a factor of four, there was such a significant drop in investment in funding of our schools and education, and it condemned students to poorer outcomes. Despite the first-class passion and education offering of our teachers and our principals, those opposite condemned our schools, our TAFEs and our kindergartens to worse outcomes. So when you think of the review, you think that those things are up for grabs. With the agenda that we have set out now, we have been challenging the opposition to say, ‘Well, what would you give up and what would you cut and change as part of that review that will cost Victorians and families so greatly?’. I have heard those opposite, such as the member for Ripon, getting stuck into dental health. Well, I will tell you, one of the biggest reasons for presentation to emergency services for children is chronic dental, so when you talk down dental in this place, you undermine that. The member for Warrandyte

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 2952 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019 talks about cuts to dental. The estimation of the funding that was going to be allocated and the budget allocation for what it would cost is not a cut. He can make it up as he wants, he can make it up as he goes along. I mean, his record was that, over 70 years, he was the worst environment minister. He took a pay cut just to remain with the shadows to be number 25 on the stocks over there. So we are not going to take lectures about dental care and supporting health from those opposite or the member for Warrandyte, because frankly they are out of touch with Victorians. They are out of touch with those hardworking Victorians who are trying to make ends meet, who are supporting their kids, and something as simple and as critical as the health of our children’s teeth is not up for grabs. They did not have a policy on dental. They did not take anything to the election on dental. What we saw from 2011 to 2014–15 were substantial cuts to health. Those are their values. Those are their values in health. They went to war with our paramedics. That will be up for review again. There will be another war with our paramedics. We have seen it all before. That is what is in their DNA. They want smaller government, they want to erode our public service and they want to drive hardworking Victorians and the public service into the ground. Then what happens? All Victorians suffer. Under this review, that would be the leadership of the member for Malvern. Mr McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (15:03): I am delighted to rise and make a contribution on this matter of public importance (MPI) from the member for Essendon. It is clearly an own goal by the Labor government, this MPI that he has presented to us today. Having made such a mess of the finances, they are running out of money and now have got the gall to ask the Liberal-Nationals how we are going to support their budget, what we are going to do to get them out of the mess they have gotten themselves into. The Andrews Labor government continues to demonstrate its arrogance and its ignorance, and it governs for metropolitan Melbourne. Victoria has not seen a more city-centric government nor a government that squanders Victoria’s finances since the Cain-Kirner days. Like then, it will take years to balance the books once they are gone. The Andrews Labor government’s legacy will be a debt that our children and our grandchildren will be saddled with, and Labor could not give a stuff. In fact they appear to be proud— Members interjecting. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Warrandyte! Mr R Smith: Would the minister please withdraw or repeat it to the house. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Warrandyte, do you have a point of order? Members interjecting. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Warrandyte, through the Chair. Mr R Smith: Can the minister withdraw his comment? The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not hear any comment. Mr Foley: The honourable member is asserting that some comments were made in response to the honourable member who is on his feet. As I understand it, if there are things that the honourable member on his feet wants to ask me to withdraw, I would be happy if the honourable member asked me to withdraw them. Mr McCURDY: I ask the minister to withdraw. Mr Foley: I withdraw. Mr McCURDY: As I said, Labor could not give a stuff. In fact they appear to be proud of the financial mess that they are creating, and they show no signs of remorse. This government should be just called ‘blowout’. Whichever way you look at it, whichever way they turn, Victoria is under siege from one blowout to another. Every project they touch turns into another blowout. Whether it is public

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2953 service wages, blowout; the West Gate Bridge build, a $1.2 billion blowout; ambulance response times and cost of construction, blowout; Metro Tunnel, massive billion-dollar blowouts; or level crossing removals, blowouts again. Then of course there is the juvenile justice system—well, those inmates seem to be having a blowout every week. The list goes on for blowouts, and that is just on the public purse. Let us look at family costs, the family budget, and the blowouts that are going on there. Power prices, the fire services levy, Transurban fees, dental waiting lists, stamp duty increases and public transport costs to families or individuals going up by $15 a week, as we saw today, and all this without one shred of empathy—no apology, no shame. This government continues to spend like a drunken sailor, and they now have the gall to call on the Liberal-Nationals to identify how we can clean up their mess and what we are going to cut so we can solve their problem. Do not worry about the opposition; start taking responsibility for your own financial mess that you have created rather than looking for others to clean up the mess. Acceptance is the first part of the problem. That is the first step. Who on the front bench or who on the government benches will be the first to acknowledge that you have not got it right? The MPI again demonstrates Labor’s ignorance that Victoria stops at the tram tracks. Their slogan, Building the Education State, is nothing but a slogan. Where is the investment in Ovens Valley education? There are no new schools, no significant upgrades—just a couple of patch-ups. Just talking about schools does not make it happen; you actually have to be fair and deliver for all. The Premier says he governs for all Victorians when actually he panders to his mates and our communities are starved of opportunities. The $2.5 billion investment in health that they talk about—well, that should be $25 million per electorate, if you divide it by 88 seats, or thereabouts. Ask Cobram, Yarrawonga, Myrtleford and Swan Hill—ask them where their investment is in health. There is not any. We have got a city-centric government that is absolutely out of touch with regional Victoria. As health outcomes are in decline Labor arrogantly and deceitfully turns a blind eye and ramps up the spin machine because they simply do not care. Labor talks about a state-changing agenda. Well, they are Melbourne-based changes, not state, and they are poor financial management changes that will haunt us for many years to come. Again I say: stop begging the Liberal-Nationals to work out how we are going to get you out of the mess that you are getting yourselves into. Start cleaning up your own mess now. You are asking the Liberal-Nationals what we are going to cut because you cannot afford what you are spending now. You have got the next three years to live within your means, or you can continue the blowouts and overspend, living beyond your means. The only time you govern for all Victorians is when you tax; you certainly do not miss the regions then. Fire services, stamp duty—the list goes on. While the financial mismanagement goes on we wait for our roads to be fixed—not new roads, not fancy tunnels; we just want maintenance on our roads. Let me say that the road toll in Victoria reflects the lack of maintenance on our country roads, and you have got blood on your hands. There have been 188 lives lost on Victorian roads this year—57 up on last year. That is a 50 per cent increase and that is disgraceful. Do not sit there and squawk about how great thou art; show some leadership. Somebody says that they care; somebody show that they care. You are doing absolutely nothing about it. Every day we see another minister stand up gloating that they are part of a government that is spending $10 million to build something. The problem is the private sector can do it for $5 million—more financial waste and mismanagement. Country Victoria has been forgotten. The Premier, who throws on the RM Williams boots around election time and heads up to the bush, is not trying to convince regional people he cares; he is just trying to show the spin and hoodwink those in the city that he is an all-rounder. I think the Premier is too frightened to go to the bush anymore. We have seen that in the Weekly Times today. He cannot find his way to country Victoria anymore. East Gippslanders would love to see the Premier, love to see him show some backbone and empathy and at least walk a mile in their shoes. Wimmera-Mallee people are asking for the Premier to drive up—not fly up, drive up—to their patch to get a firsthand

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 2954 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019 look at the state of the roads up there. And north-eastern Victorians would be grateful if he could find his way back to his roots and support the Tarrawingee farmers, those who lost so much through the flooding last year—or tell irrigators how temporary water has reached an unsustainable $640 a megalitre again. I wonder if the Premier and Minister for Agriculture would have visited if it was an election year. Today’s Weekly Times has a survey: do you think the Victorian government is failing regional Victoria? And 90 per cent say yes. That is massive. How will the Premier respond to that? I think he will say, ‘We won’t be taking our advice from The Nationals or the Weekly Times. We know what’s best for regional Victoria’—more spin from the Premier, complete arrogance and complete disrespect for regional Victoria. Hiding in metro Melbourne will not make the problem go away. He needs to front up and he needs to put up and show some respect. This MPI is about asking the Liberal-Nationals to help Labor sort out the mess. Before we can do that, you need to demonstrate that you are prepared to listen. You would not consult or listen on your recent destruction of the CFA. Thousands of volunteers in our communities are questioning their reason to volunteer. You are not prepared to listen about living within your means, and you simply spend billions of dollars that you do not have. Now, you simply will not leave Melbourne to support farmers who are being challenged by both poor government policy and Mother Nature. You will not listen about the risks of wire rope barriers, when the community is clearly saying, ‘Stop the rollout and conduct a safety audit where they are needed and where they are useful’. But no, you bulldoze through, and now you are begging for mercy on how we are going to fix your mess. Do not call yourselves a Victorian government—you are the government for Melbourne. Again, I look at this MPI. It is simply wrong. It is incorrect. It says, ‘building the Education State’. You are spending money on schools in Melbourne. That is not the state; that is metropolitan Melbourne. You are talking about a ‘record $2.5 billion investment in the health system’ and ‘health care for all Victorians’. No, you are wrong again. This is primarily in Melbourne. If you divide it by the number of electorates you have, it is spent primarily in Melbourne. Number (3): ‘the state-changing infrastructure agenda’. That is metro. It says ‘the Suburban Rail Loop, Metro Tunnel, West Gate Tunnel, North East Link’. Well, I will tell you what: there is nothing regional in any of those when you talk about state-changing infrastructure. You need to get your heads out of the sand because Melbourne does not stop at Kalkallo or Cranbourne or Pakenham or Geelong. Victoria goes right through the regions and you have to understand that. Ms SPENCE (Yuroke) (15:12): I am very pleased to speak on the matter of public importance (MPI) presented in the name of the member for Essendon. As the Parliamentary Secretary for Road Infrastructure, I believe there is much to be wary of with the Victorian Liberals’ decision to review all policies. They are not ruling anything in or out, and I am particularly concerned that this review will inevitably mean cuts. As noted by the member for Essendon in his MPI, the state-changing infrastructure agenda of the Andrews Labor government is at risk under the Liberals’ policy review, and this includes the Suburban Rail Loop, Metro Tunnel, North East Link and the removal of 75 dangerous and congested level crossings. Also at risk are the thousands of jobs created by these and other projects across the state. So what does this mean for the massive infrastructure program of the Andrews Labor government? Let us start with North East Link, the biggest road infrastructure project ever built in Victoria. The North East Link completes the ring-road between the Eastern Freeway and the M80, providing an important connection for around 100 000 vehicles a day, creating more than 10 000 jobs and delivering $1.30 to the Victorian economy for every dollar invested. The project will build around 6 kilometres of tunnel and it will give roads back to local people, taking 32 000 vehicles off Greensborough Road, 14 000 off Fitzsimons Lane, 9000 off Rosanna Road and more, as well as taking

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2955 around 15 000 trucks off local roads every day. Under Labor, construction will start in 2020 and be completed in 2027. However, the Liberal Party cannot decide where they stand on the North East Link and it makes this project particularly at risk of getting the chop. In early 2018, the Victorian Liberals were against this project. On ABC radio in May 2018, the former leader was asked, ‘If you’re elected, will you sign those contracts?’ for the North East Link. The response was a definitive no. A month later, they decided they were for the project as part of their ill-fated triple bypass. And this year the current Liberal leader said, ‘A North East Link is a road that needs to be built’. So no-one knows what the position of the Victorian Liberals will be after the policy review, but we do know that this project is at risk. The Metro Tunnel is Melbourne’s biggest rail project since the city loop was built in the 1970s. I remember that, which is a bit sad. It creates 7000 jobs and involves building 9 kilometres of twin rail tunnels and five underground stations from North Melbourne to the Domain precinct. The project will benefit passengers on every train line with more services and destinations. The future expansion of our rail network is dependent on this project. However, the Liberals went to the last election with a clear policy position to renegotiate the Metro Tunnel contracts that would have delayed the project by at least two years and cost at least $1 billion. They even tried to give Stonnington council the right to veto the entire project. Again, no-one knows what the position of the Victorian Liberals will be after the policy review, but we do know, based on their previous position, that the project is at risk. Another hallmark of our Big Build agenda is the level crossing removal program. In our first term we got rid of 29 level crossings. We have 21 to go in the 50 that we originally committed to and we have added another 25, to make it 75 removed by 2025. Victorians know that Labor gets rid of level crossings and the Liberals do not. They did not get rid of them when in government and they are trying to keep them from being removed now. The Liberals’ election costings clearly outlined that they were going to push back the removal of level crossings to after 2023. They tried everything they could to stop us getting rid of the crossings. In the community, in the Parliament and even in the courts, they have done everything they possibly could but they have failed: 29 are gone and more will follow. Again, under the Victorian Liberals, this program is at risk of significant delay or simply getting cut. The Suburban Rail Loop will transform Melbourne, with a rail network forming a circle around Melbourne’s suburbs, a 90-kilometre circle line, with 12 new stations catering for 400 000 passengers a day. It will run from the Frankston line to the Werribee line, connecting Melbourne’s middle suburbs to priority growth areas, and linking all Victorians to major health, education and employment centres. However, the Liberals have refused to support this project. And again, given their refusal to support the project to date, this massive project is at risk under the Victorian Liberals. Victorians need to know what the agenda of the Liberal Party is—should they ever be returned to government in this state, Victorians need to know. They need to know the policy review actually means cuts. They need to remember that the record of the Liberal Party is one of inaction and cutting projects, even when the projects are good for the economy and good for the community and even when they are funded and planning is underway. The record speaks for itself. It does not matter if I look locally or across the state, in the years between 2010 and 2014 there was no infrastructure program across the state. In the electorate of Yuroke, we are experiencing massive growth, much of it from developments that were approved by the former planning minister. However, that is all that was approved. No business cases were undertaken to prepare for road duplications as traffic massively increased. No land was acquired for schools in these new communities. No parking expansions were undertaken at railway stations to cater for vehicles coming from developments where no public transport existed. No planning was done to bring public transport to those areas or to improve it in areas where the network was no longer appropriate. In fact in Yuroke they cut a service that stopped at Roxburgh Park station, leaving commuters without that connection.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 2956 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

This is where it becomes really scary, and that is the cuts. It is bad enough to do nothing in government but the Victorian Liberals’ willingness to cut existing programs and projects is something that all Victorians should be very concerned about. Altering a bus service—that is at the minor end of the scale. At the other end is the cancellation of substantial projects that are funded and underway. One that I am very familiar with is the Broadmeadows station redevelopment and the government services building in Broadmeadows. This project was funded by the Brumby government with $14.7 million provided in the budget. Following the 2010 election it was cut by the Baillieu government, and the money was just put into pet projects elsewhere. The project was well underway, planning was well advanced and community consultation had occurred. I am very familiar with this project, because I was the local mayor at the time. We were incredibly disappointed, because we knew the benefits that this project would bring to the area. It would have had benefits for both the community and residents, and in particular because of the job opportunities that it would have brought. But it was cut. The Victorian Liberals did not go to the 2010 election saying, ‘We’re going to cut this project if we’re elected’. They just kept quiet and cut it once they were elected. This was despite the local benefits, despite the allocated funding and despite the extent of planning that had progressed. The fact that they were willing to just cut this project is indicative of what we can expect. This provides a cautionary tale about what the Liberals policy review may mean for Victoria’s current Big Build agenda that is providing infrastructure across Victoria with enormous community benefit and the creation of thousands of jobs. The reputation of the Victorian Liberals speaks for itself. If the Victorian Liberals do not want it, they will cut it. This is of great concern, and the Victorian Liberals need to come clean and tell Victorians which of these important projects are actually on the chopping board. As I said in the beginning, there is much to be wary of with the Victorian Liberals policy review. They are not ruling anything in or anything out at this stage, and the state-changing infrastructure agenda of the Andrews Labor government is at risk. This includes, as I have mentioned, the Suburban Rail Loop, the Metro Tunnel, the North East Link and the removal of the 75 dangerous and congested level crossings, along with the thousands of jobs created by these and other projects across the state. These are projects that are warmly welcomed by the Victorian community. Whenever I am out and about and visiting on site there is so much going on. It would be an absolute shame to see these projects that have not as yet commenced just taken off the table because some policy review determined that that money would be better spent on pet projects elsewhere. I fully commend the matter of public importance in the name of the member for Essendon. Mr NEWBURY (Brighton) (15:22): It would be remiss of me not to start by remarking on the quality, or lack thereof, of this matter of public importance. I heard the member for Essendon waste parliamentary time earlier today droning on about being an avid fan of the Comic Sans text font. I make the point that my four-year-old daughter’s birthday invitations are of the same font, and it is clear that those invitations and the member’s drafting of this motion are of equivalent quality. The purpose of this motion is to boast that Labor is spending a lot of other people’s money and to take cheap political shots. Only recently ratings agency Moody’s fired a serious warning shot. They warned that the government should consider their budgetary and policy approach, but in typical fashion the warning was ignored. Not only was it ignored but the Treasurer doubled down. Moody’s warning should not be overlooked. The warning identified that this government’s profligate spending, its intention to over-borrow and the softened economy will have a compounding effect. This government was first elected on a commitment of significant spending, a commitment that grew bolder after it was elected. Ever-increasing tax receipts, especially from property, and income derived through privatisation only enthused the government’s first-term spending. But since then the economy has softened and the property market has slowed significantly. Despite those changing circumstances, the government has not moderated its approach. That approach has left a structural hole in Victoria’s budget, one of the government’s own making. Moody’s has recognised this and said the government’s capital expenditure program will cause debt to rise more rapidly than revenue and lead to a credit negative. The state’s forecast debt has increased from a projected $20 billion to

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2957

$54.9 billion, up by $35 billion. The increase in debt is equivalent to $14 000 for every Victorian household. Put simply—true to character—Labor is spending too much and using the Victorian taxpayers credit card to pay for it. But the government is not just spending too much. To use the age-old political analogy, there are significant policy barnacles forming on their ship. The problems can be traced to enacting policy that is driven either by class-based politics of envy or ideology. We have seen a growing number of examples of both, including with property tax. Land taxes have doubled over the last five years; they are up by 109 per cent. This government has targeted my constituents with new envy-based property taxes, new taxes designed to target those the Treasurer claims can, and I quote, ‘afford to pay’. It was almost Bill Shorten-esque to hear the Treasurer so freely admit his envy-based intention. These new taxes are in addition to existing retrograde taxes, taxes that have let bracket creep go unchecked. The government’s class-based property tax approach is highway robbery. Only days ago I convened a public forum at Brighton town hall with the Shadow Treasurer. The forum provided my community with an opportunity to have their say. Residents lined up to expose the outrageous property tax increases they have endured. In too many cases residents spoke of a tax system which has allowed the land tax bills of some to increase by between 50 and 100 per cent in one year. The message from them was clear: the current levels of property taxation will force some investors to sell. Many suspect this is the aim of the government’s approach: to force divestment of housing stock. One of the most aggressive class-targeted measures in the recent state budget was the removal of the principal place of residence exemption for contiguous land. Put simply, this government is now applying property tax to the family home. One distressed elderly couple from my community spoke to me, broken-hearted, at being forced to sell their family home. Why? Because their vegetable garden is now subject to land tax, a tax they cannot afford to pay. In my community there are a number of families who have been hit by this new class-based measure, not because their land is unusually large but because of the historic characteristics of the property, or ways in which the land was subdivided earlier. Property taxes have not only hurt individuals and families in my community; they have also hurt small businesses. One small business in my community has had their land tax double in one year, increasing from $35 000 to $65 000. They are a third-generation family business that have been operating in my electorate for 75 years. The tax increase, and I quote them directly, ‘places our Business under enormous pressure’ and ‘also puts in jeopardy the 25 employees’ jobs’. Another small business in my community has warned that, and again I quote, ‘The ongoing viability of our business is in jeopardy’. That business has been operating for over 50 years. They have said: ... we are now starting to buckle under the weight of land tax to the extent that we have commenced laying off staff and will continue to do so ... Their business is paying more than $4500 in land tax every week—I repeat, $4500 every week— before they open their doors. The business has paid $1.5 million in land tax over the last 10 years. The business owner is genuinely fearful of next year’s land tax bill. Before this year’s budget I said in this place that the government would introduce new and higher taxes, and they did. Sadly I cannot provide my community comfort because I am certain that over this term we will see the nastiest side of Labor exposed as we see the government find increasingly nasty ways to tax Victorians. The barnacles forming on this government have also been caused by their adherence to ideology over evidence-driven policy. This is especially the case in the environment and energy portfolio space. As a community we are watching a collapse of the recycling industry and a solar scheme that has had a profoundly punitive effect, especially on small businesses. Another alarming example is the lack of grip the government has on energy security. The Australian Energy Market Operator’s recently released report is sober reading. I quote from the report’s projections for the forthcoming summer:

… all regions other than Victoria expected to meet the current reliability standard …

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 2958 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

And that: … involuntary load shedding may be experienced in Victoria … equivalent to between 260 000 and 1.3 million households being without power … That means over 3 million individual Victorians. And how did the minister respond to finding out that almost half of our state’s population faces power blackout this summer? She said, ‘We’re in a tricky position’. What an astonishingly trivial response. The minister and this government have been caught out. They have been pushing widescale energy market transformation, but they have not developed a practical plan to make it happen. That is why the government needs to do more than set ideological aspirational targets. We need to develop a practical transformational plan. On a state-by-state comparison Victoria is notably behind. Gallingly, the minister admitted that point, when she recently said, ‘We need better planning’. Well, I am glad that the government have recognised their failure, but it is time for the government to do something about it. It is also time for the government to stop selectively ignoring parts of the Victorian community. The services and infrastructure in my community are out of date and need attention. As I have noted before in this place, earlier this year 83-year-old grandmother Gloria Holmes tragically lost her life crossing over the rail line at Grenville Street in Hampton. Despite Public Transport Victoria identifying the crossing as high risk, two weeks before the last election, safety improvements were deprioritised. It was no surprise to learn that the minister’s office was involved in the decision to deprioritise. After public outcry following Mrs Holmes’s death, three months ago the minister advised that she was seeking departmental advice. Well, we are still waiting. The secretary of the owners corporation committee at nearby Edgecliff apartments, Terry Walsh, has rightly described the ongoing delay as ‘just not good enough’ and said that the government ‘just needs to get on and fix it’. So far the only response Mr Walsh received from the government on the issue was what he describes as a ‘nonsense letter’ from the Minister for Public Transport. Let me assist the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, who has turned handballing difficult issues to Minister Horne into an art form. The independent Parliamentary Budget Office recently costed installing train- activated gates and audible warning systems at Grenville crossing at $2.1 million. The ball is now in the minister’s court; it is in the government’s court. Will this government invest in the safety of Hampton, or will Labor continue to deprioritise my community’s safety? Moody’s has fired a serious warning shot and warned that the government should consider their budgetary and policy approach, but we know that they will not because it is far easier to boast when they are spending a lot of other people’s money—money being spent on the taxpayer’s credit card— than it is to run a responsible government. Mr CHEESEMAN (South Barwon) (15:31): It is with some pleasure that I get up to speak today on the member for Essendon’s very thoughtful matter of public importance (MPI). When given the great gift of government it is the responsibility of the party that has been given that gift to get on with the job of governing on behalf of all Victorians, to build a modern state, and to build the infrastructure that we need for our growing community, and indeed that is exactly what the Andrews government did right from the very beginning. We came to the 2014 election with a very strong mandate from the community, with a very strong infrastructure agenda. That infrastructure agenda very much went to building a modern economy, to providing the infrastructure that was going to open up our economy to make Victoria a better place to live and to create the business circumstances that would enable our great state to thrive. Of course when you compare that to the previous four years, what we saw from the Liberal Party through that period of time was massive cuts—massive cuts to the things that our state needed to support our growing economy. They made massive cuts to the infrastructure spend of this state, they made massive cuts to our fire services, they commenced a war on our ambulance services, and of course they took the back of an axe to our TAFE institutions. All of those things held back our economy, and we saw through that period rising unemployment rates.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2959

You can contrast those four years with the first four years of the Andrews government. We put in place a comprehensive plan to deliver the infrastructure that our community needs, to open up our economy, to make our state a great place to live, to raise a family, to run a business and to secure a job. In order to support that great infrastructure program that delivers for our economy, we matched that up with a fantastic program around education reform. That program of course very much, I think, will enable our economy to grow. It will provide the skills that our economy needs to grow to deliver that infrastructure. That is why we put in place our free TAFE program. That free TAFE program delivers the skills that our economy needs. It is well tailored to the skills gaps that we have within our economy. We now have extraordinarily large numbers of people accessing those free TAFE programs, and we know very much as a government that the areas that they are being trained in through those programs are well matched to the skills shortages that we have within our community. Further to that, we are also putting in place the productivity-enabling education reform of introducing three-year-old kinder. This will have profound consequences for our economy going forward, not just in the years to come but in fact in the decades to come, as we equip young people to be better placed to compete in a global economy, which is fantastic. We have got a very strong program going forward for the next four years. That strong program is not just focused on short-term electoral cycles. It is about opening up our economy and making our suburbs more livable. It is about removing level crossings throughout our suburbs. It is about putting in place the big economic-enabling infrastructure that our community needs to grow, to make sure that Victoria remains a livable place, to make sure it is a great place to raise a family and to make sure that we have the skills that our economy needs, the infrastructure that we need and a strong and comprehensive forward program to deliver that. As I said earlier, being in government is a great gift, and when the Victorian community gives you that great gift they expect the government to get on with delivering the infrastructure that is needed to grow our economy, and that is what we are doing. Now, the member for Essendon in his MPI very much set out the values we stand for and the things we are doing and of course pointed out, I think, in clear terms, through his contribution—like the contributions made by other government members— what the Liberal Party stand for. We know—we have seen it time and time and time again—that when the Liberal Party are given that great gift of government, they deliver cuts and they fail to deliver the infrastructure that our community needs. They constantly do it. We hear with some fanfare that they are currently reviewing what their policy offering will be going forward. Now, I suspect very strongly that in the lead-up to the state election they will say, ‘You can change governments and you won’t see any change. We’ll be just slightly better than the Andrews Labor government’. Of course I think that will be an absolute, outright lie, because we have seen it is in their DNA that every time they are given that great gift of government, everything that they had said and every assurance that they had given the Victorian community in the lead-up to the election was false. What they will do when they are given that gift of government—and hopefully it will be many, many elections down the track—is impose cuts on our economy. The infrastructure plan that we have in place—they will cut it. The social services that we deliver to the Victorian community—they will cut them. They will recommence a war on our ambulance services and on our fire services, they will impose cuts on our kinder services and they will stop the record investment that we are making in the schools that our state needs. Now, when you look at education and you look at their time, the four years that they had, hardly any investment was made in the schools that this state needs. A member: Doughnuts! Mr CHEESEMAN: Doughnuts—absolute doughnuts of an investment was made in our schools. Of course if you compare that to what we are doing, we are delivering a record number of schools over the next few years. Not only are we doing that, but we are also of course making the investments that we need in our existing schools. We are investing in the infrastructure for those services that those schools need to be able to deliver a modern education.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 2960 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

When you look at the economy and you look at what we have managed to do with the budget, it is very clear that our plan is working, because not only are we delivering record investment in infrastructure, whether it be in our schools or our roads, we are also driving down our unemployment rate. We are creating opportunities for young Victorians to engage with the economy with practical jobs, jobs that pay well, and delivering the infrastructure that our state needs. That is what Labor stands for, and that is what we are doing, and I look forward to working with my cabinet colleagues, with the Premier and with my colleagues on the backbench to continue to deliver that infrastructure and to continue to deliver the investments we need in education, because Victoria is the Education State under the Andrews Labor government. It is in our DNA to invest in education, to invest in the economy and to create the infrastructure that our state needs. Of course the Liberals’ DNA is also very clear and apparent. Their DNA is all about cuts to services and all about cuts to our infrastructure. I commend this MPI to this Parliament, and I look forward to continuing to work with the member for Essendon and my colleagues to deliver the Andrews Labor government’s agenda. Ms VALLENCE (Evelyn) (15:41): The matter of public importance (MPI) that the government has put before the house today would be a joke if it was not so sad. So bereft is this government of any policies to debate in this chamber—or more accurately so keen is it to avoid any meaningful debate on the issues that actually matter to Victorians—that it has decided to focus its attention on the Liberal Party. In some ways we should be flattered, but we as Liberal MPs do not engage in the politics of hubris like those opposite. No, we actually seek to advocate for and give a voice to the Victorian people who those on the government benches would prefer to shut out. Instead of this ridiculous MPI we should be debating actual matters of public importance. But the government does not want to do that. No, it would prefer to run a million miles away than allow this Parliament to seriously scrutinise anything—matters of real public importance like energy security and the soaring energy prices that are hurting Victorians. This government is jacking up the cost of living for Victorian families and Victorian businesses. Today’s MPI would have been an ideal opportunity for the government to address the looming energy crisis that is so important to Victorians. Why can’t the government engage in a meaningful debate with Victorians about energy security? Victorians want to know if the lights will stay on this summer. Victorians want to know if the government is going to allow power bills to continue to soar. But the government will not answer these questions. They are too hard, aren’t they? They do not want to have the decency to allow this Parliament to do its job and let serious debate occur on the issues that matter most to Victorians. This MPI encapsulates everything that is wrong with this government. It illustrates how narcissistic, self-serving and arrogant this government has become. Instead of talking about this government’s supposed historic reforms and engaging in further narcissism, we should be talking about the real issues facing many Victorians, like homelessness and how the Labor government is miserably failing on this issue. We should be talking more about what we can do together as elected representatives to find shelter for people and not put up barriers, as this government is doing. A state as prosperous as ours should not have 24 000 homeless Victorians on any given night. In my community of Evelyn we have churches wanting to open their doors to allow in people who have no home to go to and provide food and shelter for a night. The Labor government and its agency the Victorian Building Authority would rather tie up these churches in red tape and make them spend tens of thousands of dollars on architects and new building permits than offer a temporary stretcher bed to those who would otherwise be out in the bitter cold and wet under a tree or on a park bench. The Labor government is failing on homelessness. The Productivity Commission has underlined how badly Victoria is failing its most vulnerable citizens, with almost 40 per cent of those who sought help last year being turned away. This government would prefer to engage in the politics of narcissism and of hubris rather than debate the real fundamental issues facing our state and finding solutions. It is clear to all Victorians where this government’s priorities really are. The government in this MPI is trying to talk up historic reforms. Tell that to the thousands of Victorians unsure if they are living in a building wrapped in fire- combustible cladding; I am sure these Victorians wish you had some historic reforms to help them.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2961

The Labor government and the Victorian Building Authority stand by while people are living in fire deathtraps and while churches are forced to close their doors to homeless people seeking shelter in churches for a night. It is mind-boggling. It is just extraordinary where this government’s priorities are. Where is their decency and compassion? If this government wishes to talk about itself and topics like TAFE, dental vans and infrastructure, then we are here at the ready. We are happy to scrutinise Labor’s flagship policies, which they are already so dismally failing on. The Labor government’s free TAFE policy is failing. We know the government failed to consult with the TAFE and the broader vocational education and training sector, and we know the free TAFE programs are not staffed adequately—and there are serious concerns about the quality of pathways to jobs for students. There are 24 per cent fewer students enrolled in government-subsidised training than when Labor took office. With more than 54 000 young Victorians currently unemployed, it is outcomes that Victorians are after, not a glossy ‘Free TAFE’ slogan. The government is failing to ensure young Victorians have the skills and training to get a job and fully participate in the workforce. Instead what the public are seeing is plummeting student numbers and declining employer satisfaction, not to mention that there is already an 82 per cent blowout in the free TAFE budget in its first year. On dental vans, instead of historic reforms, what the public are actually facing is a historic failure. Before the government ponders whether the Liberals might cut such a program, they should look to their own budget papers. Despite the $395.8 million election commitment, the Labor government only provided $321.9 million for the program in its May budget. Labor cut its own program by 18.7 per cent before it even started. And in a comical twist, the Minister for Health in the other place conceded that her dental van program was actually funded by the federal Morrison government through the child dental benefits schedule. Dental health is a matter of public importance, yet the Labor government is failing miserably. They have already heartlessly cut $74 million from dental care for Victorian students. Moreover, at the hearings recently of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC)—of which I am a member—the health minister either did not know or deliberately refused to answer questions about the program, including the cost of the screening and treatment vans, how many students would benefit and why government procurement policies have not been followed for such an intensive spend on capital assets of vehicles and medical equipment. This is over $320 million of taxpayers dollars that we are talking about. Victorians deserve better. I turn now to Labor’s so-called infrastructure agenda. I was genuinely surprised to see included in Labor’s debate today reference to the Suburban Rail Loop, the one that might be lucky to be built by 2050. It is a matter of public importance how this government throws around fanciful ideas that will be lucky to ever come to fruition and how they plan to pay for it. We all remember the astounding federal Labor election pledge of $10 billion for Labor’s Suburban Rail Loop despite no business case as to how this project will be built within its $50 billion budget. In fact federal Labor leader, Anthony Albanese, said he did not need a business case to know this project would stack up. There is a reason that the quiet Australians ensured that federal Labor were not elected to federal government and that they lost the unlosable election. It does not stack up and the government knows it. Any wonder the Premier is already scrambling to obtain federal coalition funds to get out of this mess. Another major infrastructure debacle is Labor’s sky rail, which is being imposed on communities around the state with no community consultation, no less in my communities of Mooroolbark and Lilydale. This government has consistently refused to disclose how much this project is really costing. At PAEC, the minister consistently dodged and refused to answer questions on budget blowouts. The first 50 level crossings were budgeted to cost $6 billion. We know it has blown out to $8.3 billion in 2017. Now the government is telling us it will cost another $6.6 billion to remove an additional 25 crossings. It is poor economic management.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 2962 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

How will the government pay for its infrastructure agenda when costs on all its projects are already massively blown out? The government will be $40 billion in the red by the end of this financial year, with no plans to pay debt down. In fact net debt is projected to surge towards $55 billion by 2022–23. So addicted is this government to reckless spending—like spending more than $1 million of hard- earned taxpayer dollars on political advertising in their failed attempt to get Bill Shorten elected, which even the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission and the Victorian Ombudsman find wrong—that it cannot even provide sufficient financial security to Victorians when they need it most. We now know why this government was so desperate to see Bill Shorten in the Lodge. This government has taken the gamble of committing hundreds of millions of dollars on the basis of cashing in on a Bill Shorten victory—like the $2 billion that Shorten promised to give the Premier to spend on Melbourne Metro, a project the Premier had previously told the Victorian people was fully funded. We know from the Auditor-General that the Melbourne Metro project is now more than $100 million over budget, blown out by 31 per cent. No wonder the Premier was so desperate for the cash. We should not forget the $4 billion that was promised by the federal coalition to finally deliver east– west link—infrastructure much needed for the eastern suburbs. But this government would rather heritage list a road—the Eastern Freeway—that everyone hates. It is a car park. Even yesterday the Minister for Planning could not say what heritage values this road had—because it does not have any. (Time expired) Ms KILKENNY (Carrum) (15:51): I would like to thank the member for Essendon for bringing forward this matter of public importance to the house. Just before I start, I know that the member for Ripon said in her contribution that the Andrews Labor government had gone very quiet on three-year- old funded kindergarten. I just wanted to say to the member for Ripon that 90 000 little three-year-old Victorians can make an awful lot of noise, so I am tremendously excited to be rolling out that extraordinary reform. A member: Did you say 90 000? Ms KILKENNY: Ninety thousand little three-year-old Victorians. The other night I actually caught up with a friend of mine who is outside of politics— Mr R Smith: It hurts me, Deputy Speaker; I am quite shocked: the government has been unable to form a quorum in this house. I bring that to your attention. Quorum formed. Ms KILKENNY: As I was saying, a couple of nights ago I actually caught up with a friend of mine who sits outside of politics, and this is someone who does not follow Spring Street and does not follow Canberra; it is hard to imagine that. But what this person did say to me was just how fundamentally important investment in our public education system is, which makes me very concerned to be standing here today speaking on this matter of public importance because today’s matter of public importance is actually a matter of public importance for every Victorian. I am going to focus my contribution on education and the Education State, and when we are talking about education, we are talking about all of Victoria; we are talking about the future of Victoria, because the Education State is about a commitment to every single Victorian and the future of Victoria. Of course when we talk about the Education State we are starting with the very early years, and that is exactly what this government is doing: bringing in the biggest social and economic reform in this state’s history in early childhood education, and I am talking about the rollout of three-year-old subsidised kindergarten across Victoria. As we know, this is absolutely a landmark reform. It is the largest investment this state has ever seen in early childhood education. In fact it is an Australian first. We will be investing over $5 billion over the next decade to roll this out and providing access to up to 15 hours of funded subsidised kinder for every three-year-old in Victoria. But that is the point. We talk about this kind of reform; this is a reform that is going to take a decade. It is long-term reform, it

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2963 is visionary and it is about recognising the true intrinsic value and the role of education in making generational change. So when we hear the Victorian Liberals talking about a review and reviewing policies, I am concerned. We have seen this before. We know what these reviews mean. These reviews mean: where can we find savings and what can we cut? And I can say that because they have a track record on this. We saw when they had the chance, the privilege, to govern in the term before last that they made very deliberate choices to cut funds to education. They cut school budgets, they closed down our TAFEs, they cut the education maintenance allowance, they chose not to build one new school, they chose to let school buildings run down and they did not prioritise early childhood education. And can I say, they have consistently failed to stand up for four-year-old children in this state. They have failed to call on their federal Liberal counterparts to bring certainty to four-year-old funded kinder here in Victoria, and we have had to watch the federal Liberal government each year just commit one more year of funding in this partnership agreement, which is giving great uncertainty to the sector. It is a dreadful indictment of their view on early childhood education, and I call on them now to make a stand and to stand up for our littlest Victorians. So back to the Victorian Liberals and their reviews. As I said, these are not reviews about what we can do better or how we can make things fairer. These are cost-cutting exercises, and this is wrong; this is so fundamentally wrong, because spending more on things like universal education and making sure that children have the nutrition, have the health and have the education to be more productive and to live up to their potential is surely the first order of investment for any society. But we also know, and we have seen this, that a review by the Victorian Liberals into education policy is also an ideological one, and we have seen this with their promise before the election last year to scrap Safe Schools. This was a project that was introduced in 2010. It was a project that was introduced to provide support to LGBTI students, and it was a project that was brought in because the school community asked for it. They wanted our schools to be safer and more inclusive places. We also know that before the last election it was the Victorian Liberals who said they would reinstate religious education in our schools during precious learning time, and they did this knowing that 80 per cent of students were not attending religious instruction and were missing out, as I said, on that crucial learning time in schools. Sadly we have seen the division play out this week with the debate on the proposed changes to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment Bill 2019, changes which I am so very proud to say have now become law, and that is to allow transgender people to have a birth certificate that reflects their true identity. I just cannot understand what is wrong with that and how there can be any opposition to it. So to those opposite, I urge you to be very, very cautious when it comes to a review of education policy, because any review based on political opportunism or misplaced ideology can be a dangerous thing. The consequences can be damaging. Particularly when we are talking about something as fundamentally important as universal access to kindergarten and to education, ill-informed reviews and cuts are a retrograde step that will have the very real potential to detrimentally impact generations of Victorians to come. So I urge those opposite to really think carefully about this. Now, the rollout of funded kindergarten for three-year-olds and for four-year-olds is universal—it is not targeted—and we are doing that because it will better support all children in Victoria but especially those who may be experiencing disadvantage or vulnerability. Providing all children, not just some children, with access to quality early childhood education is going to set them up for healthy, happy and fulfilling lives and successful lifelong learning. About two weeks ago I was in Stawell with the Premier, and it was an absolute privilege to be able to announce that enrolments for three-year-old funded kinder are now open. This reform is underway. It is absolutely happening, and we know the impacts from this incredible initiative are going to be enjoyed for generations to come. As I said, up to 90 000 Victorian children every year are going to be able to benefit from the subsidised kindergarten program that we are rolling out.

BILLS 2964 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

There is so much at stake that we need to make sure that over the next decade this reform rolls out and that it is supported—that it is supported with school readiness funding and that it is supported with scholarships for more teachers and educators to enter the workforce to provide this crucial and life- changing service for our youngest Victorians. We have already had our review of universal three-year- old kindergarten, and the Victorian community spoke loud and clear. Mr R SMITH (Warrandyte) (16:01): I rise to make a very brief contribution on the matter of public importance. The matter of public importance submitted by the member for Essendon is telling in what it has omitted. In listing the Labor government’s historic reforms, the member for Essendon has certainly left out anything to do with the energy portfolio, which as we know is replete with disaster. There is less certainty around supply as a result of what the Andrews government has done, and certainly when it comes to household costs, we have seen those costs only go higher. So when the Labor Party want to talk about their reforms, it is telling that they will avoid anything to do with any responsibilities of the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change. As I said, in those areas for which she is responsible there is nothing but failure after failure after failure, and it is Victorians who end up paying the cost of those, whether it be that recyclables are heading off to landfill or being stored for an extended period of time in warehouses, whether it be that we are going to have blackouts over summer or whether it be that household energy bills are going to go through the roof. All the fingers point back to the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change and the failures that she has overseen in recent times. Bills RENEWABLE ENERGY (JOBS AND INVESTMENT) AMENDMENT BILL 2019 Second reading Debate resumed. Ms STALEY (Ripon) (16:03): I rise to speak on the Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Amendment Bill 2019, and I start by saying that I support the reasoned amendment moved by the member for Warrandyte. The reason I do so is that this is a very short bill and in fact there are only really two clauses that have any practical effect—the rest are machinery clauses. All it does is set up an additional target for 2030 for 50 per cent of electricity in Victoria to be generated by means of renewable energy. Yet the bill in its title talks about jobs and investment, and we have had nothing from the government on what is underpinning the thinking behind this bill. Where are the jobs and investment coming from? What are the outcomes going to be for all Victorians? What we have seen most recently has been that the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), the grid regulator, has come out and said that this summer Victorians are at risk. I am quoting from the Australian Financial Review of 22 August: … 1.3 million households in Victoria are at risk of blackouts during heatwaves this coming summer … We have been singled out in Victoria by AEMO, and there just is not the supply reliability that we have had in the past. The report from AEMO noted of the new plants that have come on over the past few years of the Andrews Labor government and of the ones that are planned that they cannot be relied upon during peak demand periods, and in fact they will not be in full use because the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining at the highest points of peak demand. As AEMO has said, it therefore means their contribution to meeting demand during peak periods is limited. So we have got a situation where we are only at about 17 per cent at the moment—we are nowhere near the 50 per cent that this bill mandates—and what we are seeing is a decline in reliability and a forecast of blackouts for the coming summer. I do not think that bodes well for an increase in the target. I note that the other effect of where we are with the government’s renewables policies to date has been a massive increase in power prices. The government of course always likes to blame those increases in prices on the privatised nature of the Victorian energy generation market, but that is not the view of

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2965

John Thwaites, a former Deputy Premier. He said his view is that the part of the policy that does not work, the part that has driven up the prices, is the retail component. He said:

Clearly, that part of the policy has not worked. Other areas of costs have been kept down— so that would be the generation side, the privatised side— but the retail component has increased very substantially. He recognises that his government got that wrong. They got that wrong, and Labor governments, who have been in power for 16 of the past 20 years, have continued to get that wrong. The current Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change is unable to take responsibility for anything and is constantly blaming others. Every week we have a new talking point that she has given as to who to blame. Sometimes it is the privatised companies. Sometimes it is the federal government. Sometimes it is private companies generally. It is anybody except her, and in this case she should perhaps be listening to former Deputy Premier John Thwaites. But the other reason that I support the reasoned amendment moved by the member for Warrandyte is that the effect of that amendment is to say that this bill should lie on the table until the effects of the bill are explained to Victorians. I do not think that that is too much to ask, because we have seen real effects from the previous renewable energy target bills and they have been around, as I said, reduced security of supply and increased prices. There is no reason to suggest that this bill will do anything other than deliver those two things as well. In Ripon, in my part of the world, we do more than our fair share of renewable energy. We currently have 288 wind towers operating in Ripon, and there are a further 205 being built, including 149 at Stockyard Hill. Those 149 towers, to put them in context, are taller than the Rialto building, so we have 149 Rialtos being built in just one part of my electorate. We have additional ones planned—and they are coming—so we will end up with 517 wind towers in Ripon. So you would think that with all of this wind energy infrastructure in Ripon, if building wind power generation was creating jobs, we would have seen jobs created in Ripon because that is where the towers have gone in. The Premier and the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change frequently come to Ripon to look at wind turbines and watch them being hoisted up to their positions, and yet what do we see? The most recent small area labour market data released for the March quarter 2019 shows that in the Rural City of Ararat there are 494 fewer people in the workforce than there were when the Liberal-Nationals government was in office in 2014. In Buloke shire there are 348 fewer people in employment, and in Northern Grampians shire, which is the ground zero of wind towers, there are 713 fewer people in employment. So we have not seen any employment created in Ripon, and in fact since this government was elected all we have had are reductions in the labour force. So it is absolutely impossible for the government to argue that the projects that they have built in Ripon have added to employment, because we are backwards. They have not created the jobs they said they would. They constantly put out media releases like the one saying the Bulgana green power hub is going to create an estimated 1300 jobs. Well, that is the region where they are 713 down. Similarly Stockyard Hill is supposedly creating 300 jobs, yet all we have seen in that shire is they have put on 53 additional jobs in the entire five years they have been in power this time. So this policy is not delivering the jobs and investment into Ripon, despite the fact that we have the largest single increase in wind tower construction in my electorate. I turn finally to the issue of emissions. The whole point of a climate change strategy is to reduce emissions, and yet, as other speakers have noted, New South Wales and Victoria have the same emissions goal: net zero by 2050. But Victoria is going along a path that is nonsensical for one reason alone: the minister and others continue to say that Loy Yang and other coal-fired power stations will not close; they will not close early because of this policy of additional renewables into the grid. Well, if coal-fired power stations are not closing there are no reductions in emissions. You can add as much

BILLS 2966 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019 renewable energy into the grid as you like, but you are not reducing emissions unless you close coal- fired power stations. Yet the government continually tells us that they are not going to close coal-fired power stations. It is nonsensical. It just does not lead to what they say it is going to lead to. You cannot reduce emissions if the coal-fired power stations do not close early. Either they know they are not going to reduce emissions and this is all just some sort of window-dressing for those who would be looking at this, or maybe they do know they are going to close and they are going to reduce emissions, in which case they should be telling us about the jobs and investment losses in the Latrobe Valley and elsewhere when those power plants close early. That is what happened at Hazelwood and that is clearly what we are going to get again under this bill, but until they tell us we should not go forward with it. Mr EREN (Lara) (16:13): I am delighted to be speaking today on this very important bill, the Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Amendment Bill 2019. The legislation will amend the Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Act 2017 to establish a target of 50 per cent of electricity generated in Victoria to be sourced from renewable energy by 2030. The amendment bill will provide policy certainty and investor confidence and encourage investment, employment and skills and technology development in the renewable energy industry. This bill will deliver on our commitment at the last election to increase the state’s renewable energy target to 50 per cent by 2030. This will of course ensure that we put more clean energy into the grid, increasing the investment and driving down energy prices. Just in relation to some of those comments that were made by the member for Ripon—as she would appreciate, when more renewable energy comes on board in terms of energy use, then the demand for coal reduces. We are not in the business of shutting down energy sources, but what we are doing is transitioning into renewable energy. Consider all of the jobs that will come on board in relation to some of these policies that the Labor government has. Clearly the opposition is still in the dark ages when it comes to energy sources, and we cannot afford that. We have a growing population. We have the fastest growing population anywhere in the nation and we are the strongest economy in the nation as well. We have transitioned our state in terms of preparing for uncertainty in terms of the economic times, and we are leading the way. We are very proud of that. We have got to do it in a way where we can sustain that population growth responsibly. We have spoken many times in this house about how we improve the environment, not only for us but also for future generations that depend on the environment. You can stick your head in the sand and pretend it is not real but at the end of the day, what if it is real? What if it is an outcome which is detrimental to future generations? Then it is too late. All the science proves that the environment changing is real. The environmental impact of some of the ways that we operate as an industrial nation has to change going forward. That is exactly what this is about. The government is investing literally hundreds of millions of dollars to ensure over the next decade that we are responsible in how we source energy. I have just been to Europe and I can tell you the landscape in Europe is very much dependent on wind energy. You can see turbines all across Europe, everywhere, and solar energy. Other nations have taken this on board. Some of the dinosaurs on the other side do not want change; they resist the temptation to basically make a change for the better as we are doing on this side of the house. Just in relation to some of the announcements that have recently been made, I congratulate the Andrews Labor government and the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change for today announcing that there will be an additional 23 000 Victorian households that will benefit from solar rebates in the coming year. Obviously that will be a major boost to its landmark Solar Homes program. That program will see an investment of about $1.3 billion over the next decade and it will save Victorians about $890 a year on their energy bills. There will be 770 000 homes that will take advantage of this very important program. Also importantly, there will be about 5500 jobs associated with it. That is what it is all about. I am very proud to say the minister and the Premier were in my electorate just recently, only a few months ago,

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2967 making an announcement about wind power in my electorate. There are manufacturing jobs. As we know, the car industry unfortunately has left us, and the components sector has followed. We are a state that very much relied upon manufacturing. The Ford site in my electorate over a decade ago was lively and full of workers. Unfortunately for varying reasons the car manufacturing industries have left us. This government is providing that very important infrastructure where we manufacture things. We are now using it as a hub for manufacturing. International company Vestas have partnered with local Victorian contractor Marand to build wind turbines for Berrybank and Dundonnell wind farms. That facility forms part of the Vestas renewable energy hub (VREH) which we in Geelong are very fortunate to be a part of. It will be responsible for the assembly of 100 turbine hubs and 50 drive trains for the 180 megawatt Berrybank wind farm and the 336 megawatt Dundonnell wind farm as well. The VREH, based in my electorate, will involve investment of approximately $3.5 million and will directly employ over 20 employees, which is fantastic to see. It is pretty much employing those people that worked at Ford previously with manufacturing experience, and that is what it is all about: creating new industries. I do not know why the opposition is denying Victorians another opportunity to have manufacturing in a different way through wind energy or indeed renewable energy. They should actually—instead of making amendments which stop bills like this and potentially thousands of jobs of the future, instead of stopping this bill from proceeding through this house—be coming on board and totally supporting the government in relation to this. I know my electorate very much depends on manufacturing, and this is a way forward in the future of manufacturing. The project will also train hundreds of local staff in wind turbine maintenance and see wind turbine component assembly in Australia for the first time in over 10 years. The two new wind farm developments are supported by obviously the Labor government’s Victorian renewable energy target (VRET) reverse auction. Whether it is the VRET or our Solar Homes program, we are driving down the energy costs for families, supporting local businesses and creating thousands of jobs along the way. The Ford factory was, as I have indicated, the centre of manufacturing in Geelong for so long, and it is great to see it get a new lease on life building the energy technology for the future. It is a very serious matter. It is about not only creating the jobs of the future but also, as I have indicated, protecting our environment and accommodating the population growth that we are experiencing at the moment. The VRET will also have a positive role in driving down energy costs for Victorians by providing a new source of much-needed supply. As a result of the VRET 2030 target, we expect households will save a considerable amount of money in a year. It is estimated that medium-sized businesses will save about $3100, with about $150 000 in savings for larger companies. This is a win- win-win all around, and I am not sure why the opposition would want to make any amendments to stall this very important bill in proceeding from this house to the next. This is about, as I have indicated, being responsible in how we have to deal with some of the energy issues relating to our state. As I have indicated, just recently in Europe they have been dealing with it through wind energy and dealing with it through solar energy. We are going to get left behind, and we need those opposite, instead of making amendments to stall legislation like this, to pick up the phone and stop Scott Morrison and others from coming into Parliament with brown coal. Sure, as I have indicated and as the member for Ripon said, what happens to the coal-fired power stations if they do not shut down? Well, what we are saying is that there will be a transition so that the less we need of the brown coal in terms of energy, the more other industries will take over, like renewable energy. That is how we should do it, as a responsible government. Over 10 years the Solar Homes program will deliver 650 000 rebates for photovoltaic systems for owner-occupiers, 50 000 rebates for rental properties, 60 000 rebates for solar hot water and 10 000 rebates for solar batteries. And of course there is a lot more that I am sure other members of this place on our side particularly will highlight from some of the very important parts of this bill in relation to how we proceed forward in an environmentally friendly way. So this is a great bill. I commend it to the house, and I wish it a speedy passage in the upper house as well.

BILLS 2968 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

Mr MORRIS (Mornington) (16:23): I am delighted to join this debate on the Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Amendment Bill 2019, a three-page bill to amend a 10-page act. The current act passed the Parliament in December 2017, and that established the renewable energy targets that we already have in place: the 25 per cent for 2020 and 40 per cent for 2025. This bill will extend that target to 50 per cent by 2030. Clause 3 of the bill amends section 7 of the act to achieve that outcome. But as we know, 50 per cent of generating capacity does not equal 50 per cent of electricity generated, so clause 4 of the bill amends section 9 of the act to require the minister to determine the minimum renewable capacity required to meet that target, and the decision for that 2030 target needs to be made by the end of 2025. The minister is also required under the principal act to produce a report each year—a progress report on how far away we are from particular targets. In fact, because it is a relatively recent act, we only have one report so far. That report, which was tabled almost 12 months ago, indicates that at the time 18.3 per cent of total electricity generated was what was termed ‘eligible renewable energy’: 8814 gigawatts of a total of a shade over 48 000 gigawatts required for the year. The same report also claims that Victoria—and I am not disputing this claim; I simply have not seen the evidence to back it up—is on track to meet the 2020 target of 25 per cent, suggesting that:

… energy generation capacity is expected to exceed the minimum generation capacity of 6,341 MW required to achieve the 2020 target. As at 30 June 2018, 5345 megawatts had been installed, with a shade over 1700 under construction. So that suggests that the first part of the plan laid out in the original 2017 legislation is reasonably on target. But I think it is important to separate the issues of about emissions targets and renewables targets. We have had, listening to the debate earlier today and a little bit this afternoon, many speakers who do not seem to know the difference, and that is unfortunate. The Climate Change Act 2017 set the emissions targets—net zero by 2050, that is, net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. That is a target that we have in common with New South Wales. That is a target that essentially aligns with the intent of the Paris agreement. Article 2 of the Paris agreement, just in case anyone needs reminding, was to: … strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change … And the action required to achieve that was:

Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels … and, in my words, making every effort possible to hold the increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre- industrial levels. That will have a significant positive impact in terms of the risks and indeed the impacts of climate change. We are around about 1 degree as I am speaking, and the intention, as I say, is a maximum of 2 degrees but to make every effort to get to 1.5 degrees. The important thing about this is that it identifies that there are nationally determined contributions. So every signatory is responsible for setting their own path, with the caveat that every successive nationally determined contribution, in the words of the agreement, has to be ‘a progression’. In other words, it has to increase. I think it is important that we recognise that and we recognise our place in the global context, because the important goal is about emissions reduction. What the Paris agreement says is that every country knows its own terrain and knows how best to get to its particular contribution. The Victorian government has taken a policy decision that it wants to get to net zero in 2050 by forcing the pace on renewables. That is an option, but it is only one option. I doubt there are many in this Parliament—indeed I doubt there are many in the state of Victoria—that would not be happy to see us get to renewables tomorrow, even this afternoon, if that could be achieved with the maintenance of reliability for the electricity system and if we could do so without cost. But of course that is not possible. We simply cannot get there. So to suggest that because you do not think the forced pace of

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2969 renewables is the preferred option you are not concerned about climate change and think everything is fine is complete and absolute nonsense. The important thing in this whole debate is about how we get to net zero by 2050—preferably how we get to net zero earlier than that—but in a way that is economically responsible. That is in my view absolutely critical. You cannot simply say, ‘We’ve got to get there, we don’t care what damage it does to the economy’, because let us remember that when you are talking about the economy you are not talking about some amorphous concept; you are talking about each and every member of the Victorian community. If there are big economic impacts, that is a big impact on the population of Victoria. Unfortunately beyond the title—the title talks about jobs and investment, as does the title of the principal act—I do not see anything in the bill that takes us to a point of recognition of the need to act in an economically responsible way. Taken in isolation, if you look at the objects of the act—and I will not read them out because time does not permit—I do not think there is much to argue about, but you cannot take them in isolation, you need to consider the economic impact. The minister in her second-reading speech made a series of unsubstantiated claims, particularly the dot points on the bottom of page 2, which talk about increasing total electricity generation by 9 per cent, generating annual electricity bill savings of around $32 for households and $3100 for businesses, and increasing employment. The opposition sought and did not receive information that would substantiate those claims, so the only information we have to judge this bill on is the claims made by the minister in the second-reading speech with absolutely nothing to back them up. The fact is we do not know if any modelling has been done at all. We hope it has been and we hope the department has ensured it was done. This may simply be an ideological or political crusade—we do not know. But if we do not know what the impact is going to be on the economy—if we do not know what the cost impact is going to be on the Victorian community—then we need to be very careful. We know that Victoria and New South Wales in the first quarter of this year had the highest underlying energy price on record. We know that prices have risen in Victoria by 49 per cent since July 2018. We know that renewables require a realignment of the whole poles and wires system, which potentially is 50 per cent of the cost of the average household electricity bill. All of these things are unknowns, so while the principle of reducing emissions I do not believe is up for debate in the context of this bill or more broadly, if you do not have the information you need to know that harm will not be done to the economy, it is impossible for any responsible member of this house to support the bill as it stands. Ms WARD (Eltham) (16:33): I welcome this legislation, the Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Amendment Bill 2019, and all of the opportunities it offers. It is interesting that the member for Mornington asks, ‘Is it economically responsible?’. Well, the economically irresponsible thing to do would be to not have this legislation. The economically irresponsible thing to do would be to do nothing. The economically irresponsible thing to do would be to tie ourselves up in knots working out how not to do it, which seems to be the practice of those opposite: ‘How do we not do it?’. I welcome all the opportunities that this legislation offers, unlike the Abe Simpsons opposite who are raging at the sky wearing the onion on their pants, as was the fashion at the time. They are raging at the sky and do not want to see change. They do not want to see innovation and they do not want to see a new economy. It is absolutely a new economy that we need to develop in this state. It is a new economy that this government has got the responsibility to support and advance, and that is exactly what we are doing. ‘Is it economically responsible?’, asks the member for Mornington. It is absolutely economically responsible. It will continue to create jobs, it will continue to drive economies and it will continue to see the strengthening of our regional communities where investment in energy is now being spread around the state rather than in smaller pockets. This is absolutely economically responsible. I want to read you a quote, Acting Speaker Kilkenny, with your indulgence. The quote is: [I] get a little bit annoyed when we have people in those sorts of countries pointing the finger at Australia and say we should be shutting down all our resources sector so that they will continue to survive …

BILLS 2970 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

“They will continue to survive, there’s no question they will continue to survive, and they will continue to survive with large aid assistance from Australia. “They will continue to survive because many of their workers come here and pick our fruit.” I am glad the Deputy Prime Minister, Michael McCormack, who gave that quote, apologised. He should have apologised because it was an outrageous thing to say. It was absolutely outrageous, and it is outrageous on a number of levels. One of them is the huge insult that he delivered to our neighbours—our neighbours who need us more than they have ever needed us before—but it is also a huge insult he delivered to our own economy and our own workers in this country who desperately need a change in our economy, who desperately need this investment and these new manufacturing skills that will come out of this investment by this state. The new job opportunities, the new apprenticeships, the new traineeships—the whole gamut of what will come out of the work that we are doing is what our communities need, and our communities need it not in the inner city enclaves that those opposite like to refer to in Northcote and in Brunswick. People in the outer suburbs, people in communities like yours and mine, Acting Speaker Kilkenny, they need this legislation just as those people in communities around the state do. People in Bass need this legislation, people in Corangamite need this legislation, Bendigo, Ballarat—across the state. This is a government that is delivering for everybody in this state. It is not focused on the electorates of Northcote and Brunswick like those opposite like to tell us. Those opposite need to get out of their own seats and get into the outer suburbs and find out where people are, how far they are commuting to work, the struggles that they have and the challenges that they have and understand that these people need new jobs. These people need new futures. Their children need new jobs and they need the ability to get trained and to provide for those jobs. We need to give them real manufacturing jobs, just as the federal member for Corio was saying. His community suffered when the mates of those opposite in Canberra, the Liberal Party, pulled out of the auto industry and we lost so many jobs. This government had to work so hard to support those workers and to help them transition out of the auto industry. We need to create manufacturing opportunities and it is through certainty, environmental certainty and economic certainty, that we help create those opportunities. Those in Canberra have created that economic uncertainty. The member for Mornington asked, ‘Is it economically responsible?’. How about that question being asked of the federal government who is not creating economic certainty, who is not investing in our community, who is not creating opportunities, who is not giving the industries the certainty that they need, and that those in industry in Victoria will have, thanks to this legislation. Those who dismiss the threat of climate change also need to apologise, just like Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack has. I have a youth leadership council in my electorate whose members come out of my office and do a number of things in my community. There are a number of challenges that they have identified that they want to look into. As you would expect, climate change is one of them. Another one is mental health. I am sure it is no surprise to you, Acting Speaker Kilkenny, that these kids are anxious and fearful about a number of issues, but the number one cause is climate change. These kids are petrified about the world that they are going to inherit. It is the frustration and the misery of having adults around them who continue to argue about the realities of it, who continue to argue about the pathway forward, who continue to argue reasons why we should not be making these investments, why we should not be making these transitions. They are the ones who add to these kids’ anxiety, in addition to exams, social media, body image and the rest of it. There are so many things in these kids’ minds. Acting Speaker, you would be familiar with this, as I have mentioned it before. When we were growing up, it was the threat of nuclear war that stopped us from sleeping at night, that gave us anxiety. These kids’ fears are even stronger; they are even more real. These kids are seeing it. For example, we

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2971 have seen on the news just recently that the United Kingdom had their hottest public holiday on record, and it is the second time in the last six months that that record has been broken. The world is changing and we need to act sooner rather than later. We need to not be getting bogged down by the reasons why we cannot do things. We need to embrace and get on with the reasons why we should and need to do things. We cannot engage in the Chicken Little approach from those opposite. The sky will fall in if we do nothing. If we do something, if we do act and if we act so that it brings the community with us and that helps create opportunities for our communities across the state, then we are on a winner. We can do something positive. In the ACT they legislated for 100 per cent of energy generation by 2020 and in South Australia for 50 per cent of generation by 2025. Sadly the new Liberal government has abolished this. In Queensland it is 50 per cent of generation by 2030, in Tasmania it is 100 per cent of generation by 2022 and in the Northern Territory it is 50 per cent of generation by 2030. Other states are taking this action. It is not just Victoria. We know we have to do it because our federal government will not do it and seems to be absolutely incapable of doing it. We need consistency in our approach and we need to economically transition. If we do not economically transition, our economy is going to struggle. We are not going to have the jobs that people need, we are not going to have the advanced manufacturing jobs, we are not going to have the electrical jobs, we are not going to have the installation jobs. All of the job opportunities that come with this transition are tremendous, and if we do not act now we are going to miss that boat, we are going to miss that technology and we are going to miss that opportunity to be able to install them. This is an election commitment. This is something that the people of Victoria elected us to do. They want action on climate change, they want us to reduce our emissions and they want us to improve the amount of renewable energy that we create. They see the transitioning economy that we are trying to create and they want it. They want it overwhelmingly, which is why we were overwhelmingly voted in again: because we have got a vision for this state and the people of this state can see it. They understand the opportunities that we are trying to create. They know that we are not negative naysayers that just pander to certain cohorts of industry. They know that we are here to support them and that we are here to find opportunities for them. They know that we are here for them and that we are not getting bogged down in ridiculous and fallacious arguments about why we cannot do it, about why we cannot move forward and about why we cannot transition. We need to transition, we need to change our economy, we need to change our renewable targets, and we are going to do it. This government is going to do it because it is the right thing to do. It is the thing that the people of this state voted for and it is the thing that they want. I have said before to those opposite: it is time you all got on board. Mr ANGUS (Forest Hill) (16:43): I am pleased to rise to make a brief contribution in relation to the Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Amendment Bill 2019. I want to support the reasoned amendment moved by the member for Warrandyte, which states: That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government has demonstrated to Victorians that legislating a 50 per cent target of electricity generated in Victoria to be sourced from renewable energy by 2030 will not: (1) have the effect of increasing electricity and gas prices for Victorian families; (2) contribute to the premature closing of Victoria’s baseload generators; (3) have a detrimental effect on the security of supply; (4) contribute to unemployment in the Latrobe Valley; (5) have a detrimental effect on the Victorian economy; and (6) force further costs on to Victorian energy consumers due to the additional investment required to expand the transmission network’. I also note that on the table we have an amendment to the member for Warrandyte’s reasoned amendment from the member for Morwell. I want to put on record the coalition’s views in relation to

BILLS 2972 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019 that. They are that the coalition is in agreement with the sentiment of the member for Morwell’s amendment to the member for Warrandyte’s reasoned amendment, but because of the nuances of parliamentary procedure and so on, if we were to support the member for Morwell’s amendment to the member for Warrandyte’s reasoned amendment it would indeed supersede the member for Warrandyte’s reasoned amendment. Therefore the coalition is not in a position to be able to support that. As I said, though, we are very sympathetic towards the sentiment of it. As I said, I will not be supporting that, but I will be supporting the member for Warrandyte’s reasoned amendment. In relation to the title of the bill—and other members on this side have commented on it—it is ‘Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment)’. That is a complete joke, really. There is nothing in that very tiny bill of a couple of pages that goes anywhere towards dealing with those two matters. I want to make some comments particularly in relation to an article that I saw yesterday in the Australian. It is headed ‘The states are shedding power and responsibility’ and is an article by Judith Sloan. It says: Of course it will be hot over summer, but don’t count on your lights and aircon I want to quote just a couple of paragraphs out of that:

The clueless energy, environment and climate change minister, Lily D’Ambrosio, unconvincingly claims the VRET boosts jobs and drives down energy prices. And check out this howler from D’Ambrosio: ‘Victoria’s investment in renewable energy will significantly improve our energy supply and reliability in the coming years—that’s why it’s so important we continue driving investment in this vital industry.’ But having more intermittent energy doesn’t make it less intermittent, particularly in a small state such as Victoria. The sun still sets and the wind doesn’t always blow. And battery backup is wildly expensive and of short duration. I thought that was a rather excellent summary of what we are seeing here in the state of Victoria at the moment, and the way the minister is described I think is quite appropriate as well. It goes on, and I quote again: The point here is that these are Victoria’s problems caused by the Victorian government’s ill-considered policies. The VRET is likely to lead to the premature closure of the Yallourn coal-fired power station, leading to a repeat of the Hazelwood experience in which wholesale prices almost doubled with that plant’s exit. Undermining dispatchable power sources while subsidising renewable energy, the installation of which is often at odds with the preferences of local communities, is a highway to higher prices and lower reliability. That raises the point about Hazelwood, and I do want to make some comments in relation to that. We know what happened there, but for the record I want to repeat it for those that might not be aware. We had the situation of the state government here in Victoria—the Labor government—tripling the coal royalties. They essentially taxed the Hazelwood power plant out of business. As a result of that—they said there would be no impact and of course that is just another lot of nonsense from the Labor Party; we know that—we ended up with 22 per cent, roughly, of the supply side of electricity here in Victoria being removed in a very, very short space of time. The government, in relation to that, when that was flagged by the owners of Hazelwood, said, ‘There’s nothing to see here; everything will be fine’, but of course we know that that was just more nonsense from the government. In a basic economic situation—the supply and demand equation—we know that if you remove almost a quarter of the supply from the state of Victoria, then prices are going to increase, and increase they certainly have. As a result of that, that is impacting dramatically on the cost of living for all Victorians, whether individuals or businesses or indeed both. That covers gas and electricity. I had someone approach me the other day. I want to give this actual example that I got on Monday of a person that came up to me. I was chatting with them, and they lamented the fact that they had just received their gas bill. Their gas bill for the quarter that had just finished was $1160. I asked this person, ‘What was your gas bill for the same period last year?’, so they dug out their records and said it was $881. What we have got there is an increase of 32 per cent. Prima facie that seems extraordinary,

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2973 so I asked, ‘What’s your usage?’. Their usage had gone from 705 megajoules last year to 721 megajoules this year. That was an increase of 2.3 per cent of the actual gas consumed in that household. What we see there is, all of a sudden, the commensurate cost increase of some $279 is a 32 per cent increase for one quarter. That is an outrageous impost upon that family. And the family does not run heaters and other appliances on an ongoing basis. They are modest with their usage. They set the thermostat at around the 19-degree mark, have not got a gas oven but an electric oven and really have modest use, but here is an ordinary family from the eastern suburbs getting slugged like this. That is the reality of messing around and indeed taxing Hazelwood out of business so that the cost of gas and electricity increases so dramatically. That is just one story. That was someone that came to me on Monday, a person who came to me unsolicited and said that to me. That is what I am hearing again and again, and I have been hearing it for quite some time, particularly during the winter months, out in the electorate of Forest Hill. It is a real difficulty for my constituents—and I know probably indeed for yours, Acting Speaker Kilkenny, if they were truthful—and every Victorian, to be honest, who is facing these incredible imposts because of the policy settings and mismanagement of the Victorian economy under those opposite. I just want to quote one more paragraph from that article I referred to before from yesterday’s Australian, of 27 August: The bottom line is that if you are worried about electricity prices and reliability as well as the possible exit of businesses through power costs, drop a line to premiers Daniel Andrews or Annastacia Palaszczuk. Their policies are causing the real harm. Only their actions can stop the rot. I thought that was an excellent article. I thought it was a great summary position of what we are facing here in Victoria. That is the reality of policy such as this, which is ideologically based and does not have the backup to provide not only residential consumers but industrial and business consumers with the power supply, the reliable, low-cost power supply, that we need here in Victoria. It is an absolute travesty for all Victorians the fact that this policy setting is being so mismanaged by, as was described before, and I quote again: The clueless Energy, Environment and Climate Change Minister, Lily D’Ambrosio … As a result of those policy settings, we are facing these economic and jobs consequences here in Victoria, and that is a very bad thing for all Victorians. Ms CRUGNALE (Bass) (16:52): This is a bill about the future, and we make no apologies for that. The future we are actually addressing here is not a remote, obscure or abstract one—it is a future that is here today. The indisputable evidence tells us that we have to change the way we behave, and to argue about that is to lose valuable time. David Attenborough, in his recent doco, Climate Change: The Facts, in his beautiful, ageless and mellifluous voice, punctures us with the devastating reality, and I quote:

Right now we are facing our greatest threat in thousands of years—climate change. It is rapid. We are seeing its impact in our storms, our heatwaves, our cold snaps, our fires, on our eroding coastlines and on our agricultural land. He states: What happens now and in these next few years will profoundly affect the next few thousand years. And he goes on to say:

What can be done to avert disaster and ensure the survival of our civilisations and the natural world upon which we depend? The main purpose of this bill is to fulfil the government’s commitment to extend the existing renewable energy targets of 2020 and 2025 for Victoria to 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030. And that date is not very far away. To fail to act now is to place a heavy burden of responsibility on us as legislators and those who look to us for leadership. Those who will come after us will bear the burden of an unfolding crisis that is already here. The consequences of inaction are dire. If the increased

BILLS 2974 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

Victorian renewable energy target is not legislated this year, it will delay the benefits from increased investor confidence in Victoria, such as the generation of new jobs and new investment from new renewable energy project development. This would also delay the expected benefits of reduced wholesale electricity prices realised through the introduction of new low-cost electricity supply. Time is simply not on our side. In the absence of national leadership or even a cogent national policy, Victoria is already providing the policy certainty that has given industry the confidence to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into building new renewable energy projects in our state and creating thousands of jobs. The bill seeks to further that. Even as we debate these issues the community we are here to serve is already taking action at a local community level, and this is a real cause for optimism. This bill is not a case of government getting ahead of community expectations as those opposite seem to imply but rather one of government seeking to meet those expectations. Numerous examples from my own electorate of Bass are evidence of this. According to a 2012 study by Monash University researchers, the communities of Bass Coast shire and South Gippsland shire used nearly twice the electricity as the average Victorian. There were a number of possible causes for this high reliance on electricity. One of them could be attributed to the lack of access to natural gas. Within the two municipalities the uptake of small generation unit solar panels and solar hot water was greater than the Victorian average, attributed by the study to a local energy co-op—the Energy Innovation Co-operative—which supplies local expertise in alternative energy supplies, as well as the community trying to reduce reliance on electricity due to the lack of natural gas. Just this year in Wonthaggi we have seen two initiatives get up and running that show what concerted local action, supported by government, can achieve. In May the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change officially opened a 100-kilowatt solar power system at the Wonthaggi Civic Centre, a project delivered by Bass Coast Shire Council with the assistance of just over $58 000 in funding from the Victorian government’s Local Government Energy Saver Program. The goal of the program is to assist at least 22 resource-constrained regional councils in the state to scope, prioritise and roll out energy-efficient and renewable energy upgrades to their existing buildings and facilities. Also in May the minister flicked the switch on 91 kilowatts of solar power and a 41-kilowatt hour battery storage system installed at the State Coal Mine, a former state government-owned mine that operated from 1909 until 1968. The mine, which produced almost 17 million tonnes of coal for Victoria’s industries and railways, is now part of a state park and a tourist attraction. Electricity generated by the system will be sold to Parks Victoria, with the income contributing towards the Southern CORE (Community Owned Renewable Energy) Fund. Not far away from Wonthaggi is Cape Paterson, described in the Age as ‘a sleepy beach town of less than 1000 people that lies two hours’ drive south-east of Melbourne’, where an experiment in the future is already taking place. Under national building regulations, new homes must have an energy efficiency rating of at least 6 stars, but in an innovative ecovillage development known as The Cape, each of The Cape’s first 23 homes—and there will be 230 by 2025—averages over 8 stars. In fact there is a 10-star home in the village, and it costs about $3 a year to run. The 10-star rating means there is virtually no need for heating or cooling, while an 8-star rating means the houses are using about half the energy for heating and cooling compared to a 6-star home in the same climate. When the homes are fitted with solar and battery storage plus the latest energy-efficient appliances, including low-energy heat pumps for hot water and reverse-cycle air-conditioning, they pull from the electricity grid just 5 per cent of the energy used by the new 6-star gas and electric homes. What this means is that residents are averaging energy bills of $500 a year, often compared with over $2500 a year for new 6-star Victorian homes of the same size. Local government is playing its part in helping to coordinate community interest at a local level as well. Sustainability Gippsland plays a key role in harnessing grassroots activity for people and groups

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2975 involved in sustainability. Employing social media, it is a web-based tool to engage and support individuals, community groups, local government, organisations and businesses in Gippsland to coordinate, enhance and promote activity underway in the sustainability sector. A key driver of the project is to develop stronger networks that can overcome the region’s geographical isolation and build capacity through the free exchange of information and the sharing of best practice in developing sustainable and resilient communities in the face of numerous social and environmental challenges. Elsewhere in the electorate of Bass local government has embraced the challenge of climate change with determination. Cardinia Shire Council has published its Aspirational Energy Transition Plan 2014–24, setting the aspirational target of achieving zero net emissions for its operations and a 36 per cent reduction in community emissions on a per capita basis by 2024, which is fantastic. Among the many initiatives is the installation of solar electricity systems for council facilities and the purchase of grid-supplied green power. The private sector is also really active in the region. Australian-owned SEA Electric has set up a factory in Morwell to meet the growing demand for electric cars—we actually gave them some funding through our new Local Industry Fund for Transition. The company, once it is up and running, will be making 2500 vehicles a year, creating hundreds of jobs and transitioning the workers from Hazelwood. Nation-building is not a term we hear much these days, but it has a robust history in Australia and the spirit is there to be revived in confronting this current crisis of climate change. Timidity is the enemy of this spirit. Without harnessing the spirit to social progress we would not have built the transcontinental railway; the Snowy Mountains hydro-electricity scheme; the CY O’Connor Goldfields Water Supply Scheme, which is possibly the world’s longest water main, from Perth to Kalgoorlie; or the Sydney Opera House. We already have people thinking, working and innovating to meet the future, and this bill helps to facilitate these initiatives. This is no time to be hesitant. The future, with all its challenges and opportunities, is already here. Can I thank the Premier and the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change for their leadership, and I commend this bill to the house. Dr READ (Brunswick) (17:02): I rise to speak on the Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Amendment Bill 2019. I am going to explain why this bill is so important that the Greens will not only support it, we want an even higher Victorian Renewable Energy Target. Large parts of Australia, including the Murray-Darling Basin, are now in prolonged and, in many places, record-breaking drought. Since 1950 average rainfall has dropped by 100 millimetres to 600 millimetres a year across the state. These droughts are getting worse and more prolonged. Average temperatures have increased by 1 to 1.5 degrees across most of the state, and so heatwaves are becoming more common and starting to threaten human safety. The average forest fire severity index has increased alarmingly over most of the state since 1970, and fire seasons are now starting earlier and finishing later. So whatever you thought about climate change in 2006 when Al Gore’s famous film An Inconvenient Truth was screened in Australia, it has arrived. Since then, media commentary has shifted in tone, from asking ‘Will climate change happen?’ to ‘Is this event climate-related?’, and now people are asking ‘How bad will climate change get?’. Observing the thawing of Arctic permafrost, the loss of glaciers and ice sheets, the uncontrollable fires in previously unburnt rainforests in places like Sweden and Canada, Tasmania and now the Amazon, climate scientists are debating whether they have underestimated the speed and severity of a problem that was known as the greenhouse effect when I learned about it in year 12 chemistry in 1979. Then it was called global warming, and more recently climate change and now the Guardian is calling it global heating. I call it a failure of government. Burning coal to make electricity produces about half of Victoria’s greenhouse emissions. That is the carbon dioxide that lasts 50 years in the atmosphere and acts as a warming blanket over the planet. Over the last 20 years we have burnt, on conservative estimates, over 1 billion tonnes of Latrobe Valley brown coal, and much of that carbon is still up there.

BILLS 2976 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

It is astonishing that most members of this Parliament who have sat here since Al Gore’s film in 2006 have expressed little or no concern that Victoria is cooking the planet by burning about a million tonnes of coal each week. Natural gas also deserves a mention. It is euphemistically named—it is mostly methane, itself a very powerful greenhouse gas, and that contributes, give or take, another 10 per cent or so of our emissions. Replacing these fossil fuels with clean energy and using electricity more efficiently must be a major part of our now very urgent response to climate change. Alternatives are available and now very cheap—indeed cheaper than building new coal plants—so switching to renewable energy appears to be one of the simplest things we can do to reduce emissions quickly. Reducing our other major sources of emissions is also essential. We need to cut emissions from steelmaking, cement, aviation and agriculture, but various political and technical challenges with these meant that the energy sector was singled out as the place to start. As an aside, reducing emissions from transport, from food waste going to landfill and from logging native forest is also straightforward, and tackling these sources of emissions now seems more urgent given the political failure to decarbonise electricity. So a legislated target for renewable energy is good. It sends a strong signal to the renewable energy industry that it is welcome in Victoria, and it puts this target in law so that a future coalition government cannot send our state backwards. But the reality is that, according to the Australian Energy Market Operator’s analysis, Victoria is on track to reach 50 per cent renewables by 2029—that is, one year ahead of this target. So we are about to vote for a target that we are sure to meet ahead of time. Therefore under standing orders I wish to advise the house of amendments to this bill and request that they be circulated. Greens amendments circulated by Dr READ under standing orders. Dr READ: We know that in Victoria we need to be aiming a lot higher than 50 per cent. Our amendments call for the target to be changed from 50 per cent to 100 per cent. The drafting was not difficult. Our coal-fired power stations are clunkers—they are relics of a dinosaur era. They are on the way out. No-one honestly thinks that they will last until the end of their licences—2032 in the case of Yallourn and 2048 for Loy Yang A and B. The question is simply about when they go. It is likely to be sooner than we think, considering the rate of breakdowns at critical times. One of the Yallourn units broke down on the hottest day of this January, precisely when we needed it most. Our renewable energy stayed on line. So apart from the obvious climate crisis, these unreliable power stations are an important reason for Victoria to aim for 100 per cent renewables by 2030, and the good news is that it is absolutely possible. We need it to be in order to adequately respond to the climate emergency, to stand any chance of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees and to provide reliable energy for Victorian homes and businesses. And there is more good news: the Victorian Greens have developed a comprehensive plan to get our state to 100 per cent renewables by 2030. We have consulted widely on this plan, we have had it costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office and it is very achievable. In fact with groups like Extinction Rebellion calling for 100 per cent renewables by 2025 many would say our plan is not ambitious enough. On a side note, while the member for Ripon was talking, I checked, and we were producing exactly 25 per cent of our electricity with renewables at that time. Today I am going to talk you through our plan. Unlike either the Labor or the Liberal parties, the Greens do have a plan to break Victoria’s addiction to coal, and I mentioned the member for Ripon because she did make one important point, which is that we do not reduce emissions by simply building renewable energy; we have to actively take steps to burn less coal. So let us talk about this plan. Much of this work was done by our climate and energy spokesperson currently on maternity leave, the member for Melbourne, and her staff. There are six elements to this

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2977 plan. The first is to build large-scale renewables, a lot of them already underway, which would be publicly, privately and community owned. The second is to ensure access to solar energy for everyone. The third is to invest in batteries and storage—probably the weak point in renewable energy at the moment. I particularly add the importance of energy efficiency. We need not to just consume unlimited amounts of energy; we need to invest in household and industrial energy efficiency. The fourth point is to upgrade the grid. The fifth is to phase out coal. A rapid transition plan is necessary for the Latrobe Valley. And our sixth point is to get off gas. We are still hooking new homes up to gas in Victoria. First and foremost we need a lot of new renewable energy, so our plan will be to build new, large- scale, publicly owned wind and solar, and a lot of it—4.5 gigawatts for those that count their watts. We will also support community energy and private investment in renewables. The scale of change means that we need to harness everyone’s efforts. Public investment funded by borrowing will pay for itself over time. It will return at least some of the electricity system to public hands, given that the awful effects of privatisation, which put the state’s power supply out of government control, also cost thousands of jobs, sent profits offshore and hurt the Latrobe Valley community badly. Under this plan Victoria will be home to Australia’s first offshore wind project, off the coast of Gippsland. Offshore wind has enormous potential. It is the reason Scotland is planning to run on 100 per cent renewable energy by next year. It will create clean energy for all of us as well as great jobs and careers, so it is not surprising to see it backed by the Maritime Union of Australia. We also want to make rooftop solar available to everyone, including home owners, and we are delighted to see that the government appears to have fixed the Solar Homes program. This was a good response to a well-intentioned program that was having an unintended effect, and now this program means we are even more likely to exceed the 50 per cent target. We also need solar for renters, solar for people in apartments, solar on all our schools and public buildings and solar for public housing. On top of this, solar needs to be mandatory on all new buildings and developments. But we need electricity after dinner. We need big batteries and other storage. To spread Victoria’s renewable energy assets out over 24 hours of the day we need to build this in Victoria, and our plan would make the Latrobe Valley the battery testbed of the world, supported by $300 million of government investment in a battery three times the size of the Tesla battery in South Australia. We would also develop the Latrobe Valley as a global centre for innovation in energy storage supported by $200 million of public investment in pumped hydro storage. This is just one part of our plan to ensure that the Latrobe Valley, an area that has given so much to Victoria’s prosperity—a fair bit of which is now in the atmosphere—is not left behind. We also need to strengthen requirements for energy efficiency in new housing, particularly in apartments. We finally need to mention major investment in our electricity grid. There is no doubt that our entire energy system is transforming, as it needs to. We have got new energy being generated on everyone’s roof and across the state, and we need the network to bring it in, store it and send it to where it is needed. Our plan would build the energy network of the 21st century, because the energy network of the 20th century is no longer fit for purpose. We need to urgently invest money to upgrade the grid, with the upgraded sections owned by the public, to unlock a solar and wind boom across northern and western Victoria. At the moment one and a half coal power stations’ worth of new energy from north- west Victoria cannot be realised because our grid is not up to scratch. Ms Connolly interjected. Dr READ: I am going to take up that interjection. First of all, when we talk about how we are going to pay for this, it is important to frame it against how we are going to pay for not doing it, because the cost of not responding to climate change is almost incalculable. Just think about responding to the cost of protecting our coastline from erosion and the cost of restoring it, the cost of defending the population against heatwave mortality, the cost of putting out the enormous forest fires the like of which we have not yet seen but that are bound to occur when we start getting temperatures hitting 48 and 49 degrees.

BILLS 2978 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

We have to find the money to pay for it, and the best way to pay for this sort of thing is with government borrowing repaid—because it is a service, a utility that pays for itself—over time. Victoria’s coal power stations are old, and they need to close. What everyone in our state needs is a plan for their closure. The last thing we want is a repeat of Hazelwood, where a large corporate, Engie, walked away, with very little notice, leaving people unemployed. That is why we are calling on this government to actually prepare for the closure of Yallourn and the two Loy Yangs and to support the Latrobe Valley through the transition that will take place in the next 10 years. Our plan for a 100 per cent renewable Victoria includes a plan for 0 per cent coal. I note in the minister’s second-reading speech that she observed that without this 50 per cent target we would be producing 35.9 megatons of CO2 per year, but with it it will fall to 33.9 megatons of CO2 per year. To get a real impact from investment in renewable energy we need much better than just dropping our emissions from 35.9 to 33.9. That will make an imperceptible difference to climate change. We need to get to zero per cent coal. We need to actively plan for and close coal-fired power stations, to support the communities affected, and replace the stations with renewable energy. So our plan includes a timeline for the coal power stations to close, starting with Yallourn in 2022, in this term of government. Replacing coal is not just necessary for the climate; it will also improve health, considering the high levels of sulphur dioxide, mercury and other toxic compounds emitted from these smokestacks. Finally, to get to 100 per cent renewable power we also need to get off gas. Gas, like coal, is a fossil fuel that causes climate change. It is methane. It is about 30 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, and if as little as 3 per cent of gas escapes to the atmosphere unburned—and that always happens with fracking—then gas is as bad as coal. In many cases it is released during destructive drilling. It is also very difficult to calculate how much unburned gas is lost from the enormous gas grid snaking underneath our streets, and it is very expensive because of the abject failure of policy in Australia. The Greens plan for a 100 per cent renewable Victoria has three parts: first, stopping new gas from being put into new housing developments and from being mined or brought into the state or imported; second, supporting an industry to fuel switch, for example, using green hydrogen—I specify green hydrogen not brown hydrogen, which is hydrogen created by cooking coal with carbon monoxide; and, finally, facilitating households to switch to 100 per cent electric power. We are happy to discuss this plan with any MPs, especially the government. We hope you will find it useful in developing your policies to fight climate change, which you will inevitably want to do as the drought worsens, the fire season begins and the school climate strikers reappear on the streets. We support this bill, and we urge all members to use our amendments to show their determination to fight climate change. We must increase the 50 per cent target to 100 per cent. In what will become the defining battle of this century, we need to fight like we want to win. Mr CHEESEMAN (South Barwon) (17:18): It is with pleasure that I rise this evening to speak on the Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Amendment Bill 2019. I can recall vividly my first year of university, where I in a more detailed way became aware of the concept of climate change and what the science was then saying about what we as a global community needed to do to ensure that we reduced dramatically our greenhouse gas emissions, to ensure that the planet continued to be inhabitable for not only Australians but of course the global community, and about the things that we needed to do to very much protect our global biodiversity. Since then I have become increasingly interested in not only the science but also the economic mechanisms that need to be put in place to ensure that we live within our means in terms of global warming. It is with some pleasure today that I rise to speak on this bill. It was only about 20 years ago, I think during the first term of the Bracks government, that we saw the first commercial at-scale wind farm built here in Victoria. Since then we have seen, particularly during

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2979 the periods in which we have had Labor governments, increasing targets put in place, various financial mechanisms put in place, to ensure that we do start that journey of transitioning away from our reliance on carbon-intensive brown coal here in Victoria. The Andrews government of course has set I think very substantial targets for ourselves as a Victorian community, as a Victorian economy, to transition away from the very substantial carbon footprint that we had as Victorians from that period—from the 1960s, 70s, 80s and 90s. That journey of course is a profound economic reform. It needs to be well- managed to ensure that transition from that heavy carbon footprint that we all had to a more sustainable energy footprint built on renewable energy. So we have commenced that journey. Unfortunately, though, when you compare the journey that Victoria has been on over the last 20 years to the journey generated by the commonwealth Parliament, it has been very disappointing. We need to see much, much more leadership coming out of Canberra on this. The Victorian government of course is doing everything that it can to fill the public policy space that Canberra has very clearly abandoned over the last decade. Not only do we need to transition our economy away from brown coal-fired power to renewable energy but we need to do it in a way in which we create the economic settings that will create new jobs, particularly of course in the Latrobe Valley, to ensure that those communities have a strong future, where there are job opportunities, job prospects, for them. We took a suite of policies to the Victorian community very clearly in this space in the lead-up to the Victorian election last year, and I very much feel, particularly through the doorknocking that I did very locally and the various conversations that I have had with fellow Andrews Labor government backbenchers, ministers and the like, that of course the policy settings that we offered were very keenly, very strongly, embraced by the Victorian community. They very much wanted to see implemented the very ambitious program we had around solar panels, and in fact we have seen a record uptake of solar panels throughout Victoria over the last 12 months. I am very confident that with the policy reform in that space that we have put in place we are going to see record investment, record numbers of panels put on people’s roofs over the next few years, and that is absolutely fantastic. In reflecting on my contribution today, I decided I would go and have a look at where we are in Victoria in terms of the creation, the building and the planning of commercial-scale wind energy farms. I found a document on the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning website that indicates that at the moment we have operating some 1756 megawatts of wind-generated renewable energy here in Victoria. Further to that, we have in place existing approvals for a further 1700 megawatts. So literally those wind energy companies that have existing approved permits, if they constructed those wind farms, which I have every expectation they will, we would have overnight another 1700 megawatts generated. Further to that, we have right now planning permits sitting with the Minister for Planning for a further 635 megawatts. Now, if you add all of that up, it is just under 6000 megawatts of renewable energy that will either be online or not too long from now will be coming on line. If you think about that in terms of the public policy journey, particularly from a state government perspective over the last decade, that is profound reform. Pleasingly, I think almost all of that renewable energy had its planning approval generated through the planning arrangements, the economic settings, the economic levers that Labor governments have put in place to ensure that we transition away from coal-fired power stations. In the last minute or so that I have left, I want to say that I went and had a bit of a look at the existing coal-fired power stations and what the owners are saying in terms of the economic life of their assets. It is fair to say that those coal-fired powered stations still have economic life left in them. They are all reasonably old, and I would expect that those coal-fired power station owners in the next few decades will be making economic decisions on when those facilities will close. We of course as a government need to make sure that we are transitioning away from them, and that is what this bill does. Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (17:28): I rise to make some comments on the Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Amendment Bill 2019. Renewables are certainly a very, very important part of the energy mix, and I was very proud to have a portfolio in the last term of government that specifically

BILLS 2980 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019 dealt with renewables, looking at how we could support the renewables industry. As I said, it is part of the energy mix, and certainly with the way things are moving and the way innovation moves and the way people vote with their feet, we will see the market transitioning more and more into renewables—and so it should; it makes sense. If something is cost-effective, if something is better for the environment, then why wouldn’t you be backing that versus old technology and something that is actually harming the environment and certainly causing issues when it comes to climate change? But the issue with this particular bill is it is again the government that is getting involved in something that is effectively causing massive, massive hurt to consumers and affecting the cost of living of each and every Victorian, and we have seen that. Particularly if I look at my electors in Caulfield, the renters who are dealing with massive rent stress at the moment—and certainly home ownership is particularly off the table for many of my constituents largely because of cost of living and largely because of affordability—it is a real concern. We have seen energy prices triple under the Andrews Labor government, and it has largely been because of government intervention. It is because the government have gotten involved where they should not have and pushed the price of energy up. The member for South Barwon, who just made his contribution, said that the coal-fired power stations have economic value and they will make their decision ultimately as to when they close. That would be all very well if it was not for the government, who have actually intervened to the point where they are forcing early closure in some of these stations that actually do have economic value. We saw that with Hazelwood. When Hazelwood power station closed early the cost of power went through the roof. We are now seeing, particularly with the targets that the government are imposing under this bill, the impending closure of something like Yallourn power station, which will be inevitable. All the modelling says that Yallourn power station will come off early if there is pressure from government to ultimately force them to close when it comes to choosing one energy source over the other. Now, that might be all well and good, but an early closure did not work for Hazelwood and an early closure certainly will not work for Yallourn when that power station comes off, because at the end of the day it is consumers that pay. I think we have got to get the balance right. We do not want to see the situation we have seen in the past where people have had to go to facilities that the council run to have a hot shower because they cannot afford to pay for their hot water to be kept on at home, where people have sat in the dark, sat in the cold with blankets during winter because they cannot afford to heat their home. And this is reality. St Vincent put out a report last year that actually showed that this is a reality, and it has only gotten worse, not better. We saw how it can all go pear-shaped when the government get involved with the solar scheme. We have seen massive uptake of solar already without government intervention. The consumers are out there taking up solar. They are doing it, and they are doing it because it makes sense. They are working it out, and they are saying, ‘You know what? With the cost of energy at the moment, why wouldn’t I put solar on and ultimately have to pay less on my yearly bills?’, and people are doing it now. But with the solar subsidy effectively paying 50 per cent of the installation, why would you put solar on unless you got the 50 per cent subsidy? If there is a market already and then you get a subsidy in place, you are not going to actually be in the market until that subsidy is right. It is exactly the same as a stocktake sale. If you know the June stocktake sales are going to be on, you are not going to go and buy your stuff in May. You are going to wait until June comes and go and buy your gear in June. We know that this stuff does not work. We have seen the numbers where we were having 6500 installations of solar a month before the government subsidies and then that peeling back to 3500 installations now. What has that done? What that has done is the government have recognised that their intervention has not worked, so it has now come up. They have been tipping in more taxpayers money to try and bring more installations up to get the balance that the market would have dealt with anyway. The Labor government and the left are very, very good in terms of intervening in

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2981 the market, but unfortunately the consequences of that are that we all pay the price, and that is in this particular instance again a very good example of what is different between the Labor Party and what we like to talk of here in terms of the Liberal side—and the coalition and The Nationals side—fair markets. Let the market get involved. You get a situation where we ultimately can drive down the price through competition in a fair market—and I stress fairness, because that has to be absolutely foremost in the thinking of this—and that should drive down prices. You overlay that with innovation. Renewables are coming onstream without the government necessarily getting all over the top of this because business will be the ones to champion new battery technology and hydro or other types of alternative fuels. It will be industry that will champion that, not government. Governments do not create jobs. Industry are the ones that should be championing and creating jobs, and we should be. And rather than throwing more subsidies into the market, what the government should be doing is stimulating regulatory reform by reducing red tape and supporting industries to get up and get set up in the renewables market. We should have hubs that deal with this kind of stuff—I know Ballarat were working very hard on getting these hubs established. There is a lot of really good work at the universities, but what is happening? The work at the universities on renewables and innovation that has been done has been shipped off to China and other places to get these products made in China and then imported back here—a huge cost to the environment. If the government is serious about the environment, we should be focused on reducing emissions targets. Like the former chief scientist said, if you really want to tackle climate change, reduce emissions. If you really want to reduce emissions, then look at the whole game. Look at transport. Look at the costs of transport and fuels in transport. What are we doing there? We know electric vehicles are yet to be the biggest game in town going into the future. Where is the support for electric vehicles? Where is the support for an industry in transport and cars that have gone? There was no replacement for transport and cars in terms of the electric vehicle industry. Victoria could be a hub. It could be an absolute hub that could support electric vehicle design and manufacture and support in this space. This is not happening. If the government were serious, they would be supporting the electric vehicles industry, they would be supporting an alternate fuels industry and they would support a trades industry that would train people to be able to build, install and maintain stuff in the renewables market. This is where the role of the government should be, not in these kinds of targets that absolutely disrupt the market. We all end up paying the price. That is not where we should be. If we are serious, the government should be focused on practical solutions. This minister has made an absolute mess when it comes to our energy market. She has made a mess when it comes to the environment. Look at the waste problem that we have here in Victoria at the moment. It is an absolute botched mess. When people are recycling they would hope that it goes into being recycled, not into landfill. This is all part of the environment. These are all really parts of the environment. A state government’s focus should be practical solutions—what we can do today, not this kind of ideological focus and fights for things that are unobtainable tomorrow when we all end up paying the price. Energy prices have never been so high in Victoria as under the Premier and this minister. They have botched energy. Still we do not have an onshore gas program here in Victoria. It has been completely botched. We have a shortage. What we have is a minister that will not guarantee that the lights will be on over summer. Lights went off last summer, and now we could have blackouts according to the Australian Energy Market Operator—the regulator—and the minister will not confirm or deny whether we all need to get generators or whether we all need to look at backup solutions in our homes or not, because the minister does not know. The minister has intervened. She has wrecked the market. The Premier has wrecked this market, and this minister is completely out of her depth. The Labor Party has absolutely caused havoc for every single Victorian, and unfortunately every single Victorian is paying the price of high energy prices under Premier Andrews.

BILLS 2982 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

Mr HALSE (Ringwood) (17:38): I rise to speak in favour of the Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Amendment Bill 2019, and what a fantastic bill this is. We have had a few fantastic bills this week—I just want to note the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Bill 2019 and the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Amendment Bill 2019. Now we are onto this fine piece of prospective legislation. Can I start by thanking the leadership shown by the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change and the rest of the Andrews Labor government colleagues—great. She is a fantastic minister doing a fantastic job, and Victoria is fast becoming a leader in renewable energy as we make record investments in this sector and a wide range of other initiatives that are reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. As a government we are committed to renewable energy because it is the right thing to do for our planet, because it will save ordinary Victorians millions of dollars as we reduce our reliance on costly fossil fuels and because the renewable energy sector is providing and will provide secure jobs for blue- and white-collar workers. By legislating a Victorian renewable energy target of 50 per cent by 2030 we will make sure that we are investing in clean energy that drives down energy prices. As a result of the VRET 2030 target we expect that households will save around $32 a year on their energy bills, $3100 for medium-sized businesses and $150 000 for large companies. That, to me, sounds like a very good thing. These reductions show that we can both drive down emissions and keep putting downward pressure on energy prices. However, the VRET target is not only good for workers and for consumers but also very good for business. This target is about creating stability and certainty in this exciting new industry, an industry of the future, which will allow private firms to invest in renewable energy projects and local supply chain development alongside and in partnership with the government. This means more jobs and traineeships, cheaper electricity prices for working families and an overall reduction in our emissions footprint. We are not afraid in the Andrews Labor government of making this bold new target because we know that we are already on track to smash our previous targets of 25 per cent renewable energy generation by 2020 and 40 per cent by 2025. There is a lot to love about this renewable energy target, but for me what makes this the core business of a Labor government is that it will create jobs—good jobs for working families that they can build their lives around. By pushing the envelope in renewables our government is creating new jobs for tradespeople, for engineers, for experienced workers and for apprentices, for inner-city workers and for their counterparts in regional Victoria—lots of jobs. Our best estimates anticipate that we will see an increase in employment across our state of 4000 full-time jobs a year. That is about 24 400 jobs between now and 2030. That is a remarkable figure, and it demonstrates our commitment to providing secure jobs and good jobs for Victorians. Furthermore, this investment in clean energy technologies is expected to help stimulate additional economic activity of up to $5.8 billion in Victoria by 2030. We know that when you give local workers good jobs with good wages, where do they spend that money? They spend that money back in their local economies. We know that this bill will drive investment in local industry and supply chain development. We know that it will help local businesses find a place in this growing industry and it will lead to greater increases in renewable energy generation, storage and transmission technologies. By legislating our renewable energy target we are putting our money, so to speak, where our mouth is. The VRET will not just be about rhetoric; it will become law in our state. Embedding targets in legislation provides certainty for investment, the type of certainty that the business community has been crying out for for a good decade. It will provide employment and technology developments in the renewable energy industry in Victoria as well. When there is something developing, when there is a new industry developing rapidly, it is prudent for a government to get on board and to create the economic circumstances, in collaboration with business and with industry, to see that sector thrive. We have already missed out in this country. Via successive federal governments there has been a missed opportunity to engage in this space, to

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2983 engage with industry and provide the certainty of investment for this energy sector, so we in Victoria need to step up and create some of that certainty. Embedding targets in legislation provides, as I said, certainty for investment, and we know that this creates certainty because we have been actively working with stakeholders including industry groups, unions and local councils to ensure that communities are properly engaged throughout the life of projects. By supporting best practice community engagement our government is working hard to keep Victorians informed and to make sure that we are working collectively towards these ambitious targets. I note the targets in the amendments that have been circulated by the member for Brunswick. I commend him on one level for the ambition, or the intent, of the amendments, but I think that here in Victoria we need a practical solution that will provide certainty for business and that will meet requirements right now and into the immediate future. We saw at the federal level a collapse of our environmental policy dating back to 2008 and beyond because of confusion around what were the appropriate policy settings. So I commend the member, but I think it is a bit of a long shot. We know that Victoria, of any state in the country, is up to the task. We are the state that is leading in this field and we have since the last Parliament. The Andrews Labor government was a leader during the last Parliament on this issue, and we are a leading voice nationally on this issue as well. Together we can, and we will, make sure that all Victorians benefit from the renewable energy boom and that our children have a future that they can count on and a future that they can rely on. I note that in a couple of weeks we will have a group of school students who will be campaigning for climate justice here in Melbourne—I think it is on 20 September—and I want to send my solidarity to them and all those school students who might take the day off and go on strike on that day, particularly from my district, the district of Ringwood. Their intent is noble, and it is their activism that we should be listening to as well in this chamber. So that is my contribution to this fantastic piece of legislation. I commend this bill to the house. Mr HIBBINS (Prahran) (17:48): I rise to speak on the Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Amendment Bill 2019, which the Greens strongly support. This bill will set an additional target to the Victorian renewable energy target of 50 per cent by 2030. Before I move on, it is worth going into a bit of history about the Victorian renewable energy target in Victoria. From my understanding, in Victoria it was introduced under a previous Labor government and then dialled back to zero when the Liberal government was elected in 2010. Of course that was the government that had the worst environment and climate record of any government in Victorian history. Ms Ryan interjected. Mr HIBBINS: It is on the record; it is not just me. Anyone with a shred of interest in the environment is on the record saying that at the time. I will not go through the shopping list of environmental issues that Victoria faced at that time, but at that point leading into the 2014 election it was actually only the Victorian Greens that had a policy of re-establishing the Victorian renewable energy target. That was because at the time the federal law prohibited a state from having its own renewable energy target that was similar to the federal scheme, and so we did not have a policy of a Victorian renewable energy target from either of the other parties going into that election. In this Parliament the member for Melbourne was very knowledgeable in this area and was a very strong advocate for Victoria to have its own renewable energy target. We had the Abbott federal government at the time. Of course they were not really pursuing the strongest of climate policies at that time, so it was as important as it is now for Victoria to adopt a very strong renewable energy target. First, the current government pushed back and said, ‘No, look, we’ve got to change this law. We’ve got to change the law at a federal level’—I think it was section 7C of the federal Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000.. The member for Melbourne quite rightly pointed out that, no, you did not actually have to change the law at a federal level; you just had to design a scheme that was not similar to the federal scheme. Of course that was what they were doing in the ACT at the time with a Labor-

BILLS 2984 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

Greens government, and that is now what we are seeing in the scheme that has been adopted by the Victorian government, and quite rightly so. As has been pointed out by the member for Brunswick and in fact by the Australian Energy Market Operator report, Victoria is going to reach 50 per cent renewable energy by 2029, so right now we are passing a law that essentially we know we are going to meet anyway, regardless—business as usual. So that is why I am strongly supporting the amendments put forward by the member for Brunswick to increase the Victorian renewable energy target to 100 per cent by 2030. This is something that needs to happen for our climate, and importantly it is something that can happen. It is actually something that can happen. We have heard criticisms from the opposition on why we should not even have a target in place—reliability and cost and prices—and then someone has made a few interjections and a few statements that, ‘One hundred per cent? Oh well, that couldn’t happen’. But it is important to note that this can actually happen. At this point in history we are already experiencing the effects of climate change—drought, bushfires, sea level rises, storms, floods. I think it has just been reported that we have now had three years of low rainfall in Gippsland, increasing the risk of bushfire. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is saying that we have a decade or so to prevent catastrophic and permanent damage from climate change and to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. More and more people are concerned about climate change. We have got students taking to the streets. And it is not just about people who protest. As anyone who went around doorknocking or making calls during the election knows, this is an issue that is on people’s minds. Here in Victoria around about half of our emissions come from energy and come from coal-fired power stations in the Latrobe Valley. As the member for Brunswick pointed out, right now we are getting 25 per cent of our energy from renewables and 75 per cent from fossil fuels. So the point needs to be made that, yes, we are adding more renewables and the renewable energy target as it stands will do that, but our coal-fired power stations are going to continue burning coal. What really took my notice was the second-reading speech, which points out that this bill, if it comes into effect, will:

reduce Victoria’s emissions from electricity generation in 2030 from 35.9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide … to 33.9 Mt— a reduction of 2 million tonnes. What that is telling you is, even with the law as it stands now, we are still going to be pumping tonnes of greenhouse gases into the air. What do we need to do? We do absolutely need to as soon as possible phase out and replace coal-fired power stations in Victoria. Yallourn, the most polluting coal-fired power station in the country, is not slated to close until after 2030; Loy Yang A and Loy Yang B, not until 2048, so not next decade, not the decade after that but the decade after that. That is why we do need to go to 100 per cent renewable energy by 2030. It is possible. It is in fact desirable to put in place a time frame to phase out coal-fired power stations. It is good for everyone. It is not like Hazelwood where communities only had months to put in place plans. If you put in place a time line now, that would be good for local economies because you could plan investments and it would be good for certainty for those communities. Yes, we can get significant amounts of renewables over that time to bring us up to 100 per cent. I think we are missing out in Victoria currently, and something that it is in the Greens plan for 100 per cent renewable energy is big publicly owned solar. If we look at energy generation in Victoria when we had the State Electricity Commission of Victoria and publicly owned coal-fired power stations and recall the problems we had through privatisation, which started in the 1980s under Labor and then continued, rammed through under Jeff Kennett, we know that was bad for jobs and bad for those communities. Now we put essentially our future in the hands of the market and private operators. When this government is asked about coal-fired power stations, they say, ‘Well, it’s up to the market’, and that is kind of singing from the same song sheet as

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2985 the coalition. We cannot leave it up to the market. That is why we need a Victorian renewable energy target—we need a strong renewable energy target. I think part of our plan, to build big publicly owned solar and big publicly owned batteries across Victoria, is absolutely critical. I think it is disappointing—absolutely disappointing—that in some respects we are going a bit backwards in that this government is supporting new fossil fuel energy projects here in Victoria. It is incredibly disappointing that at this time in history when we are debating the renewable energy target, one of the most important climate change bills to come before this Parliament—and the Greens have an amendment to increase the renewable energy target to take us to 100 per cent renewables—that unless we go into a third reading, which we have not been given any indication on that that is going to occur, we cannot even bring it to a vote. What a disappointment. You have got so many people out there cynical about democracy and cynical about whether we can actually solve this and it is not even coming to a vote in this house. Ms EDWARDS (Bendigo West) (17:58): It is a real privilege and an honour to stand here today in this house as the Andrews Labor government delivers once again on an election promise. Of course it is not the first time—we have already committed in our budget to many of the commitments we made at the last election. One of our promises of course was to increase the Victorian renewable energy target (VRET) to 50 per cent by 2030, and it will be done in a staged and managed way. The bill we are debating today delivers exactly on that promise and the reason we are introducing it is very simple: it is because it will provide the industries that need this policy with policy certainty to invest in renewable energies, it will add to local supply chain development, it will create new local jobs and traineeships, it will put downward pressure on wholesale electricity prices and it will reduce Victoria’s greenhouse gas emissions. Since 2014, when the Andrews Labor government was elected, 18 different projects providing over 1000 megawatts of renewable energy capacity have become operational. We also have 14 renewable energy projects currently under construction or undergoing commissioning, which will provide over 2700 megawatts of renewable energy once they are complete. Finally, we have a strong pipeline of projects being developed across our state, with over 4000 megawatts of new projects receiving planning approval under our government. This is in stark contrast to the 2014 election of the Abbott government federally. Their attack on the national renewable energy target saw investment in the sector collapse by 90 per cent, and over 2500 jobs were lost. The Victorian renewable energy target is making Victoria the state that is a safe haven for the sector when the federal government—the previous federal government under Abbott and the current federal government under Scott Morrison—are hostile to renewable energy and climate action and will continue to be so. We know that they are lovers of coal. On 15 July 2016 this government announced the Victorian renewable energy target of 25 per cent by 2020 and 40 per cent by 2025. These targets have already been enshrined in legislation—that was done on 23 October 2017, a month after Australia’s largest reverse auction for new solar and wind capacity was opened. The Victorian renewable energy target demonstrates that climate solutions bring jobs, they bring new industries and they bring investment to Victoria. As of August last year large- scale wind and solar projects under construction in Victoria have created 5169 job years of employment, and that is an analysis that was done by Green Energy Markets. These jobs vary: work in manufacturing, construction, operations, maintenance, logistics, engineering and much more. For example, Victoria is home to Australia’s largest wind tower manufacturing facility, Keppel Prince in Portland. The manufacturer is the second largest employer in the town, employing a total of 350 staff. In Geelong—and my good friend the member for Geelong loves this—the former Ford factory has recently been converted into a renewable energy plant, assembling wind turbine hubs. Federation University in Ballarat is now offering training for wind technicians, providing a pathway for tradespeople to enter the sector. It is the VRET that has been critical in securing these jobs by directly contracting three new wind farms and three new solar farms with strong local content requirements, strengthening Victoria’s

BILLS 2986 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019 manufacturing and training capabilities, and thanks to the VRET Victoria is now on the map for international renewable energy investors. In 2017 the Danish institutional investor Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners announced a partnership with Melbourne-based renewable energy company Offshore Energy to develop Australia’s first offshore wind farm off the coast of Gippsland South. If the 2000-megawatt proposal goes ahead, it is expected to create power for up to 1.2 million homes and create as many as 10 000 jobs during construction. In December 2018 the Australian Energy Market Commission found that rolling out new renewable energy generation will drive down wholesale electricity prices. I wanted to mention the benefit that the VRET and the investment in renewables is bringing to regional communities such as mine. It is providing significant economic and social benefits to regional communities, not just through investment and employment but by creating new renewable energy projects. It will ensure that our regional communities continue to experience these benefits over the longer term. There have been some concerns in some communities about renewable projects, including the impacts on land use change, planning and construction processes, visual amenity and noise levels, and understandably so, but this government is actively working with all stakeholders, including developers and local councils, to ensure that communities are properly engaged throughout the life of these projects. We have also established guidelines for industry on effective community engagement and benefit sharing. In my own community—and many people in this house would have heard me speak on this many times—Renewable Newstead is leading the way. In our budget this year Renewable Newstead received $1 million, which are one million reasons to celebrate the honouring of another election commitment. Newstead is situated in central Victoria on the Loddon River in the Shire of Mount Alexander. It is approximately 15 minutes from Castlemaine and around one and a half hours north- west of Melbourne. Renewable Newstead is a project with a goal to supply the town, population of 754, with 100 per cent renewable energy for its electricity requirements—100 per cent locally generated, grid-connected, reliable and affordable. In 2015 we gave the Renewable Newstead project $200 000 to fund the development of a viable and sustainable long-term model for that small town to generate its own electricity via renewables. Of course this commitment was built on with the $1 million that was earmarked for the facility in this year’s budget. Just recently Renewable Newstead published an announcement seeking expressions of interest from local landholders to lease land for a solar farm. Rooftop solar energy has already made its mark in the area. In Newstead’s postcode, 3462, which also incorporates Green Gully, Joyces Creek, Muckleford South, Sandon and Welshmans Reef, there are 228 small-scale solar power systems installed, with a collective capacity of 758 kilowatts. That is pretty impressive for an area with a total population of 1173 people and it works out to around 646 watts per capita, which is above the Australian average, which is less than 344 watts per capita. Newstead is not the only small Victorian town looking to go 100 per cent renewable, but that is the one that I am the most passionate about. In addition in my community the Bendigo Sustainability Group has been working closely with the local community and has delivered solar panels to a number of different community groups, including the Eaglehawk table tennis and badminton stadium and a number of public houses in Bendigo as well. In Castlemaine the Mount Alexander Solar Homes project, MASH, has been extremely successful in delivering solar panels to many community organisations and to schools and businesses as well. These are the kinds of projects that VRET, the Victorian renewable energy target, supports, that we back in these local communities to do what they do best and do it the way they know to do it best. This 50 per cent renewable target is going to drive further investment in our regional communities. It will bring more jobs to our regional communities, and our regional communities will benefit in the long term. One of the things about this that excites me is that it is about our future. For anyone in this house who has children or grandchildren, one day they will look back on this and say, ‘Thank goodness the

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2987

Andrews Labor government did something way back then to reduce our emissions, to make sure that we weren’t reliant on unhealthy emissions and that we had a way forward for Victoria’—which is of course leading the way nationally in this area for the future of our children. Mr FREGON (Mount Waverley) (18:08): I stand to speak on the Renewable Energy (Investment and Jobs) Amendment Bill 2019, and I do so with the pride of understanding how important this legislation is, as we as a government are delivering on our promise to increase Victoria’s renewable energy target (VRET) to 50 per cent by 2030. In the last episode here from Mount Waverley I referenced the great Aussie film The Castle. Talking about electricity, it made me think about powerlines. Mr Kerrigan, if I can quote him, reckons ‘Powerlines are a reminder of man’s ability to generate electricity’. I could tell Mr Kerrigan, if he existed, that not only do we generate electricity but we are thinking about how we can generate that electricity better for our environment and to work against climate change. That is what we are here today to do. I think if he knew that, he would respond with something akin to ‘Ah, the serenity’, or something like that. It is important that we are a part of the movement towards a major global energy transition and seize on Australia’s natural assets with solar and wind power. We have already seen great return from the investments made in this area. Investing in renewable energy has had significant benefits not only for our economy but also for the environment and society as a whole. As we look forward to the future for the next generation of Victorians, we do so knowing that we are working for a better world for them. Victoria is a lucky state which boasts an abundance of renewable energy sources. The utilisation of those sources will result in growth in investment and employment across the state. Mr McGhie: Jobs. Mr FREGON: Put simply, jobs—and it makes sense. The last Victorian renewable energy target set by us as a government in 2017 was a progressive yet modest 25 per cent by 2020 and 40 per cent by 2025. We set the agenda through recognition of the issue and action via targets. This amendment bill follows on from our previous targets and chooses to be a little bolder than before. I think this is important because our youngest Victorians are looking up to us, and hoping for bold action. It is a part of our role in politics to spearhead change. I am very proud to stand alongside the Andrews government as we legislate a VRET target of 50 per cent by 2030. As Whitney Houston said in that song: I believe the children are our future Teach them well and let them lead the way. This is part of what we are doing, not only with our Education State, but we are bringing them forward and they will lead us to a much cleaner energy. We are going to get them halfway there by 2030 with this very bill. It is a big step forward for Victoria as we are providing the energy industry with continued policy certainty to be investing into important renewable energy projects, creating jobs and a more sustainable future for all—so jobs, jobs and more jobs. We know that for a lot of Victorians one of their biggest concerns is jobs—for their family, for their friends, for everyone. We are addressing this at multiple levels, including through our work in the renewable energy sector. Members on the other side were talking about their concerns about unemployment in regional areas, so I have got something here that we mentioned in May, around budget time. It says: Victoria’s regional unemployment rate has dropped to its lowest mark on record and at just 4.2 per cent, remains the lowest of all the states. That was in May. I am happy to report that at the moment it is even better than that. Currently it is 3.7 per cent, which is an all-state, all-time low. In May regional unemployment had fallen by 0.2 points

BILLS 2988 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019 in three months, so now we are looking at a 44 per cent drop in the regional unemployment rate from 2014—who was in then?—to now. Mr McGhie interjected. Mr FREGON: Pretty good government, this. That is an astounding figure. Jobs will be created in local industry, in supply chain development and in the production of materials. These jobs will be created where they are needed most, too, such as Vestas Renewable Energy Hub, breathing fresh air into Geelong with $3.5 million worth of investment. This is based out of the old Ford factory. The project will mean hundreds of locals in Geelong get hands-on training in wind turbine maintenance. It will also be groundbreaking, as Australia has not had its own wind turbine component assembly in over 10 years. So that is great for Geelong, and I reckon we have got a few members who will be very impressed about that. Members interjecting. Mr FREGON: The member for Lara is thinking this is a very good thing. How about our $25 million battery storage initiative commitment, which has involved the deployment of two large- scale batteries in western Victoria with a combined capacity of 55 megawatts? That is great. What else have we got? We have got the first battery system connected to a vital grid intersection at a substation in Warrenheip, near Ballarat. Mr McGhie: There you go. Mr FREGON: There you go; that is up your way. So it is all around the state and it is all-round good news. These batteries were strategically planned at the most constrained sections of our electricity network. They have proved themselves already, being operational and providing much- needed backup power and grid stabilisation. The investment has just shown the forward-thinking nature of the Andrews Labor government. Our new VRET target is expected to increase employment in Victoria by 4067 full-time jobs a year. Included in this is stability for the jobs already created through our previous target, such that employees in the Victorian business Keppel Prince thrive, with the company producing a record number of wind towers. The feds have left great uncertainty in the renewable energy sector for investors and workers in these industries after reviewing the federal renewable energy target in 2014 and 2015. We all remember the on-again, off-again nature of the National Energy Guarantee conversation of late last year—and didn’t that fall apart. It was very disappointing, but there you go. In picking up the slack for the feds the Victorian government introduced the VRET in 2016. We have created important initiatives and made the necessary investments to ensure that our targets are not empty promises. Security for the sector means security for the jobs of Victorians. Because of our investment in and legislation for the renewable energy sector since 2014 we have seen unprecedented growth and investment. It is clear that with strong leadership and a strong vision the government has given certainty to this sector. We have got the statistics to prove it. The share of Victoria’s electricity generated from renewable sources has increased from 11 per cent in 2014, when we came into government, to 20 per cent in 2018, and that will only increase with this bill. One of the great initiatives this year has been our Solar Homes initiative. Its popularity speaks for itself, and I do not know if we have had a more popular initiative in our office in Mount Waverley. We have brought the people of Victoria with us in our vision to see more solar panels on the roofs of Victorian homes, more solar hot water systems and more battery storage units. This groundbreaking investment will bring the number of households with residential solar systems to 1 million in 10 years.

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2989

I am going to give a shout-out to one of my constituents, Ben. Ben is just one of the many very happy Solar Homes success stories. After looking at his power bills Ben was telling me that now that he is getting paid for his grid feed-in he is saving about $60 a month. But that is in winter; he is expecting that to get dramatically better. He is expecting $800 or $900 a year worth of savings, so it is going to pay for itself over the first number of years. Of course after it has paid for itself, then he will be getting his energy for nothing, pretty well. That is an amazing saving and is why this whole initiative is so popular. Whenever you talk to the kids in the schools, not only in my electorate but in all of them, they ask about climate change, renewable energy and what we are doing. Recently I went to Avila College and sat with about eight of the young ladies there. That was the most popular topic they were asking me about: what are we doing in this area? What are we doing with renewables? What are we doing with recycling? This is on their minds, and they will be very glad to know that our increased renewable target of 50 per cent by 2030 will ensure the momentum we have created in the renewable energy sector does not halt. I believe this is a time of opportunity for us all. The time to act is now and this government is doing it. I am proud to be standing on the right side of history and I commend this bill to the house. Ms SULEYMAN (St Albans) (18:17): What a fantastic contribution from the hardworking member for Mount Waverley. I also rise to speak on the Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Amendment Bill 2019. I too echo the sentiments from this side of the house and the contributions that have been made so far towards this bill. As we know, the main purpose of the amendment bill is to extend the existing Victorian renewable energy targets of 2020 and 2025 to 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030 and to provide certainty to the sector and investor confidence, encouraging more investment and of course more employment and more jobs and skills training in the sector. This bill also delivers on the promise that we made at the last election, and we have demonstrated that we are a government that delivers on our promises. We have increased Victoria’s renewable energy target to 50 per cent by 2030, as we pledged to do, and that is exactly what we have been doing since we were elected. As I said, once we were elected in 2014 we hit the ground running, and we have become leaders when it comes to this area and many other areas but in particular nationally when it comes to investment in renewable energy. We have been very clear about our support of—and quite frankly we have been on the right side of history when it comes to—our environment and the initiatives to support the transition to new industries. The Andrews Labor government’s decisive leadership is encouraging record investment, as we have just seen, in Victoria’s renewable energy sector and in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. As part of this we are already powering Melbourne’s entire tram fleet with power from solar farms in regional Victoria. We are making sure that regional Victoria is part of this and that the community is also working together with the government. This initiative alone is estimated to deliver a reduction of approximately 80 000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions every year. The bill continues this significant investment. It is the sort of investment that is creating thousands of jobs. We know that many of our infrastructure projects, in particular in my electorate, are providing significant investment in public transport, such as the removal of the level crossing at Fitzgerald Road. And they also create more jobs. We know that the sort of investment that we have seen in this program will mean more energy going into the grid and will drive down energy prices. That is very important to my electorate of St Albans, where we have a significant amount of households that are dependent on Centrelink benefits, that have challenges in their lives or that are actually pensioners or the elderly. This bill will increase the existing Victorian renewable energy target to 50 per cent by 2030. As I have said, this highlights the Andrews Labor government’s dedication and commitment when it comes to reducing greenhouse emissions and addressing climate change. We have seen this. It is not just an Australian problem; it is a global problem. Just in my electorate, as I have stated previously, there is investment in public transport. Just this year we have seen $2.1 billion to upgrade the Sunbury line and transition the line to high-capacity trains. This means cleaner air, a reduction of air pollution and, of

BILLS 2990 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019 course, a decrease in the use of fossil fuels. This is what leadership is all about. As I said, our government is taking decisive action and starting the transition process to have 25 per cent of our electricity generation coming from renewable sources by 2020, with 40 per cent by 2025 and 50 per cent by 2030. But of course these new targets will also play a key role in helping drive down the energy prices. As I said, this is very important to my electorate, and for households and families driving down the prices of bills is the number one priority, as well as looking at alternative sources of supply. With the action of our government we have already seen energy prices and bill prices coming down, and we expect that with the future targets the savings will continue. Households will save around $32 a year, medium-sized businesses will save $3100 and large companies will save $150 000. These reductions show that we can drive down emissions and keep putting downward pressure on energy prices. We have already heard the member for Mount Waverley talking about the investment in the Solar Homes package. We have seen the $1.3 billion rollout of the next phase because it has been so popular. You just need to look at some of the figures. We are providing rebates on solar panels, hot-water systems, batteries and zero-interest loans so Victorian households can install half-price solar with no up-front costs. We are also being very flexible in understanding that not everybody can afford the up- front costs, so providing those options is absolutely integral to the scheme, in particular for my constituents in St Albans. Just today the Minister for Solar Homes announced more rebates and more savings for Victorian households. That is fantastic. It means 23 000 extra Victorian households will benefit from solar energy rebates in the coming year. We understand that this is a program that has been successful and we are continuing to increase it so more households can benefit from it. Of course it also creates jobs; that goes hand in hand. As we have heard, our government is taking action, but communities are also coming together to do their small part, and that is important as well. Education is important, as is understanding how you look at the environment. It is with simple steps; I have heard my locals talking to their neighbours and creating a composting network, where neighbours connect and recycle their kitchen scraps. They work together by composting, worm farming and keeping animals. That diverts waste from landfill and also creates a sense of community. This is being done at the moment in Keilor Downs in my electorate, and I thank my residents who have taken this initiative. We have also seen the commitment from our government when it comes to the environment. It just does not stop with renewable energy targets. We have also seen the banning of plastic bags in order to protect the state’s rivers, waterways, oceans and wildlife. In relation to a plastic solution, in my office in particular my recycled bags have been very popular. My constituents have been extremely supportive of the banning of plastic bags. We have actually taken decisive action. We are on the right side of history. When we look to Europe I have seen firsthand examples when it comes to renewable energy, and they are far ahead of us. It is time that our federal government also took some steps when it comes to this issue. Victoria is leading the way nationally, but it also requires far more support and leadership from the commonwealth. This is about the future of our children, as the member for Mount Waverley stated quite eloquently today. If we do not take decisive action, if we do not look at transition plans for the future, then Australia will be left behind. Victoria is doing its bit when it comes to renewable energy and looking at alternatives. That is why our government continues to lead the way, not just on this issue but with every other policy. What we committed to at the election we have made sure that we have delivered on. I would like to congratulate the minister on this issue. She has worked very hard to make this bill possible. I commend the bill to the house. Mr HAMER (Box Hill) (18:27): I too rise today to speak on the Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Amendment Bill 2019. The bill is a very short bill, but it is a very important one nonetheless. It builds on the Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Act 2017, which legislated for 25 per cent of Victoria’s electricity generation to come from renewable sources by 2020 and 40 per

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2991 cent by 2025. Prior to the last election the Andrews government promised to increase the state’s renewable energy target to 50 per cent by 2030, and this bill will deliver on this promise. Increasing the renewable energy target to 50 per cent by 2030 will provide industry with continued policy certainty to invest in renewable energy projects and local supply chain development, create new local jobs and traineeships, put downward pressure on wholesale electricity prices and reduce Victoria’s greenhouse gas emissions. The bill will provide a clear signal to industry and the whole sector that Victoria is serious about its renewable energy transition. I would like to start by talking about the impact on emissions and why it is so important that we are working to decarbonise our economy and reduce emissions. Research undertaken for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has identified that levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in our atmosphere are higher than they have been at any time in the last 400 000 years. During the ice ages, carbon dioxide levels were around 200 parts per million, and during the warmer interglacial periods they hovered around 280 ppm. In 2013 they were estimated to surpass 400 parts per million for the first time in recorded history. This recent relentless rise in carbon dioxide shows a remarkably constant relationship with fossil fuel burning. If fossil fuel burning continues at a business-as-usual rate, carbon dioxide is estimated to rise to levels in the order of 1500 parts per million. The atmosphere would then not return to pre-industrial levels even tens of thousands of years into the future. This underscores the fact that we have a great capacity to change the climate and the planet. To avoid hitting these dangerous thresholds, annual global emissions must reverse from increasing every year to decreasing every year. Australia will be one of the most affected regions in the world if we do exceed this threshold temperature. For example, regional climate change projections indicate that we are likely to see an increase in the frequency and intensity of wildfires, particularly in Victoria and other parts of south- eastern Australia, and up north an increase in the severity of cyclones, decreased rainfall, increased incidence of drought and an increase in extreme temperatures. Achieving the Victorian renewable energy target (VRET) of 50 per cent by 2030 is projected to reduce Victoria’s electricity sector greenhouse gas emissions to 33.9 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent, which would be roughly 46 per cent below what the sector emitted in 2005. According to the business-as- usual neutral scenario mapped out in the Australian Energy Market Operator’s Integrated System Plan in 2018, Victoria is on track to meet its 50 per cent target by 2030. And in the time since the Integrated System Plan was produced, the Andrews government has also rolled out its Solar Homes program, which aims to add another 2.6 gigawatts of rooftop solar on another 650 000 homes over the next 10 years. We heard previously contributions from the member for Brunswick and the member for Prahran. They put forward an amendment which says, ‘If we are going to meet our target, why don’t we stretch ourselves even further?’. I want to take up what the member for Ringwood said. I agree that there is a noble cause attached to their contributions, but we have to be mindful and realistic about what can actually be achieved over that period of time. Setting the target and why we have set the 50 per cent target, even though there is a level of confidence in the industry that it will be achieved, is to reinforce its importance and set the parameters for the investors that we believe in climate change, we believe in renewable energy and we want to continue that level of investment. We are not looking at changing an industry overnight that cannot be changed overnight by reducing investments that have a 50-year life to a 25-year life. I do briefly want to touch on the broader implications of the bill, particularly in relation to our national energy policy. Many in the federal government over the last few weeks since this bill was presented have been vociferous in their criticism of Victoria’s renewable energy target, but we are yet to see a coherent energy policy from the federal government. For more than 10 years debate in the federal Parliament has been paralysed and hijacked by the sceptics and deniers, who still believe that developing new coal-fired power stations is the future of this country. Whatever happened to the

BILLS 2992 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

Liberal Party being the party of preserving Australia’s environment for future generations? Would you believe this is actually stated as one of the core beliefs on the Liberal Party website? Despite all the naysaying and even without new federal energy policies, according to modelling by energy analysts RepuTex, Australia is on track to achieve 50 per cent renewable electricity by 2030, and I am sure that come the next federal election the Treasurer will again direct mail every single elector in his electorate with an eight-page glossy spruiking the wonderful performance of the federal government in this space and how their policy of agnostic inaction has magically enabled our international targets to be met. But the fact is that Australia will only be meeting these targets because of the investment in renewables undertaken in Victoria and in other states and the investment signals that are being sent through legislation such as the one currently under debate. I would also like to focus on the impact of the Victorian renewable energy target on jobs and investment. Legislating this target is expected to support additional economic activity of up to $5.8 billion in Victoria by 2030 through the construction and commissioning of additional renewable energy generating capacity. Mr Halse interjected. Mr HAMER: It is, it is. The energy market modelling of two future scenarios, the business-as- usual and the 50 per cent by 2030 renewable energy target scenarios, estimate that there will be more than 50 per cent more energy generating capacity under the renewable energy target than under the business-as-usual scenario. This investment will drive local industry and supply chain development and will further grow the contribution of local Victorian content. It will also stimulate new jobs, including apprenticeships and traineeships, particularly in regional Victoria. It is estimated that legislating the target will increase employment in Victoria by up to an average of 4000 full-time jobs a year, which equates to 24 000 jobs in Victoria over the period to 2030. Renewable energy also plays a key role in helping drive down wholesale energy prices and providing a new source of much-needed supply. When taking into account the reduction in wholesale prices with the cost of funding the scheme, retail tariffs in the period from 2020 to 2030 are estimated to be on average $7.97 per megawatt hour lower for residential households, $8.62 per megawatt hour lower for medium businesses and $7.61 per megawatt hour lower for large commercial and industrial customers. All in all as a result of the VRET 2030 target it is expected that there will be a saving of around $32 a year for households, more than $3000 for medium businesses and $150 000 for large companies. Victoria is the renewable energy capital of Australia, and strengthening the VRET in law will keep it that way. I commend the bill to the house. Ms CONNOLLY (Tarneit) (18:36): I am absolutely delighted—or I might say totally pumped, as we do say in the west—to speak tonight on the Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Amendment Bill 2019, because before being elected as the member for Tarneit in November last year I spent over a decade working on policy and regulatory reform in the energy sector. Over that time I have had thousands of conversations, from the kitchen tables of working families right through to the ivory towers of Australia’s most profitable energy networks, and we have talked about climate change, we have talked about our renewable energy future and we have talked a lot about how to get there. I have to say it is a first for me to sit in this place and actually listen to the narrow, basic, simplistic and completely—completely!—misunderstood arguments that have put forward this evening by those opposite. It actually leaves me lost for words, and I am never lost for words, so I will say it in the words of someone else, and that is John Lennon: ‘You say you got a real solution. Well, you know we’d all love to see the plan’. So let me talk about Labor’s plan and why this bill is being commended to the house. In Victoria and the rest of Australia we have long enjoyed the benefits as an economic giant of energy and resources. We have built one of the richest and most prosperous nations on this planet and until

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2993 recently used this position to establish for Australia a reputation for good global citizenship. It is a status that is now under threat as the complacency of our federal counterpart risks stagnation, stuck living in the 20th century. Through their devotion to the status quo and their apathy towards innovation, our competitive advantage in the globalised economy is now under threat. When passed, this bill will establish a new Victorian renewable energy target of 50 per cent of electricity generated in Victoria to be generated by means of renewable energy by 2030, and in doing so we will continue to provide the confidence and the certainty new and future industries need as we navigate the major global energy transition evident around the world. A leading role in this transition means that we can seize for future generations of Victorians economic, social and environmental benefits that being an innovative leader provides. That is why I am proud to be part of this Labor government, which has shown time and time again not only that it is determined to advance the renewable energy market right here in Victoria but also that it is a government determined to steer our economy into a future where it is competitive, diversified and at the forefront of new and innovative technology. So far, our investments in wind and solar farms have produced over 3744 megawatts, with projections of over $6.7 billion in capital expenditure to be generated along with the creation of 5000 jobs across Victoria. Now, as part of the existing Victorian renewable energy target, the reverse auction has also provided funds for six large-scale wind and solar projects in regional Victoria, producing 928 megawatts of renewable energy by 2020. It is enough to power 645 000 homes across Victoria in addition to generating $1.1 billion in investment and creating 900 jobs. Our $25 million investment in the battery storage initiative will see capacity and supply security through the largest solar farm and battery in this country. These batteries will bolster energy supply at sections of our power network that need it most, ensuring that renewable energy will be available for the prevention of blackouts and power shortages across regional Victoria and guaranteeing the integrity of the state’s energy supply—because, let me tell you, reliability is just as important as supply, and the increase of total supply of energy generated as new facilities come online provides for the future, not just today. Victorians support new renewable energy and want to see this change. In my own electorate of Tarneit we have enthusiastically seen some of the highest uptake of this government’s Solar Homes package in the state, which—once fully rolled out in its entirety—will save Victorians $500 million a year in power bills. It is a sum not lost on the over 1 million Victorians projected to have residential solar power systems installed at their homes by 2030, because as much as the environmental and social benefits will influence generations to come, the economic benefits for the here and now make obvious sense. By increasing our renewable energy supply—a supply that is far cheaper than our fossil fuel resources—by 2030 households will be saving money on their power bills and businesses will be saving between $3100 and $150 000 a year. In addition to this, our increased renewable energy targets are going to increase Victoria’s economic output by up to $5.8 billion by 2030, greatly supporting our local industries and supply chains. This is going to create on average 4000 full-time jobs annually, which by 2030 will be roughly 24 500 extra jobs in our renewable energy industry alone. These targets also mean that Victoria will reduce our total emissions from energy generation by 2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, bringing us closer to net zero emissions by 2050. That is a key target for this government as set out under the Climate Change Act 2017. This bill is essential to ensuring that Victoria’s record investments in renewable energy—whether it is solar, wind or battery power—continue for decades to come. This is crucial for the future of Victoria’s economy, and I am confident that this government has what it takes to make sure that Victoria’s renewable energy future is good for households, good for business and good for the environment. I commend this bill to the house. Ms THEOPHANOUS (Northcote) (18:43): I rise to speak on a bill that is about our future, a future we take seriously on this side of the house. And the clues to that future are in the name of the bill itself—renewable energy, jobs and investment. This bill of course builds on Labor’s landmark

BILLS 2994 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019 commitments on renewable energy. It legislates for 50 per cent of all electricity generated in Victoria to be sourced from renewable energy by 2030. It delivers certainty for industry, it delivers opportunity for investment, it delivers jobs and it cements Victoria as a leader in renewable energy and action on climate change. For my community in Northcote, this bill is important. I know this because moving towards sustainable, renewable ways of living is part of the fabric of who we are. But do not take my word for it: often the most powerful message we get from our constituents is not what they say but what they do, and in the communities of Alphington, Fairfield, Northcote, Westgarth, Thornbury and Preston they have spoken with their feet. In the Northcote electorate almost 14 per cent of dwellings have solar systems installed, and that number is only getting bigger. Renters in my community have also welcomed the announcement to extend the Solar Homes program to renters and landlords. But as I said, this bill increases our legislated renewable energy target to 50 per cent by 2030. The target will create jobs, develop new technologies and drive down power prices for families, but most importantly, it will directly address the threat to our climate. Only Labor governments understand the need to deliver renewable energy, to deliver a smarter energy mix in a way that brings all Victorians along on the journey. Only Labor governments lead in this space and only Labor governments actually deliver outcomes. I look around the chamber and I see the stark differences. Those opposite—well, they see renewable energy and climate change as something of a nuisance, something of an inconvenience. Here in Victoria they are the party that brought the wind industry to a grinding halt in just a single term of government, creating exclusion zones so large that no turbines could be built. Before that, back in 2006, there was Bald Hills. There will be some in this chamber who were around at the time of the infamous intervention by the then federal minister for environment, Ian Campbell. I refer to the occasion where the approval of a wind farm at Bald Hills was blocked by Minister Campbell on ‘environmental grounds’. What possible environmental grounds could have halted such a project? Well, listen closely. These statistics are a little hard to grasp, so I will say them slowly. Senator Campbell blocked the wind farm at Bald Hills on the basis of modelling that showed that the turbines would result in one orange-bellied parrot being killed every 667 years in the worst case and 1097 years in the best case. One parrot killed every thousand years— need I say more? But I need to go on because now I look across the chamber and I see the Greens. Now, when it comes to renewable energy, they do see opportunity, and you may think that opportunity is a good thing— and normally it is. The only problem is that the Greens political party see opportunity, but only for themselves, because what we know of the Greens is that they see an opportunity for a campaign, an opportunity for a protest, and it is protest they seek, not progress—because the dirty little secret that they do not want people to know is that when we make progress, they lose relevance. Senator Campbell is not the only one who does not like wind farms. Only recently the Greens godfather, Bob Brown, got his wings in a flap over birds and wind farms. And what was the outcome? Protest, not progress. And let us not forget that when it came to projects like Bald Hills the Greens were completely split by those who wanted renewable energy and those who took the ‘not in my backyard’ view. I look further and I see our Independent friends, and I think they get renewable energy, jobs and investment. I know that the member for Mildura in particular gets it because in her electorate she sees real progress. As she makes her way home to Mildura at the end of the sitting week, she only has to look out the window from the Calder Highway to observe the construction of the beautiful solar farm being built at Kiamal, a farm that when completed will provide enough energy to power more than 133 000 homes. Renewable energy is the right direction to take, and it is Labor that has led the way. It is Labor that has been able to lead the way because we choose not to leave people behind. That is why jobs are such an important aspect of this bill. The bill will drive investment in local industry and increase

BILLS Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2995 employment in Victoria by an average of 4000 full-time jobs a year. There is no doubt that we should be moving away from coal, but we also know that we cannot just pull the rug out from underneath people and communities, and we know that people should never be made to feel guilty or, worse, morally inferior just for wanting a job. In 2010 Labor Premier John Brumby announced the intention to shut down Hazelwood through a phased approach and boost the solar energy sector if re-elected. In 2016 Hazelwood’s owners confirmed that the coal-fired plant would be phased down. In the intervening period we saw the destruction of the wind energy sector and we saw the demonising of Latrobe Valley workers by the Greens. In contrast the Andrews Labor government got to work supporting the Latrobe Valley, creating the Latrobe Valley Authority to work with the community. And one of the most powerful indicators of the authority’s focus is something quite small: when you go onto the Latrobe Valley Authority’s website, the first item in the menu says ‘For workers’, because it is one thing to take the view that renewable energy is the way forward, but it is another to make it a reality, and that can only be done when we take the community with us. As I said in my inaugural speech, Labor recognises that with the right policy mix we can put sustainability at the very heart of thriving economies. Heavy-handed idealism and moral posturing gets us nowhere and is ultimately a recipe for conservative back-stepping. That is what sets Labor apart and what sets the Andrews Labor government apart—real action, real progress, not just protest. The Victorian renewable energy target is not just an aspiration; it is law across our state. Increasing it to 50 per cent by 2030 is vital as we transition to a clean energy future. I commend this bill to the house. Ms Kealy: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I hesitate to interrupt any of the contributions made by the newer Labor MPs to this debate; however, I would ask you to perhaps counsel some of your colleagues, as I have seen people read their speeches word for word, which is not parliamentary. I would not interrupt them and ask them to table their speeches; however, I would ask that there is some attention given to that into the future because there are some outstanding contributions. I think that all round we do an exceptional job. Ms Green interjected. Ms Kealy: I am hearing some interjections from the member for Yan Yean, who always seems to like to interject when I am on my feet; I think she has some issue with the member for Lowan. But it is a courtesy that I would like to extend just to the members who have been reading their speeches. Mr Pearson: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, look, I do appreciate the way in which the member raised this matter, and I did see the member go and approach you. One thing I would say is that members are entitled to refer to notes when they are giving their speeches. I did not have the ability to look over my shoulder and look at what the member for Northcote was referring to, and I am assuming the member for Lowan was in good faith referring to the member for Northcote. But I think that there are many members in this place who refer to notes, some more so than others, and I just think that it is important that that is acknowledged. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Edbrooke): I will take that point on board, and I will pass that on to the Speaker. However, today I have noticed many people referring to notes, and it is not up to me to judge whether people are actually reading straight from notes or they are actually using notes. Mr McGUIRE (Broadmeadows) (18:52): Victoria is Australia’s renewable energy capital. We are driving the jobs. We have to look at how we get certainty for investment because business craves certainty. This bill aims to actually reduce emissions and as well to drive down energy prices. So the increased target is expected to generate new jobs, including apprenticeships and traineeships, particularly in regional Victoria. That is an important win, and I hope that the National Party members actually realise how beneficial this can be. We are also looking at how we drive the target to 50 per cent. So at the last election the government promised to increase Victoria’s renewable energy target

BILLS 2996 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

(VRET) to 50 per cent by 2030, and this is a promise that this bill aims to deliver. We want more clean energy into the grid. That will provide industry with continued policy certainty to invest in renewable energy projects and local supply chain developments. As I said, this is where you create the new local jobs, the traineeships, put downward pressure on wholesale electricity prices and reduce Victoria’s greenhouse gas emissions. We have to do this because the world is changing. Having recently been with the European Australian Business Council mission to Europe, you just see how quickly Europe is evolving through these matters. It is really important to see how they are developing and how they are approaching these issues. Victoria has a chance to drive investment right into this opportunity, and that is the way it should be looked at—how we are actually going to do it. If you look at what this bill does, it builds on the targets that we already have to ensure that 25 per cent of our electricity generation comes from renewable sources by 2020 and 40 per cent by 2025. So that was the base proposition. The increased target is expected to generate the new jobs, apprenticeships and traineeships. Just to give an idea of scale, these new laws will support additional economic activity of up to $5.8 billion in Victoria by 2030, driving local industries and supply chain development and an increase in employment in Victoria by up to an average of more than 4000 full-time jobs a year over the period to 2030. This is how we need to build the economic future and prosperity. The bill will drive investment in local industry and supply chain development and will further increase the contribution of local Victorian content, from production materials through to new local jobs and traineeships. All these successful projects that have come through already have really achieved that result. I want to also look at the Vestas renewable energy hub. It came about as a result of the VRET reverse auctions. The hub will be based in the old Ford factory at Geelong and will involve investment of about $3.5 million and the direct employment of more than 20 people. This project will train hundreds of local staff in wind turbine maintenance and see wind turbine component assembly in Australia for the first time in more than 10 years. I want to use this opportunity to call for a similar hub in the area that is closest to my heart. If we can do it at the Ford factory down at Geelong, let us have a look at what we can do in the Ford area in Broadmeadows, because this is how you build communities, build industries and build economies. We have brought in an investor who has got $500 million on the table for stage 1 of the reinvigoration of the Ford factories in Broadmeadows and in Geelong. So I would like to put the claim for my community to be part of this. These are the growing economies. You can see that this is what needs to be done. We have actually been able to get the Australian government to commit to a city deal for Melbourne’s north and west. We had manufacture decline previously. That was their strategy for Melbourne’s north—the end of the auto industry—after staring down and calling out major international companies. This is the comparison that we should be looking at with the other side. They are not looking to have advanced manufacturing. What Labor is trying to do is look at where are the high-value jobs, not the low costs. You cannot win by cutting costs; you have got to add value. That is the proposition. That is what the Labor government stands for. I know there are plenty of other Labor members who want to make contributions, so I will yield to my colleague. Mr BRAYNE (Nepean) (18:57): Thank you, Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak on the Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Amendment Bill 2019. This bill’s intent is to legislate a 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030, which is comparable to other states. The ACT has legislated 100 per cent by 2020; South Australia had 50 per cent by 2025—regrettably a target recently abolished by the Liberal government under Premier Steven Marshall, which is disappointing and shows obviously that elections do matter—Queensland is 50 per cent by 2030, so the same as us; the Northern Territory is also 50 per cent by 2030; and Tasmania is 100 per cent by 2022 with a Liberal government. Obviously Tasmania has huge hydro capacity and the state has an environmental conscience, but the rest of the country is also becoming increasingly environmentally conscious.

ADJOURNMENT Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2997

At the last state election in 2018, disappointingly, the then Liberal leader, the member for Bulleen, promised to scrap our renewable energy target and the Frankston Liberal candidate promised to actively work hard to see more coal-fired power plants. It is my hope that the current Leader of the Opposition will go to the next election promising to uphold this renewable energy target, because our environment matters to people who live on the Mornington Peninsula, people who live in Victoria and more generally people who live in Australia. Bipartisanship on the environment would be a good thing going forward for not just our state but our country. It is more than just the environment; economically it stacks up. Investing in a renewable source of energy, a source of energy that has become increasingly cheap to produce, even if it has historically been bet against, and a source of energy that never runs out will set up our businesses, our homes and our energy future for the long term. Any delay in seeing this legislation pass would forever inhibit business trust. Already we see businesses throughout Australia concerned with the game plan where it relates to energy and energy security. A lacklustre response from the federal government, who straddle wanting coal and a population who want clean forms of energy, resulting in a stalemate and a government without clear direction, has resulted in a business community doubtful of government’s ability to secure our clean energy future. The business community can be in no doubt as it relates to the Andrews Labor government. One of the members opposite spoke— (Time expired) Business interrupted under sessional orders. Adjournment The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is: That the house now adjourns.

MORNINGTON PENINSULA BUS SERVICES Mr MORRIS (Mornington) (19:00): (1074) I raise a matter this evening for the Minister for Public Transport. The request that I make of the minister is that she arrange an urgent meeting with the councillors of the Mornington Peninsula shire and the local lower house members of Parliament, the members of Parliament for Mornington, Nepean and Hastings. I have repeatedly raised in this house the concerns that I have about public transport on the peninsula. The only investment in public transport that has occurred in the last 20 years on the peninsula occurred under the Baillieu and Napthine governments. Labor has been in power for 16 of the last 20 years and the population has increased significantly, but nothing has been done on their watch. Most recently—one of many times I have raised public transport matters on the peninsula in this house—I raised the issue of the route 788 bus. Ventura, the operator, agreed there was a problem. They had a solution. The minister would not agree. There was no interest in even looking at the proposition, and in fact the final response I got was:

The member’s interest in these services has been noted, and will be included in considerations for planning in the future. Well, the kids who cannot get on the route 788 bus are not interested in planning for the future. They want the problem fixed now. I note that the member for Nepean in June sought a meeting with the minister and the Mornington Peninsula CEO. I do not know whether that meeting has occurred or not, but certainly if it has, it has done absolutely nothing to mollify the councillors of the Mornington Peninsula shire, who recently— in fact I think it was yesterday—launched a program calling for better buses on the Mornington Peninsula. They rightly make the point that at present 82 per cent of the peninsula is not serviced by public transport. Mornington Peninsula shire residents are almost five times less likely to travel to work by public transport than those in greater Melbourne. A mere 3 per cent take public transport to work compared with 15 per cent across Melbourne. They are looking for improvements to the

ADJOURNMENT 2998 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

781 route, the 782 route, the 783 route, the 784 route, the 785 route and the 788 route, plus a cross- peninsula service. As I say, nothing has been done in this space by successive Labor governments for the last 20 years. I am suggesting we need to all sit down around a table—the three local members, the shire councillors and the minister—and try and get some resolution, because the government cannot keep ignoring the Mornington Peninsula when it comes to public transport. BENTLEIGH AND MCKINNON STATION SHOPS Mr STAIKOS (Bentleigh) (19:03): (1075) My adjournment matter tonight is for the attention of the Minister for Transport Infrastructure and concerns those empty shops at the Bentleigh and McKinnon railway stations. The action that I seek from the minister is that she consider setting aside one of the Bentleigh or McKinnon station shops for community use. Recently we celebrated the third anniversary of the level crossing removals at Bentleigh, McKinnon and Ormond. We have brand-new stations, and of course those brand-new stations at Bentleigh and McKinnon include some retail spaces—three shops at Bentleigh and two at McKinnon station. They have been empty ever since. The Level Crossing Removal Project has been very busy working with the local community to try and find some appropriate tenants for those shops, and when I say appropriate tenants I mean things that would enhance those local shopping strips. That is probably why there has been a bit of a difficulty in finding those tenants. I am pleased that one of the three retail spaces at Bentleigh has recently been tenanted by a juice bar that will be opening there soon, but I have been in discussions with the local Glen Eira council about the possibility of setting one of the five shops aside for community use—perhaps an art gallery or something else that the council might like to run over there. If that were to take place at Bentleigh, it is a busy shopping strip and it would be well used. Similarly over at McKinnon it is a quiet shopping strip, but a facility like that might attract more people to that quiet shopping strip. I think it warrants some further investigation and some consideration, so I would ask that the Minister for Transport Infrastructure take that on board and provide me with some advice. BENALLA COLLEGE Ms RYAN (Euroa) (19:05): (1076) My adjournment matter this evening is for the Minister for Education. Specifically I would like the minister to honour his commitment to the Benalla College community that there will be, and I quote, ‘no reduction at all’ in teachers at the school. In May teachers at Benalla College made me aware that they had been told that their budget was being slashed by $1.67 million this year, which equates to more than 10 per cent of the school’s overall budget. At the time staff were told that that funding cut was going to lead to increased class sizes, to program cuts and to cuts in teaching staff. I hasten to make the point that I verified this information with a number of different sources before I raised my concerns publicly. At the time Mr Merlino told the school community that the school’s budget was only being reduced because of the closure of the school’s Barkly Street campus at the beginning of this year and that funding was no longer required for maintenance of that campus. The minister’s direct quote was:

Things like maintenance, cleaning (and) electricity. So I requested from the minister the details on how much it cost Benalla College to maintain the Barkly Street campus, because I do not believe any thinking person thinks that it cost that school $1.6 million a year for maintenance of that campus. The minister has refused to provide me with those details. He has also refused to answer my questions about what Benalla College’s budget is for this year now that we have had the state budget handed down or how many teachers at the school are employed either part time, on contract or full time. Instead this is what Mr Merlino said when I first raised my concerns about this:

ADJOURNMENT Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 2999

I really want to be absolutely clear to every single teaching staff member at Benalla, (to) every parent. There will be no reductions in teaching staff as a result of the school’s decision to close Barkly St. I really want to make that clear because I don’t want any teachers being concerned, any parent being concerned. There is no reduction at all. So I would like the minister to explain why 13 teachers and staff at Benalla College—all of whom are on contract—were invited to meet with Hudson consulting, a recruitment company, last Thursday to talk about where they might find a job at the end of the year. I would like the minister to explain, if there is going to be no reduction in teaching staff as he told us, why the union sent its vice-president to the school to provide them with employment support. Right now all of the signs are pointing towards teaching staff at Benalla College losing their jobs, and if that is the case the government has told the community a barefaced lie. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would remind members to call other members by their correct titles. YAN YEAN ELECTORATE ROADS Ms GREEN (Yan Yean) (19:08): (1077) My adjournment matter this evening is directed to the Minister for Transport Infrastructure. The action I seek is for a comprehensive communication strategy to be developed and delivered to keep my community informed on the progress of a number of exciting road projects that will serve my electorate. Yan Yean Road stage 1 is now all but completed, with users benefiting from a dual carriageway in each direction and much-improved intersections, especially at Diamond Creek Road. Plenty Road stage 1 is also complete, with major works for stage 2 to Bridge Inn Road beginning next month. I understand that the short-listing of tenderers is underway for the northern roads package, which includes Bridge Inn Road, Epping-Kilmore Road, Childs Road and many more across the north. Then of course there is the M80 ring-road upgrade and the mammoth North East Link Project. With all this good news it is really hard for locals to get their heads around the north’s Big Build and to understand what it means for them—the timing of all these great road project upgrades and also how they will interact with the Hurstbridge line stage 2 upgrade, which is going to deliver additional services and greater capacity on the Hurstbridge line and which will also benefit the Mernda rail commuters, who will see numerous additional services. I am delighted that we now have a Minister for Transport Infrastructure that oversees both road and rail projects, and I think that the minister is uniquely positioned to be able to provide the information that my communities seek—this great news of Victoria’s Big Build in the north. FREIGHT-PASSENGER RAIL SEPARATION PROJECT Ms STALEY (Ripon) (19:10): (1078) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure. The action I seek is that she updates me with the progress to date on the freight-passenger rail separation project. The freight-passenger rail separation project was announced by media release on 27 June 2018. It involved $130 million being spent along the Maryborough to Ballarat corridor to deliver a number of outcomes that allowed passenger and freight rail to travel on different tracks, effectively. A further media release on 29 August 2018 noted that there was going to be a meeting to do an update on this project and the Murray Basin rail project between Freight Victoria, V/Line and Rail Projects Victoria to discuss this and to have an update on the status of the rail freight projects. I will read from the media release: The update will include the confirmation of a late 2020 target delivery timeframe for the completion of the Murray Basin Rail Project and the Freight-Passenger Rail Separation Project. We know that the Murray Basin rail project has now run out of money and the government is not proceeding with that project, despite it not being finished; however, the freight-passenger rail separation project is a separate project to the Murray Basin rail project. It has a separate pool of money

ADJOURNMENT 3000 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019 attached to it, and so far there have been no works on this project. Therefore I am asking the minister to provide me with an update. WAVLINK NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSE Mr FREGON (Mount Waverley) (19:12): (1079) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers, and the action I seek is for the minister to visit WavLink neighbourhood house in my electorate of Mount Waverley district to discuss how the government is supporting adults with disabilities in our community. I would like to recognise WavLink for its independent living skills Moving Out program. This program supports adults 18 years and over with the short-term goals of moving out of the family home for independent living. Course attendees are taught skills from how to plan, budget, shop for and cook healthy meals—maybe a cherry pie or pizza; it is getting a bit late and I am thinking about dinner— to further developing safe independent travel within the community. The Moving Out course focuses on fostering greater independence and developing practical skills for adult life, and I look forward to showing the minister the great work that has been done in this area in my district. MILLEWA DROUGHT Ms CUPPER (Mildura) (19:13): (1080) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Agriculture. The action I seek is for the minister to come to the Millewa to meet with farmers and see the devastating effects of what has been termed ‘the hidden drought’. The Millewa is an extraordinary part of our electorate, with farming families who pride themselves on their strength and resilience. I know this well; my grandmother grew up on a wheat farm in the Millewa, the eldest of 11 children. Life was tough, but they survived the isolation and extreme temperatures through steely stoicism and sticking together. Last week I visited farms in the Millewa to see firsthand the impacts of back-to-back droughts and to meet with farmers James and Tracey O’Day and Ian Arney. The strength and resilience are certainly alive and well, but despite their best efforts to battle on the distress was palpable. Standing on the paddock it was a sad sight. Fields which should yield healthy crops lay bare, as dry, red topsoil swept across barren plains. Just like last season, in these paddocks there will be no harvest. Every farmer plans for challenging seasonal conditions and most can cope with one drought year at a time, but what they cannot prepare for are back-to-back droughts. Recently the federal government announced that funding support would be available by mid-2020, but the crisis is now. Our farmers need immediate and decisive leadership from the state government. In our conversation we talked about very real and tangible ways that the state government could help through the provision of interest-free loans to help plant next year’s crop and policy measures to control erosion. Perhaps the most tragic aspect of the Millewa drought is that it is an outlier in an otherwise wet and productive season. While no farmer would wish another farming community to be going through drought, the patchy nature of the drought in north-west Victoria makes this a particularly lonely and isolating experience for those affected. The failure of their crops is eclipsed by the successful crops of their close neighbours. While there are support services available, many farmers are not aware of them or do not feel comfortable to access them. Part of my work is to educate farmers about what is already available, such as rate relief based on financial hardship and also rural financial counselling, but also to encourage farmers to see these supports as a fair return on what they deliver to our communities every single day in terms of food security—especially in terms of food security—and jobs throughout the supply chain. Services to drought-stricken farmers are not handouts; they are a hand up which farmers deserve. A visit from the minister at this very tough time would help reinforce that vital message. Some farmers are holding out hope that they will receive some rain within the next week. If so, they might be able

ADJOURNMENT Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 3001 to salvage some of their crops, but for some farmers it is already too late. A visit from the minister would be a solid demonstration of the government’s concern and solidarity with farming communities. THE ORANGE DOOR Mr HAMER (Box Hill) (19:15): (1081) My adjournment is for the attention of the Minister for Prevention of Family Violence. The action that I seek is for the minister to provide me with an update on the Orange Door program and its proposed rollout to the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. The Orange Door is an integral part of our work to implement every one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Family Violence. It is a safe space where Victorians can seek the help they need from highly trained and skilled professionals. These services are available on location, over the phone or anywhere they can be delivered safely and confidentially. It is about putting the needs of people who experience family violence first and giving them the help they need. When it comes to ending the scourge of family violence, nothing less will do. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the minister for hosting a round table in Box Hill last week. It was a terrific and well-attended event and a real opportunity for local groups to have their say and hear directly from the minister on the critically important issue of ending the scourge of family violence. I look forward to hearing from the minister on this important issue. SOUTH-WEST COAST ELECTORATE ENERGY SUPPLY Ms BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (19:16): (1082) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Agriculture in the other place, and I seek funding to ensure efficient and reliable energy supplies to farms in my electorate. Minister, I noted with interest you recently announced funding from the Agriculture Energy Investment Plan, a program that aims to improve energy efficiency, reduce on- farm costs and maintain competitiveness. Firstly, I want to seek clarification as to whether that program could be used to improve and upgrade existing energy infrastructure, because in parts of my electorate that is exactly what is needed to improve efficiencies not only for farmers but for other businesses as well. You might be aware that there are dairy farms in South-West Coast that are relying on single-wire earth return (SWER) lines to provide their energy, particularly in the Tyrendarra area, which prove inefficient, unreliable and lack capacity. One such farmer, Bruce Knowles, a very good dairy farmer who moved to South-West Coast from New Zealand some years ago and bought his farm in good dairy country, recognised that to be viable he would need to do something about the energy supply. Mr Knowles has installed diesel generators to ensure he has a reliable energy supply. This is obviously a costly exercise—not only the initial cost of installing the generators but also the ongoing maintenance and operational costs—but without it he would not be able to milk his cows or keep his milk cool. In that part of the world it is not just Mr Knowles’s farm that is impacted by the lack of three-phase power. A bit further up the road is an engineering firm who are also limited to when they can use the various machinery they need to use to be able to run their business. The lack of capacity means they are severely limited in what they can do and when they can do it, which means they cannot run their business either effectively or efficiently. There are also other farms who are sharing this SWER line who find themselves without enough juice, so to speak, when their neighbours up the line are drawing energy. In other parts of the electorate there are wool producers who are unable to use their presses at certain times and are limited in how many shearers they can have working at one time. Mr Knowles has been out advocating for his neighbours and others in the area to have better access to three-phase power, and I commend him for the campaign he has so passionately carried out over the last few years. It makes sense, and it will help farmers reduce their costs, it will improve efficiency and it will allow for expansion of farms, which is a win for the people because the expansions will allow more to be employed and for the economy because of the money it will bring to our community and region.

ADJOURNMENT 3002 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 28 August 2019

This issue can be fixed relatively easily. There is three-phase power just a few kilometres to the north, east and west of what is seemingly an energy blackspot. So, Minister, while I have no objection to helping farmers improve efficiency and reducing on-farm costs, I do think there is much more headway that could be made in this space by investing in and improving existing infrastructure. BASS ELECTORATE BUS SERVICES Ms CRUGNALE (Bass) (19:19): (1083) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Public Transport, and the action I seek is for the minister to meet with me and discuss bus reviews and future network planning in my electorate of Bass. I am proud to be part of a government that prioritises investment in public transport, and the Andrews Labor government is removing level crossings left, right and centre. In Pakenham we are removing four dangerous and congested level crossings, and recently I was more than jumping for joy to announce that the removal of the Cardinia Road level crossing was being fast-tracked, with works beginning next year. A member interjected. Ms CRUGNALE: I know, it is brilliant. Included in this major project is the state-of-the-art super- station at Pakenham, allowing more trains for the regions and more for the metro network. A significant proportion of my electorate, though, is not covered by the train network, and in these areas buses provide an invaluable service. They are the only way my constituents access public transport. They are imperative for people to move around, whether it is getting to work, recreational activities, social happenings and cultural events or getting to and from support services, medical appointments, TAFE and tertiary education, just to name a few. It is a crucial element for connectedness and participation on so many levels in our community. My constituents raise a plethora of suggestions to improve and better the network, and I look forward to sharing these with the minister. Public transport is a social investment, and again I look forward to meeting with the minister to represent my community and also continue to be part of a government that is delivering public transport for all Victorians. Ms Ryan: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I believe the member for Box Hill did ask for an update—not an action—on a government program, and I believe from previous rulings that updates are not considered actions. Mr Wynne: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, I think the intentions of the member for Box Hill were very clear. He has raised an important matter for the Minister for Prevention of Family Violence in relation to a very important issue around getting further advice on the rollout of the Orange Door initiative in Melbourne’s east. It is clear to me what the intention of the member for Box Hill was—to get further advice on the rollout of the program within his electorate. I think the general thrust of what the member for Box Hill was seeking should stand. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will rule on this point of order. Were a member to ask for an update, that would be considered to be asking for an action and be permitted. I think perhaps the member for Euroa is confusing it with constituency questions. RESPONSES Mr WYNNE (Richmond—Minister for Housing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Planning) (19:23): The member for Mornington raised a matter for the Minister for Public Transport seeking a meeting of him, the Mornington Peninsula shire and other members relating to public transport provision on the peninsula, and I will make sure that matter is brought to the minister’s attention. The member for Bentleigh raised a matter for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure relating to some empty shops that are located at the Bentleigh and the McKinnon stations after the rail crossing

ADJOURNMENT Wednesday, 28 August 2019 Legislative Assembly 3003 removals and seeking that one of the empty shops be used for community use, possibly by the local council, and I will make sure that request is made to the minister. The member for Euroa raised both a point of order and also a request for the Minister for Education seeking clarification that there will be no reduction in school teaching staff at Benalla P–12 College, and I will make sure the minister is made aware of that request. The member for Yan Yean raised a matter for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure seeking progress on a number of excellent road projects within her electorate, including Yan Yean Road, Plenty Road and of course the soon-to-come North East Link Project, and a much broader communication strategy that can be rolled out to her community, who are obviously very interested in this significant investment. The member for Ripon raised a matter for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure seeking an update on the freight rail passenger separation project between Maryborough and Ballarat, and I will make sure the minister is aware of that request. The member for Mount Waverley raised a matter for the Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers seeking that the minister visit one of his local neighbourhood houses to meet with the wonderful staff that run these neighbourhood houses, particularly as it relates to people with a disability who are accessing services at that facility. I will certainly make sure the minister is aware of that. The member for Mildura raised the matter for the Minister for Agriculture requesting that the minister visit an area of her electorate called the Millewa to discuss what she regards as being very critical drought issues that that local community is confronting there as perhaps a more isolated aspect of drought given the broader rains that have occurred in that area. I am sure the minister will be sympathetic to that request. The member for Box Hill raised a matter for the Minister for Prevention of Family Violence. I think I have canvassed that matter already, but it is an important project, the Orange Door, and I will make sure that the minister is fully aware of both the member’s interest and his commitment to the prevention of family violence more generally. The member for South-West Coast raised a matter for the Minister for Agriculture seeking funding to upgrade energy infrastructure within her electorate, and I will make sure the member’s request is passed on to the minister. Finally, the member for Bass raised a matter for the Minister for Public Transport seeking a meeting to discuss a bus review and network issues in her electorate, and again I will make sure that the minister is aware of that. Deputy Speaker, that is the business of the day. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Minister. The house now stands adjourned until tomorrow. House adjourned 7.27 pm.