PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

(HANSARD)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

FIFTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT

FIRST SESSION

FRIDAY, 19 FEBRUARY 2021

hansard.parliament.vic.gov.au

By authority of the Victorian Government Printer

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

The ministry

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joint committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heads of parliamentary departments

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

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

Member Region Party Member Region Party

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

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

Party abbreviations

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

CONTENTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS Acknowledgement of country ...... 531 PAPERS Papers ...... 531 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Notices ...... 531 MEMBERS STATEMENTS Government performance ...... 531 Community sport ...... 532 Climate change ...... 532 Gender equality ...... 533 Downer Group ...... 533 Child protection ...... 533 Justice system ...... 534 Mental health services ...... 534 Metro Trains Melbourne ...... 534 High-capacity metro trains ...... 534 Member conduct ...... 535 Eastern Metropolitan Region planning ...... 535 Australian media laws ...... 535 On-demand workforce ...... 536 Elective surgery waiting lists ...... 536 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Notices of motion ...... 536 BILLS Summary Offences Amendment (Decriminalisation of Public Drunkenness) Bill 2020 ...... 536 Second reading ...... 536 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS AGL Crib Point gas terminal...... 561 Duck hunting ...... 562 Ministers statements: TAFE funding ...... 563 COVID-19 ...... 563 Bail reform ...... 564 Ministers statements: workplace mental health ...... 564 COVID-19 ...... 565 Local government gender equality ...... 565 Ministers statements: resources sector...... 566 COVID-19 ...... 567 COVID-19 ...... 567 Ministers statements: small business mental health support ...... 568 Written responses ...... 569 CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Western Metropolitan Region ...... 569 Northern Victoria Region ...... 569 Northern Victoria Region ...... 569 Western Metropolitan Region ...... 570 Northern Metropolitan Region ...... 570 Western Victoria Region ...... 570 Southern Metropolitan Region ...... 571 Southern Metropolitan Region ...... 571 Eastern Metropolitan Region...... 571 Eastern Victoria Region ...... 571 Eastern Metropolitan Region...... 571 Eastern Victoria Region ...... 572 Northern Victoria Region ...... 572 Eastern Metropolitan Region...... 572 ANNOUNCEMENTS Legislative Assembly special sitting ...... 573 BILLS Summary Offences Amendment (Decriminalisation of Public Drunkenness) Bill 2020 ...... 573 Second reading ...... 573 Committee ...... 585 Third reading ...... 594 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Adjournment ...... 594 BILLS Education and Training Reform Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2020 ...... 594 Second reading ...... 594 Constitution Amendment (Fracking Ban) Bill 2020 ...... 610 Introduction and first reading ...... 610 Statement of compatibility ...... 610 Second reading ...... 612 Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (State of Emergency Extension) Bill 2021 ...... 613 Introduction and first reading ...... 613 Statement of compatibility ...... 613 Second reading ...... 618 Spent Convictions Bill 2020 ...... 622 Introduction and first reading ...... 622 Statement of compatibility ...... 622 Second reading ...... 630 ADJOURNMENT Women & Girls in STEM Map ...... 635 COVID-19 ...... 636 Emissions reduction targets ...... 636 Bell Street, Coburg and Preston, road safety ...... 637 Education First Youth Foyer program ...... 637 Licensed Hospitality Venue Fund ...... 637 Footscray transport interchange ...... 638 Northern Aquatic and Community Hub ...... 639 Duck hunting ...... 639 Responses ...... 640 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Written responses ...... 640 WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES Shepparton Education Plan ...... 641 ANSWERS TO CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Western Metropolitan Region ...... 643 Northern Metropolitan Region ...... 643 Western Metropolitan Region ...... 643 Eastern Victoria Region ...... 644 Northern Victoria Region ...... 644 Western Metropolitan Region ...... 644 Western Victoria Region ...... 644 Eastern Metropolitan Region...... 645 Eastern Victoria Region ...... 645 Eastern Metropolitan Region...... 646 Northern Metropolitan Region ...... 646 Northern Victoria Region ...... 647 Western Metropolitan Region ...... 647 Western Metropolitan Region ...... 647 Eastern Victoria Region ...... 648 Northern Victoria Region ...... 648 Northern Metropolitan Region ...... 649 Eastern Metropolitan Region...... 649 Northern Victoria Region ...... 649 Eastern Metropolitan Region...... 650 WRITTEN RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Child protection ...... 651 Firearms licensing...... 651 COVID-19 ...... 652 Mont Albert train station ...... 652 COVID-19 ...... 653 COVID-19 ...... 653 Commercial Passenger Vehicles Victoria ...... 654 Stalking ...... 655 Small business support ...... 655

ANNOUNCEMENTS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 531

Friday, 19 February 2021

The PRESIDENT (Hon. N Elasmar) took the chair at 9.20 am and read the prayer. Announcements ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY The PRESIDENT (09:20): On behalf of the Victorian state Parliament I acknowledge the Aboriginal peoples, the traditional custodians of this land which has served as a significant meeting place of the First People of Victoria. I acknowledge and pay respect to the elders of the Aboriginal nations in Victoria past, present and emerging and welcome any elders and members of the Aboriginal communities who may visit or participate in the events or proceedings of the Parliament. Papers PAPERS Tabled by Acting Clerk: Municipal Association of Victoria—Report, 2019–20. Parliamentary Committees Act 2003—Government response to the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee’s Report on the 2017–18 and 2018–19 financial and performance outcomes. Planning and Environment Act 1987—Notices of Approval of the following amendments to planning schemes— Alpine, Alpine Resorts, Ararat, Ballarat, Banyule, Bass Coast, Baw Baw, Bayside, Benalla, Boroondara, Brimbank, Buloke, Campaspe, Cardinia, Casey, Central Goldfields, Colac Otway, Corangamite, Darebin, East Gippsland, Frankston, French Island and Sandstone Island, Gannawarra, Glen Eira, Glenelg, Golden Plains, Greater Bendigo, Greater Dandenong, Greater Geelong, Greater Shepparton, Hepburn, Hindmarsh, Hobsons Bay, Horsham, Hume, Indigo, Kingston, Knox, Latrobe, Loddon, Macedon Ranges, Manningham, Mansfield, Maribyrnong, Maroondah, Melbourne, Melton, Mildura, Mitchell, Moira, Monash, Moonee Valley, Moorabool, Moreland, Mornington Peninsula, Mount Alexander, Moyne, Murrindindi, Nillumbik, Northern Grampians, Port of Melbourne, Port Phillip, Pyrenees, Queenscliffe, South Gippsland, Southern Grampians, Stonnington, Strathbogie, Surf Coast, Swan Hill, Towong, Wangaratta, Warrnambool, Wellington, West Wimmera, Whitehorse, Whittlesea, Wodonga, Wyndham, Yarra, Yarra Ranges, Yarriambiack Planning Schemes—Amendment GC175. Cardinia Planning Scheme—Amendment C249. Subordinate Legislation Act 1994—Documents under section 15 in respect of Statutory Rule Nos. 8/2021 and 9/2021. Business of the house NOTICES Notices of motion given. Notice of intention to make a statement given. Members statements GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (09:26): The Andrews Labor government is corrupt. They used taxpayers money to fund a red shirts campaign to campaign for their own re-election. They have chauffeured dogs in ministerial limousines. They rorted the living-away-from-home allowance. They engaged a private security company—somebody’s mate—to run hotel quarantine, and as a result over 800 people have died, and no-one can remember who made that decision. They gave a taxpayers grant to union body Trades Hall, who used that money to campaign for the Labor Party—who would have thought? It is alleged they stole a journalist’s dictaphone to capture what was on there. They have a failed contact-tracing system that they refuse to admit is broken, and they have cancelled Moomba MEMBERS STATEMENTS 532 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021 this year. This was all led, I remind you, by the corrupter-in-chief. There is no way known that decisions are taken in this government without the corrupter in chief knowing about them. He knew all about it, and now they want to pass a law to give Dan the capacity to lock Victorians down until Christmas. Well, I tell you what: I will not support it, Victorians do not support it, and nobody sitting in this house should support a law to lock down Victorians until Christmas. COMMUNITY SPORT Mr ERDOGAN (Southern Metropolitan) (09:28): Last Thursday I had the pleasure to be at Toorak Park, the home of the Prahran Cricket Club, to officially open the new cricket facilities. I am proud that the program was made possible with a million-dollar investment from the priority projects stream of the Victorian government’s Community Sports Infrastructure Fund. Our project partner, the Stonnington City Council, contributed $1.6 million and demonstrated a commitment to delivering the project. I would like to thank the Prahran Cricket Club president, Nigel Parsons, and community infrastructure manager, Phil Williamson, for the warm welcome and the great work and vision they are providing for the club. The project has delivered a new outdoor cricket training facility, providing both synthetic and turf practice wickets at the ground. The project also includes storage, public amenities and improvements to landscaping in surrounding parkland. Furthermore, the project delivered the feasibility study to inform a new design concept for a new female-friendly multi-use pavilion, with upgraded floodlighting, at the grounds. The Victorian government is contributing $3 million to this project in partnership with the Stonnington council, which will also be making a significant contribution. I cannot wait to return to Toorak Park once this new pavilion is built. The Victorian government’s investment in this project is part of more than $1 billion we have kicked— or should I say bowled—into community sport and recreation since 2014. The Minister for Community Sport, Ros Spence, continues to build on this excellent work, and in the most recent budget the community sports infrastructure stimulus program received a $110 million boost. CLIMATE CHANGE Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (09:30): To quote First Dog on the Moon:

February 18 is Bramble Cay Melomys Remembrance Day. We can all pause to reflect that on this day in 2019 Melomys rubicola was officially declared extinct. Having survived for who knows how many thousands of years on a tiny island off the coast of Queensland— the Bramble Cay melomys is the first official mammal extinction due to climate change Over time the rising ocean destroyed their habitat, and maybe one day just washed them all into the sea. So every February 18 we pay tribute to this one small furry life, one of the untold thousands, we take a quiet moment to measure our sorrow, to kick our hubris further down the road. Imagine little statues honouring this handsome ill-fated rodent in parks all across the country. Wouldn’t that be nice. … we didn’t even know and we are very sorry. We can’t save them all but we will try. Some knew and did not act The world is spiralling We feel powerless in the face of this cruel storm of extinction and greed—it is relentless … We loved the Bramble Cay melomys even though we hadn’t even heard of it until it was gone. We love it … as we love all of the hopping flapping slithering scurrying creatures. These miraculous beasts who owe us nothing, and we who owe them everything. We know almost nothing of the world we are swallowing whole. Yet even if we are losing we will never give up. We will do it for the Bramble Cay melomys! MEMBERS STATEMENTS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 533

You can hold your own memorial on February 18, or visit the National Memorial and Museum to Extinct and Endangered Australian Species. It’s on fb And I thank First Dog on the Moon. GENDER EQUALITY Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (09:31): The ANU’s Gender Institute’s new guidance for students or staff involved in teaching should concern us all. It made headlines advocating the terms ‘chest feeding’, ‘human milk’, ‘gestational’ and ‘non-gestational’, ‘birthing’ and ‘non-birthing’ parents. Forget about referencing ‘mother’ and ‘father’; that is out. There has of course been outrage, but what disturbs me is that critics have been automatically dismissed as reactionary, implying they simply cannot adapt to progress. This is lazy, inaccurate and unfair. Their arguments are significant. I applaud the intentions. We should always be caring and considerate—‘Do to others as you would be done by’ is the mantra—but the idea that normalising this language is caring is fundamentally misguided. In the name of inclusivity, it is hugely alienating. It risks devaluing women, obviously. More insidiously, it implies that those who do not adapt and adopt the convention are arrogant, uncaring and deliberately hostile. Wrong language will isolate and harm transmasculine parents, apparently. This is the key. I believe we can show inclusivity and understanding without making a mockery of language or devaluing women. To teach people they are harmed by others’ normal use of English, that their own inference inevitably trumps the speaker’s— (Time expired) DOWNER GROUP Mr MELHEM (Western Metropolitan) (09:33): Last week I visited Downer Rail at the Newport Railway Workshops in my electorate. The Downer Group is a major contributor to the Victorian economy, investing $1 billion in Victorian products and services annually. They occupy 56 worksites across Victoria, where 12 000 workers are employed. Since 2000 Downer has invested approximately $16 million upgrading the Newport manufacturing facility, which is now producing 65 new high- capacity metro trains. This will enable our state to meet the extra capacity of our public transport network created by major infrastructure projects like the Metro Tunnel, the Melbourne Airport rail link, the Suburban Rail Loop and the removal of 75 level crossings by this government. Downer is a partner in the consortium delivering the largest single order of trains in our state’s history. This $2.3 billion project is using over 60 per cent local content and is importantly creating over 1100 highly skilled jobs through local supply chains during the delivery phase. As the Parliamentary Secretary for Training and Skills it was excellent to hear that Downer is investing over $70 million in vocational training jobs in a high-skilled and high-value industry. Downer has committed to 15 per cent apprenticeships, cadetships and traineeships on work sites, delivered in partnership with Chisholm TAFE and Swinburne University, training Victoria’s next generation of manufacturers and equipping students with the skills they need to work within our booming rail industry. Twenty apprentices have already been engaged, and also Downer have employed a significant number of women in the industry, which I want to congratulate them for. A strong manufacturing industry is vital to the future of Victorian manufacturing. CHILD PROTECTION Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (09:35): I rise today to thank the Victorian commissioner for children and young people, Liana Buchanan. Ms Buchanan just announced that an emergency investigation will be taking place in response to children from residential care being exploited by paedophile rings. A network of offenders is reportedly lurking and taking up to 40 young vulnerable kids from residential care, and this investigation will hopefully show what happens when these kids go missing. The results will be harrowing no doubt. This inquiry is fantastic news, but it is also disappointing that the state government did not initiate something sooner. I can safely say that Victoria Police have known about this issue for four years, because when I was in a sexual offences and child abuse investigation team I would bring children back quite often to their residential care homes after MEMBERS STATEMENTS 534 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021 spending time with random men, on several occasions in exchange for drugs and alcohol. I have said many times that SOCIT needs more resourcing to do this important work. I look forward to hearing the results of this inquiry and the implementation by the government as a matter of urgency. JUSTICE SYSTEM Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (09:36): This statement acknowledges serious concerns that go to the very heart of Victoria’s justice system. I have been overwhelmed in recent months with feedback from concerned members of the community expressing bewilderment at some recent judicial and other senior appointments that many say risk undermining public confidence in our justice system. It is apparent that practical, real-life legal experience, qualifications and knowledge are now not always a prerequisite in the discharge of critically important roles within the Victorian justice system. This is an issue I raise reluctantly but do so due to the seriousness of the concerns expressed to me by some very senior members of the Victoria community, and I do so because of the importance of the judicial appointment process to the critical functioning of justice in our state. We already know from published journal articles and other information that the decisions of Victorian courts are being overturned by the High Court at an ever-increasing rate, and the legal profession have been embarrassed by the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants and of course by the Pell High Court decision, regardless of one’s views on that specific issue. This collectively has damaged public confidence in Victoria’s justice system. It is at times like this that professional legal experience and knowledge should be a key criteria for judicial appointment, but many are concerned that this is not occurring and that other factors are at play. The role and function of Victoria’s first law officer, the Attorney-General, should also be central to restoring public confidence in the justice system and is arguably the most important role in ensuring our courts are resourced with the best qualified and experienced jurists to discharge critical judicial functions. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (09:37): Recently published research led by the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute has detailed major barriers that Australian children and their parents face when seeking help for common mental health conditions. This includes a chronic shortage of psychiatrists and psychologists, especially those who work with children under 12, as well as lengthy waitlists. This is a common and enduring concern raised with me when speaking to people throughout my electorate. The last year has seen a massive uptake in telehealth services. There are positive signs of these services assisting people as part of bushfire recovery efforts, with organisations like Rural Health Connect linking around 150 bushfire-affected residents to counselling. This at least can help people in remote areas access help sooner, start the process more quickly and conveniently and hopefully improve their outcomes. I hope we see further extensions in how we utilise telehealth, including exploring how it can be utilised in schools in regional areas where it is particularly difficult for children to access these services. METRO TRAINS MELBOURNE Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (09:38): I want to make two points today. The first is the total failure of the government to deliver punctual and reliable services under the Metro contract. We were promised a lot in 2017. We were told that there would be tough new benchmarks. Well, those benchmarks have not been met. The only period they have been met in is the period when COVID had taken all the passengers off the trains. You can run a service without passengers; that does not get many ticks from me. I say they have got to run it properly when there are actually many passengers on the trains. I say that this contract is flawed. It is a toady contract with Metro. The government has not enforced this contract and has not delivered for commuters. HIGH-CAPACITY METRO TRAINS Mr DAVIS: I also want to say something about Mr Melhem’s comments just a moment ago. The high-capacity metro train project is a shambles. It is more than two years late. There are only three— MEMBERS STATEMENTS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 535

I know the number—trains that are actually on the network moving around. They are not in formal service yet, but they are still being trialled and moved around. Most of these trains are made in China. These trains are actually not meeting the Victorian Industry Participation Policy requirements and not meeting the promised levels of content here in Melbourne. For Mr Melhem to sell out the workers at Downer and right across the rail manufacturing sector here is an absolute disgrace. He did it when he was at the AWU; he sold them out on EastLink steel. He has done it again and again and again, and it is shameful. I say that Downer has got a lot to answer for here. MEMBER CONDUCT Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (09:40): The Parliament’s website states that the Legislative Council acts as a ‘house of review’ by ‘scrutinising, debating and … amending or rejecting legislation’, so it is our role as members of the crossbench to ask those questions, often brought to us by our constituents. Crossbench members are threatened, bullied, abused and called names both inside and outside the chamber. Our views are misrepresented by the government, and I would like to remind all of us in this chamber of our responsibilities under the Members of Parliament (Standards) Act 1978, which states:

A Member must be fair, objective and courteous— (a) in their dealings with the community; and (b) without detracting from the importance of robust public debate in a democracy, in their dealings with other Members. So does their behaviour meet these standards? Community members who reached out to me certainly do not think so, and I do not think so. Can we please respect one another’s views, even if we do not share them, and treat one another with respect? EASTERN METROPOLITAN REGION PLANNING Mr ATKINSON (Eastern Metropolitan) (09:41): The government has not done much to advance its green credentials in the electorate of Eltham of late. Not only has it destroyed a whole series of trees associated with the realignment and re-upgrade of the Fitzsimons Lane and Main Road intersection, ignoring in fact consultation and feedback from both Nillumbik Shire Council and indeed local residents, but further, the government is now going on with a very poor consultation process, as Mr Davis referred to last night in the adjournment debate, in regard to the relocation of Montmorency railway station. One of the key issues for residents in that area is in fact that the plans at this stage seem to include the eradication of a significant number of trees along Station Road. These trees actually extend for around 700 metres along Station Road, and it is understood that the plans that the government is looking at in terms of the rail crossing removal projects and the station upgrade, the Hurstbridge line upgrade, would see most of these trees certainly lost to car parks. The residents need to have a say on this, and I would urge the minister to take note of the calls from the local community for further consultation on the entire Montmorency project. AUSTRALIAN MEDIA LAWS Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (09:43): Yesterday in Australia on Facebook— only in Australia—the news disappeared. Unfortunately there was a lot of collateral damage there, including Mrs McArthur, and I am glad to see that she is back now and she is not cancelled anymore. But if you are wondering why the news disappeared on Facebook yesterday, let me explain. The federal government tried to institute a scheme to funnel, to siphon, money from new media to old media. This is flat-out crony capitalism. Facebook said that they would stop the news being transmitted through their platform; the federal government went ahead and tried to pass the laws anyway, and Facebook called their bluff. This is what happens when governments try to institute crony capitalist schemes that interfere with the market—the market responds. The Liberal Democrats will never support crony capitalist schemes like this, and I am glad to see there is a blowback for the government trying to do it. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 536 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

ON-DEMAND WORKFORCE Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (09:44): Today I want to share my support for those who continue to fight for the rights of workers in the gig economy. Just recently HungryPanda, a food delivery service, changed their company pay structure and as a result significantly reduced the delivery riders’ wages. In response two delivery riders organised a small protest. That same afternoon HungryPanda terminated their employment and immediately blocked them from the app. Once again we see the consequences of the lack of rights for those working in the gig economy. It does not surprise me that HungryPanda felt they could remove the incomes of two families with just a click of a button. It is clear that this system is not designed to support the workers but rather assist big tech in attaining even bigger bonuses for the suits in Silicon Valley. I commend the Transport Workers Union for taking this fight to the Fair Work Commission in a bid to have the riders’ jobs reinstated. Without clear regulation from governments we will continue to rely on organisations like the Transport Workers Union to ensure fundamental rights for workers in the gig economy are protected. ELECTIVE SURGERY WAITING LISTS Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (09:46): The elective surgery waitlist last year was at record levels even before the COVID restrictions took place in April. The disruption to elective surgery has led to a large backlog of patients waiting desperately for their surgery, many in terrible mental and physical pain. For some this adds to the many years they had been waiting for either a specialist appointment or surgery long before the COVID-19 pandemic. I note the case of an individual who has contacted my office, and I quote:

I have degenerative disc disease and osteoarthritis in my neck and have been on the waiting list at Monash Clayton to get an appointment to see a neurosurgeon for six years. Despite the patient calling the hospital several times and being advised they were indeed still on the list, no-one can seem to explain why this patient has been waiting so long just to see a specialist. In this patient’s words:

All I want is an appointment to see if there’s anything they can do to help with pain. This just shows how desperate some patients are becoming due to the ever-increasing backlog. The whole lockdown of last year and the five-day lockdown have added to that. I have had specialists and surgeons contact me saying they spent all day Saturday ringing patients to advise them that their surgeries would be cancelled this week. They have spent time dealing with the mental anguish of these patients. Those patients do not know when they will be getting their surgery. The government needs to do more in understanding what these shutdowns do not just to the economy but to people’s health and wellbeing, and they need to make elective surgery a priority and get on with it. Business of the house NOTICES OF MOTION Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (09:47): I move:

That the consideration of notices of motion, government business, 403 to 447, be postponed until later this day. Motion agreed to. Bills SUMMARY OFFENCES AMENDMENT (DECRIMINALISATION OF PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS) BILL 2020 Second reading Debate resumed on motion of Ms STITT: That the bill be now read a second time. BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 537

Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (09:48): I am pleased to speak on behalf of the opposition in the first instance in relation to the Summary Offences Amendment (Decriminalisation of Public Drunkenness) Bill 2020. I indicate at the outset that the opposition will be moving a reasoned amendment to the bill, and I am happy for my reasoned amendment to now be circulated. 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: (1) further consultation is undertaken with primary stakeholders, particularly the Police Association Victoria, Ambulance Victoria and relevant health service providers; (2) a comprehensive, fully developed and funded support program to deal with alcohol-affected individuals is agreed to by all stakeholders and is established and ready to operate; and (3) community safety concerns are addressed, including the implementation of alternative police powers to manage public drunkenness.’. I move this reasoned amendment—that the bill be withdrawn and further consultation take place with affected stakeholders including Victoria Police, the Police Association Victoria, Ambulance Victoria and other people on the front line, health authorities et cetera—at this early juncture because we believe that this legislation puts the cart before the horse, to use an old expression. We as legislators are moving to decriminalise public drunkenness when we as legislators do not know what will come in its place. The opposition recognises the government’s policy in this regard and in many ways supports the intent of that policy. So many tragedies and reports have given rise to the bill being in this place today. I particularly want to acknowledge the tragic death of Tanya Day, an Indigenous woman who died in police custody. Following a coronial investigation it was a recommendation of the coroner that public drunkenness be abolished as a criminal offence. That is the latest in, I suppose, a line of similar recommendations from other reports. So this is a very important area of public policy. As I say, we recognise the importance of what the government is seeking to achieve, but our job as legislators is not to vote on a concept or an idea or whether something is good or bad but what we are doing in repealing a law and what will come in its place. What we are doing is repealing a law that police use less and less I must say but still need to use regularly and consistently, and we do not know what is coming in its place. The government admits as much by the default commencement date in the legislation. It is standard for a default commencement date to be no more than 12 months from the passage of a bill, and indeed the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee has a policy to comment on any bills and to write to the minister where the default commencement date is more than 12 months, but this bill actually explicitly says in its commencement provision that it will not come into operation before 7 November 2022 unless by proclamation earlier, and that is because the government simply does not know what is going to take its place, what the health response it is promoting will look like. Now, it is true that other jurisdictions in Australia have abolished public drunkenness as an offence, but when they have done so they invariably have given their police forces an alternate head of power to deal with the situations that give rise to someone being charged with a public drunkenness offence. For example, in New South Wales there are move-on powers, and that is replicated in other jurisdictions as well, but we know the government repealed the move-on powers that the previous coalition government enacted and has resisted attempts by the opposition to reinstate move-on powers. We have got a clear policy position not to have move-on powers. So the government’s solution, or replacement policy, is what it calls a ‘health response’, but what that health response will be no-one knows. I thank the Attorney-General for the bill briefing that she facilitated and for the follow-up response that the Minister for Health’s office provided to my colleague Ms Crozier, who raised many questions about what the health response may look like. Without reciting the correspondence from the health minister’s office, suffice to say the government has formed a working group that are looking at this issue and it will be their task to come up with solutions. Well, I think our job as legislators is not to BILLS 538 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021 pass laws and vacate the field to a working group. We need to understand what the replacement policy will look like, how it will be implemented. There is talk about places for people who are intoxicated to be taken to sober up—sobering-up sort of centres—and the government has talked about trial sites in metropolitan Melbourne and regional Victoria, but there are questions like who would transport them to a deintoxification facility, what powers the people who transport them would have, who would supervise the people who are intoxicated, how long they would stay there, who would have legal authority over them, when police would be called if they became violent or the capacity of those in charge of those intoxicated was being challenged. These are all legitimate questions. Where would people in remote parts of Victoria, places like Mallacoota in my electorate or Omeo or other remote locations where there may be someone who is highly intoxicated, be taken, by whom et cetera, et cetera? These are all legitimate questions that I think we need to understand, and that is really the genesis of the reasoned amendment from the opposition. As I say, we recognise the policy intent of the government, and we want that further work to be done. Now, it is not just the opposition who is expressing these views. The police association secretary, Wayne Gatt, was reported on 29 November, following the introduction of this bill in the other place, as saying changing the law prior to the establishment of a safe system to manage alcohol-fuelled problems was, and I quote, ‘dangerous virtue signalling’ and ‘rash’. He went on to say:

… what will happen to intoxicated people in custody if police are no longer able to hold them for periods longer than an hour … Again, these are questions which I think are yet to be answered or yet to be addressed. The AMA has also publicly expressed concern that hospital emergency departments will become dumping grounds for people who are intoxicated. And obviously, with the emergency departments already under enormous pressure and stress, that is a significant concern. It is the opposition’s view that we are putting the cart before the horse in legislating before the alternative health solution is identified. As I say, the bill contemplates that it will not actually become operative until the end of next year, so why don’t we all agreed to the bill being paused and withdrawn, the alternative model that the government has started working on being developed over the next six to nine months, or as quickly as possible, and then the bill coming back and the Leader of the Government can explain to the committee what that alternative model is. If the alternative model has been well thought through and has taken in the feedback and views of all relevant stakeholders, including the AMA, the police association and others, then I am confident the bill would pass with little dissent. But that is not where we are at. The bill has been introduced, we do not know what the alternative model looks like and we have been asked to basically trust the government to come up with a solution. This issue has been examined before. Indeed, 21 years ago the Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee held an inquiry into public drunkenness, and it issued a discussion paper in October 2000. As testament to his longevity and popularity amongst his electorate, Mr Wells was the member for Wantirna in the other place and a member of that committee 21 years ago. The committee raised questions for consideration and there is a section on police attitudes to public drunkenness. Basically the questions that were raised in the Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee discussion paper in October 2000 remain unanswered, and they are the same questions that we have today. So with the effluxion of 21 years, after numerous reports and several tragedies, we have legislation before us, but we do not have the practical solutions of the alternative health model the government is advocating for. I think it is imperative that those questions be answered. When we are looking at alternative models, I just want to talk a little bit about the fact that much work by non-government organisations and by Victoria Police has already taken place, and perhaps there is an opportunity for the working group that has been established to build on that work. BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 539

As I said earlier, the number of offences for being drunk in a public place or drunk and disorderly in a public place has decreased significantly—drunk in a public place, down 66 per cent between 2014 and 2020; and drunk and disorderly in a public place, down 56 per cent over the same time. Drunk in a public place went from 9248 times in 2014 to 3120 times in 2020 according to the Victorian Crime Statistics Agency. I mentioned earlier the tragedy of Tanya Day. The opposition and I recognise and acknowledge that Indigenous Victorians are disproportionately affected by these criminal offences. According to the Crime Statistics Agency statistics in front of me, Indigenous Victorians make up 7 to 8 per cent of the charges for public drunkenness and drunk and disorderly in public whereas they represent much, much less of the Victorian population. So that is a significant factor. On I think three separate occasions over the last nine or 10 years I have had the opportunity to spend the night with Victoria Police and the Salvos through their fantastic partnership program that takes place in the Melbourne CBD on weekends. The Liberal-Nationals actually had a policy at the last election to fund an expanded Salvos-Victoria Police program. The essence of the program, as many members would be aware, is that if Victoria Police members or the PSOs at Flinders Street or other stations find someone intoxicated and maybe disorientated who is in need of assistance, rather than arresting them or taking them back to a CBD police station, they call the Salvos. The wonderful people—the volunteers and workers from the Salvos—will attend. They will often drive that person home or find a family member or friend to pick up the person who is distressed, intoxicated or drug affected. That is just a fantastic collaboration between the Salvos and Victoria Police. It has been very effective, and I am sure it is a significant reason for the reduction in those offences that I just referred to. I just want to congratulate the Salvos and Victoria Police for that partnership, in particular Brendan Nottle, who I know is known to most of us in this place. Mr Leane has often spoken very warmly of Mr Nottle, and I echo his comments about what a remarkable man he is and the remarkable work that he does. This model should be expanded to other places with significant night-life precincts: Dandenong, Frankston, maybe Traralgon, Shepparton—other places where that model could work so well and so effectively and perhaps drive down those numbers even more. That is one example, but again, if we remove the offence of public drunkenness, what powers will police have when a situation arises where other offence categories may not be appropriate? As I said, other states have introduced powers like move-on powers that this Victorian government has ruled out. That is why I moved a reasoned amendment. I hope members of the chamber support that reasoned amendment, noting the government has foreshadowed a nearly two-year time frame before this bill becomes active. Nothing will be lost and there is much to be gained by a further period of consultation before this bill comes back for further consideration by the Parliament once the alternative model that the government talks about is known and understood. Ms WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (10:06): First and foremost in speaking to this bill, I pay tribute to Aunty Tanya Day, a proud Yorta Yorta woman, a beloved mother and grandmother whose life was cut tragically short. I acknowledge the tireless and brave efforts of her family in keeping her legacy alive and in calling for this long-overdue change here in Victoria and indeed across the country. Today I speak not only as a proud member of the Labor government that has finally brought this before us but as someone with connections to Aunty Tanya’s family through my work in Aboriginal health and justice. But beyond Aunty Tanya’s family are the years of campaigns and calls for truth and justice by members of the Aboriginal legal and grassroots communities. Thank you for sticking with us, for fighting hard and for never giving up. Thank you for pushing for structures of self-determination and partnerships and Aboriginal justice, like the nation-leading Aboriginal justice agreement here in Victoria. BILLS 540 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

I am going to talk a little bit more about the real lived experience of Aboriginal people in our state. Thirty years ago the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody clearly called for the decriminalisation of public drunkenness, Then in 2001 this Parliament reaffirmed this recommendation in the Parliament of Victoria inquiry into public drunkenness and then again in the implementation of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody report in 2005. While these reports joined a long list of reports into Aboriginal justice issues that lay on some shelf somewhere, the very human impacts of our ignorance of these calls were laid bare in the death of Aunty Tanya Day. Her death reactivated the calls for change, a call that I heard—a daughter in pain and a family robbed of a future with her love. To Belinda and your family, thank you. Thank you for speaking up. Thank you for pushing beyond the grief to see a brighter future for our community. Despite the years since our last conversation, I am so grateful that you took the time to speak to me this last week, to reaffirm your commitment to justice, as you did back in 2017, and for giving me the permission to say her name, to remember her name: Aunty Tanya Day. Our hearts should hurt that Aunty Tanya was the niece of a man that also died in custody. His death formed part of the landmark Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody that called for the abolition of the law that saw Aunty Tanya Day end up in that police cell that day in Castlemaine. The Day family are not alone. The data tells us that the criminalisation of public drunkenness discriminates against vulnerable people, especially Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, Sudanese and South Sudanese communities, people experiencing homelessness and substance abuse, and people experiencing mental health issues. The work of the community advocates in this space lays out a path away from the status quo to a health-based response to public intoxication. Public drunkenness should be treated like the condition that it is: a public health issue. Design of a health-based response has begun. The work on this model, broadly outlined in the Seeing the Clear Light of Day: Expert Reference Group on Decriminalising Public Drunkenness report to the Attorney-General in August, last year shows us the steps. It shows us the five key stages: first response, transportation to a place of safety, meeting the immediate health needs, health and social care pathways and, finally, broader prevention strategies. This report, informed by numerous consultations with service providers, alcohol and other drugs experts, Aboriginal community-controlled organisations, the Victorian police and others really outlines the functions of a public health response, and they should be commended for their remarkable efforts in this report. Importantly, this bill provides for a 24-month implementation period to allow time to develop this model. This will be undoubtedly complex and of course, it should be added, with due consideration for input from Aboriginal communities and cultural and linguistically diverse communities to ensure that the model is culturally safe and meets community needs. Can I pay my respects to former Attorney-General Jill Hennessy for her leadership in bringing this bill before us after 30 long years. Her leadership extended beyond this as well to reforms of the Coroners Court to ensure a more culturally informed and safe coronial process—and it is something that I personally was involved in. It is a lonely and very challenging experience, a coronial inquest, and I have heard from families, I have talked with families, Aboriginal families, about what that is like. Changes have come about, including a possum skin cloak that is now at the Coroners Court. Can I thank Troy Williamson and the team over at the Coroners Court for allowing me to be a part of that, for allowing me to have my message of love and strength to the families that are undergoing coronial inquests. So, thank you to Jill for that work. I am just so proud to have been a part of it. I just want to also talk about a personal connection to this issue that has stayed with me all these years. This is going to be hard. My father survived a stroke; many of you would have heard that in my inaugural speech. With that stroke came bouts of aphasia, a common condition for stroke survivors, BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 541 affecting his ability to speak. It affected his ability to walk as well. His legs would sometimes betray him, and he would sometimes fall. He was a proud man, and with that came his determination to go to the shops, buy his own paper and pick up his own favourite things from his mate at the local milk bar. As a family we had ‘the talk’. It is not something you would ever imagine having to do, but such was the reality of our lives. We wanted to allow Dad to live his life, but with that came the difficult decision of having to have a plan for what to do when he was picked up for public drunkenness— knowing what was the answer to what happened when his slurred speech and unstable feet betrayed him in public. Years later that same speech came to me as a young Aboriginal woman. That was not an easy conversation that time either, and I wondered if I was alone in getting the talk. It turns out that every single one of my Aboriginal friends had had the talk—but not so much for those not Aboriginal. But the reality of our existence as young Aboriginal people included a discussion about how to talk to the police, who to call, how to behave and that to be black and drunk in public meant that you could end up in a police cell. The statistics tell us that this is true, and the fear and anxiety amongst our elders, our aunties, our uncles and our parents of what might happen in that cell is real. Today with this bill we say to those loved ones of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, to the families of Sudanese and South Sudanese young people and those who are thinking of those they know that are living rough or suffering a mental health condition who may end up in prison, and I say to you, today is a new day; a path to a public health response has begun. Thank you for your patience and thank you for your advocacy. I hope that those talks are a little easier for the next generation. Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (10:14): I acknowledge and thank Ms Watt for her very powerful and moving contribution to this debate today. It is a powerful reminder of just how important it is that we pass this legislation today. No more delays, no more excuses—the time for change is absolutely now. I want to begin my comments on this bill by also acknowledging and thanking the many campaigners who have helped achieve these reforms today. In particular I would like to mention Belinda Stevens, Apryl Watson, Warren Stevens, Kimberly Watson and of course the family of Tanya Day. I would also like to acknowledge the work of many Aboriginal organisations and activists who have campaigned for years to finally abolish this offence. While the Greens are very pleased to be supporting this bill today, I want to acknowledge just how devastating it is that it has taken until 2021 for us to get here, because it has cost lives, too many lives. We have known for decades that the offence of public drunkenness is an outdated and obsolete offence that is predominantly targeted at First Nations people and used as a racist tool to lock up Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders for behaviour that would be ignored or dismissed in other communities. In 1989 the Victorian Law Reform Commission recommended the repeal of public drunkenness. In 1991 the commonwealth Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody also recommended that the offence of public drunkenness be abolished in the states that still kept it as an offence, Victoria included. Decriminalising public drunkenness was again recommended in 2001 by the parliamentary Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee, in 2006 by the Ombudsman and in 2016 by IBAC. We are now only one of two states in Australia which still has an offence of public drunkenness. Despite all the evidence and all the recommendations it has taken 30 years to bring these reforms to Parliament, and in that time hundreds of First Nations people have died preventable deaths in custody, at least 434 deaths across the country, including many here in Victoria. The government can be quick off the mark when legislating to lock people up—stricter bail laws and mandatory sentencing can happen within weeks, as we have seen. It is a deep shame it has taken 30 years and more death to get to this point. We know that our First Nations community has historically high levels of interaction with our criminal justice system, stemming from centuries of colonisation, racism and discrimination in all parts of our country. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are still the most incarcerated people on earth, yet up until now the majority of the government’s actions have done next to nothing to address this imbalance in our justice system. Instead they have made it worse. This government continues to lock BILLS 542 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

Aboriginal Victorians up at a disproportionate rate. In 2016, when the government was elected, Aboriginal Victorians were 12 times more likely to be incarcerated than non-Indigenous Victorians— today they are 16 times more likely. And the unfair bail law reforms in 2017 and 2018 have meant that many low-level offenders—again many of our First Nations community, especially women— have been unnecessarily locked up while awaiting their trial dates. Too often instead of acknowledging the continued mistreatment of Aboriginal Victorians within our justice system and grappling with their own complicity in the over-representation of First Nations people within the system, governments have prioritised appearing tough on crime. So while the Greens welcome the long overdue decriminalisation of public drunkenness in this bill today, we do ask the government to keep striving to do better. We need sweeping reform of our criminal justice system. We need to raise the age of criminal responsibility—another embarrassingly archaic aspect of our justice system and another aspect that overwhelmingly targets Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. We need bail reform so that our bail law focuses on justice, not poverty or disadvantage, and we need to stop filling our prisons with low-level offenders who do not pose a threat to public safety. And we need more community mental health workers and drug and alcohol counsellors instead of police, more sobering-up facilities instead of prison cells so that addiction is treated as a health issue, not as a crime. We need more public housing so that everyone has a safe place to exit institutional facilities into and we stop reinforcing the cycle of incarceration. So while we are pleased to be supporting this bill today, we will continue to press this government and governments beyond for substantive reform to our justice system. We should be doing everything we can to reduce the disproportionate representation of First Nations people within the system instead of reinforcing it. I would like also to indicate that the Greens will not be supporting the Liberals’ amendments to this bill. Their amendments are just seeking to delay this bill. After 30 years we do not have one more day that we can wait, and I have not heard one clear or compelling argument for why this should be delayed any longer. It is long overdue and has cost too many lives. The last thing we need is more delay. We all know that this reform is sorely needed and is long overdue in Victoria. More consultation will only tell us what we already know: that public drunkenness is an offence that contributes to the over-incarceration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in Victoria and should be abolished immediately. Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (10:20): I rise to make my contribution on this morning’s bill, the Summary Offences Amendment (Decriminalisation of Public Drunkenness) Bill 2020. In doing so I would first like to acknowledge the very emotional and very real speech of Ms Watt. I would like to just acknowledge her deep experience with her family members and her loss in regard to Tanya Day and many others like Tanya Day. I would also like to just reflect for a moment on what alcohol is in our lives. You know, we see it on television. It is a readily available drug. We see and promote that it is to be enjoyed and it facilitates a good time at often family occasions or celebrations, and that is very true. Indeed on many occasions I have highlighted the great wineries in my area. But also, as I said, it is a very readily available drug and it does get people and grip onto them and take away their mind from time to time, their health without a doubt and their dignity, and there are so many families that have been touched by alcoholism. Indeed in most family circles somebody knows somebody even if not directly related. So there is always a balance in relation to when we do promote alcohol in our communities or the like. For some it is easy to abstain and for others not, but there still needs to be a balance. It would be remiss of me not to touch on this point in relation to my own region, and I would like to give some commentary about some statistics through the federally funded Gippsland Primary Health Network in one of their recent fact sheets and talk about Gippsland and some of the issues that drugs and alcoholism make in my space. The statistics are certainly alarming, and they indicate that in this region the presentations and situation is even higher than in the rest of Victoria, which I did find I guess disappointing. In Gippsland it was estimated that 45 per cent of adults consume greater than four BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 543 drinks a day on at least one occasion per month, which were likely to cause injury. This is higher than the rest of Victoria, at 42 per cent. Adults who consume alcohol at levels likely to cause long-term harm—greater than two drinks a day—are 63 per cent for Gippsland, compared to 59 per cent for the rest of Victoria. This is a concerning stat: alcohol-related ambulance attendances were 20 per 10 000 people in Gippsland and 35 for Victoria. Now, whilst that sounds like it should be a good stat, what we are seeing here is that potentially the resources are not available in regional Victoria, in Gippsland, like they are in other areas. Certainly when you think about first responders—police and ambulances— they certainly have often a very confronting task at hand to deal with such presentations, and they need to be adequately resourced. Alcohol-related hospital admissions are higher in Gippsland than in the rest of Victoria, and alcohol and drug service clients were 79 per 10 000 people in Gippsland compared to 50 for the rest of Victoria. I could go on, but I just wanted to paint that picture that sometimes we think it is just in the streets of Melbourne but we know it can be throughout all facets and in Gippsland as well. The findings from the public health network fact sheet speak to the fact that alcohol and other drug use and mental health issues certainly often occur together, and I am sure members in this house would know when they are dealing with their constituents that often mental health issues increasing the strain on families, family pressures and sometimes family violence—in fact regularly family violence—are overlaid with alcoholism. The need for rehabilitation and detox services is incredible. As I just said, this report also goes to the increase in family violence. So we need those supports for the front line. We need support in all of our state, but particularly for my patch, around the mental health side—support right across, whether it be in hospital or outreach services for the mental health that is associated with that. Just looking specifically at the bill now, the bill certainly repeals the Summary Offences Act 1966 for offences relating to public drunkenness and calls for a health response rather than a criminal one. That certainly is the ideal, and I certainly support the intent of this bill. The key factor that I find quite concerning though is that Victoria Police have come out raising their concerns in relation to this, and they often speak about putting the cart before the horse—the feeling that this bill will not be enacted until two years time—and that really in that space there needs to be a great deal of work and consultation with medical professionals, with the AMA and with Victoria Police, who really are the frontline dealers with this. Therefore there is a need for additional consultation and there is a need to support Mr O’Donohue and the Liberal-Nationals’ amendment, and that is my request for this house. Now, speaking with a member of VicPol in my region—and I will not drill down into who it is, but I think this is represented in other statements from the Police Association Victoria—they are quite concerned about how this will be policed in terms of the extra problems that intoxication can cause, such as fights, and that the police would charge the offender with something else. The question needs to be asked: are they at risk to others or themselves? Will the police actually end up being—I hate to say the word—babysitters that take people home? Now, often they do drive someone home, particularly in my region, if they know where they live or the like. If this bill is enacted without proper consultation, will they end up being babysitters on a Saturday night? Therefore one has to look at the removal of resources, if that happens, from other areas, and/or will that mean that in police lock-ups, in police cells, there need to be nurses or medical professionals to look after them? Now, we certainly do not want a continuation of damage to people, incarceration and the like—and death, tragically— but we also need this to be dealt with properly. I note Wayne Gatt from the police association has made comments with regard to that. What they also, I think, would like to see is the reintroduction of move-on laws. We see those in New South Wales, and they are working well through that legislation there. I am happy to leave my contribution there. I do believe that certainly this bill has absolute merit, but the government does need to consult with many health professionals, with the AMA, with VicPol, and BILLS 544 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021 work with health professionals, and in particular for my parochialism in my patch to diminish the impact of alcoholism and to reduce the terrible binge-drinking that we see in our young people, and its related illnesses. I would ask this house to support the amendment. Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (10:29): I rise to make a contribution on this bill, but before I do I just want to knowledge and pay my respects to the Aboriginal people of the Kulin nation and pay my respect to their elders past, present and emerging. As I said, I rise to make a contribution in support and commending this bill to the house, but without amendment. I would encourage those on the crossbench to not support the reasoned amendment proposed by Mr O’Donohue. I also want to acknowledge my colleague’s earlier contribution, Ms Watt, who really gave full effect to what it is like to walk in the shoes of an Indigenous person living in modern-day Australia. I am sure all of us in this chamber were deeply touched on some level by hearing the detail of what it is like to walk in their shoes, and I can only really begin to imagine it. I cannot stand here and say that I know what it is like and to feel that pain, because this pain is very real, and we all heard that today in Ms Watt’s voice. The connection was found by the Aboriginal deaths in custody inquiry so many years ago now that some of our public law and order responses contribute to the unnecessary death and incarceration of our Indigenous brothers and sisters. It needs to end, and it needs to end today. We cannot continue to see our Indigenous brothers and sisters being incarcerated for being drunk. We need to have a health response. Clearly the current criminal law response is not the right response. I want also to pay my respects to Tanya Day’s family for the tragic loss of their daughter in such devastating circumstances. It is a sad and tragic burden that too many Aboriginal families have had to carry for too long. So as I stand here today making this contribution, I am proud to be—and I have said this before—a member of the Andrews Labor government that is going to usher this bill into law and end what has been a very sad, sorry and tragic tale. We will see a proper health response in regard to this issue. I think Ms Bath commented in her earlier contribution that we know that alcoholism is just the tail end and is a symptom of what is really an underlying problem for people. We know that in regard to Australia’s treatment of our Indigenous community there is a shameful history of how we have treated our Indigenous people, including dispossession and the removal of children. It is a very sad, tragic and embarrassing tale. This bill is one more step on the road to fixing past wrongs as we move forward and to recognising that we must do better. In beginning my contribution in regard to this bill now I just want to touch on some of the points that have been made by Mr O’Donohue in proposing his reasoned amendment, and it is something that struck me as very concerning. I would suspect that our present approach to having public drunkenness laws has a long history and possibly even deep roots in racism, because we know—and I can say this with some confidence, and it has been talked about in other contributions already—the disproportionate impact that these laws have on our Indigenous brothers and sisters but also on our culturally and linguistically diverse communities. We know that these people are disproportionately impacted. Aboriginal people make up 0.8 per cent of the Victorian population, but they made up 6.5 per cent of all public drunkenness offences between 2014 and 2019. Aboriginal people are also significantly overrepresented more broadly in the criminal justice system. In 2018–19 Aboriginal adults were 11.3 times more likely than non-Aboriginal adults to be under justice supervision. Aboriginal children and young people aged 10 to 17 were 11.2 times more likely than non-Aboriginal children to be under justice supervision. There is a problem and we need to deal with it. We cannot afford to delay. Mr O’Donohue in his amendment talks about further consultation in regard to this bill. There has been extensive consultation. As Dr Ratnam said, we cannot afford to wait and we cannot afford to delay. Proposing further delays means that we risk more unnecessary deaths in custody of our Indigenous brothers and sisters or members of our CALD community, and we just cannot afford to do that any longer. It is a shame, an embarrassment that it has continued for so long. BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 545

As I said, there seems to be a conflation in the third part of the reasoned amendment around community safety concerns. If I reflect on the circumstances in which Tanya Day was arrested, she was not being violent, she was not causing anybody concern—she had fallen asleep on a train. She posed no threat to anybody, yet the response was for her to be detained and taken to a lock-up. And, sadly, due to the circumstances—we all know what they were—and the potential lack of supervision, she fell a number of times in that lock-up and suffered injuries that she died from, I think, five days or a few days later. So again I do not buy this concern around community safety. If someone is so drunk that they cannot stand on their feet, that they are slurring their words—I do not know how they can swing a punch at someone or be threatening or menacing if they are so drunk that they are incoherent or falling to the ground. Again, there is a conflation and a simplistic overview that because someone is drunk they may be violent. As Ms Bath talked about in her contribution, there are many people who suffer from the effects of alcoholism and they are not all violent, but we know the disproportionate impacts of the current legal framework mean that our Aboriginal brothers and sisters are incarcerated at a far greater rate than anybody else, as well as our CALD community. In regard to the issue Mr O’Donohue raised concerning what the police are going to do and how they are going to manage this, the expert reference group committee went into extensive detail about the model that is proposed. Again, the model is a health model that is being proposed, because we know this is a health issue. There will be a trial to look at how this health model will be implemented. All of the concerns that have been raised in the chamber today, I might add, have in fact been answered by the work of the ERG. I have heard a couple of times today it being raised that, I think it was, the Police Association Victoria do not support this model, but I can say the police do. The police are on record as saying that just recently in an interview on the ABC with Virginia Trioli. The direct question was asked and the police said, ‘Yes, we support this’. It is clear that the police service also recognises that this is something that needs to occur, and repealing this offence will help to reduce the over-representation of Aboriginal people, Sudanese and South Sudanese people and people experiencing homelessness in the justice system. So it is critically important that this happens. We cannot afford to wait any longer; to do so is too much of a risk. Just to address the issue of Mr O’Donohue’s sense that, you know, Victoria should adopt the New South Wales model and introduce move-on powers, again that is flawed logic, because a move-on power is not a health response. It is a criminal justice response. It does nothing to address the safety concerns actually around that person who may be drunk. Moving them on just means moving them on. It does not mean helping them into some kind of treatment or facility where they can be monitored if they cannot help themselves. Protective custody arrangements are not the greatest environment for this to happen, so the move-on powers or move-on laws in New South Wales do not really add anything to a public health response. They do nothing other than to just shift the problem to another area for someone else to manage or worry about, and that is not good enough. We should extend a health response and help to anybody who is suffering from the effects of alcoholism whether they are on the street and whether they come forward to get help. Now, in regard to the expert reference group’s advice, they concluded that the response to public drunkenness is unsafe and unnecessary with the current community standards, and again it was recommended to repeal the offences of public drunkenness in sections 13, 14 and 16 of the Summary Offences Act 1966. I will go into detail about the public health model, because again a couple of commenters today have said, ‘There’s no detail on what’s going to happen’. Well, that is not true. To replace the criminal justice approach to public drunkenness the ERG recommended a five-stage public health model that aims to ensure that the immediate assessment and service response is linked with a broader health and wellbeing approach focused on prevention. The five stages recommended by the ERG are a first response initial screening and triage, immediate transportation, place of safety and initial service period, assessment of longer term needs and provision of services, and broader prevention strategies. The ERG thoroughly considered the functioning of this proposed health model BILLS 546 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021 and made detailed recommendations on its design and implementation, including a 24-month implementation period for the reforms, trialling the public health model in at least three sites, strong oversight and evaluation and the importance of cultural safety. So, again, it is not accurate to stand here and say there is a lack of detail. I know those opposite will want to run that schtick, but it is just not right to say that. The ERG also refers to first responders and who they are. The government is currently considering trial sites, as I said earlier, and once the trial sites are confirmed, first responders under the health model will be determined. Aboriginal community controlled organisations may also have a role as first responders, and under the health model primary first responders will be health-based services, community services organisations such as outreach and alcohol and other drugs services. You would expect that in a health model. You would expect that. This has already been proposed and discussed and talked about. Under this effective health model Victoria Police should not be the primary first responders, but the ERG acknowledged that Victoria Police will still have some role in responding to public intoxication in limited situations—question answered. So again we have this conflation and simplistic approach to make this all about crime. It is ridiculous. We need to support our Indigenous brothers and sisters to not be incarcerated unnecessarily. We need to recognise that they need assistance to recover from any bouts of alcoholism or drunkenness. A health-based response will avoid the drawbacks of a protective custody approach to public intoxication. Now, I think Ms Watt touched on this earlier. The issue of public drunkenness has been contemplated by a number of bodies. The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody recommended that public drunkenness be decriminalised in its final report in 1991. In 1989 a Law Reform Commission of Victoria report on public drunkenness also recommended its decriminalisation. The Victorian Parliament’s Drug and Crime Prevention Committee also recommended decriminalisation of the public drunkenness offence in the final report of its inquiry into public drunkenness in June 2001. The deputy state coroner recommended that public drunkenness be decriminalised in her findings from the inquest into the death of Tanya Day. Submissions to the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System have also advocated for decriminalisation. And Aboriginal organisation leaders and communities have long advocated for the decriminalisation of public drunkenness. So I trust that I have laid out systematically the flaws in the reasoned amendment proposed by Mr O’Donohue and that I have outlined for the chamber and for those who might be watching at home today why this response is needed today and now and also why I urge members in this chamber to support this bill unamended. I commend this bill to the house unamended. Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (10:44): The law that this bill is amending is 54 years old, having been passed in 1966, quite a long time ago now, and in an era when alcohol abuse was not so clearly recognised as the health problem it is seen as today. The offence of public drunkenness is, I believe, a hangover from another era. Drunken behaviour in public, when it is bad behaviour, is capable of being approached in other ways. While the law, the subject of this bill, dates from 1966, the origins of the laws on public drunkenness can be traced back to the days of James I and the English Parliament of 1606. A bill was passed into law in that year outlawing and ‘oppressing the odious and loathsome sin of drunkenness’. Most colonial and later state parliaments in the 19th century adopted some form of penalising people who displayed signs of drunkenness in public places. Given that Victoria is one of the last two states that still lists this as an offence, a change in approach would appear overdue. The problem with the law, by all accounts, is that this law as it stands seems to be disproportionately enforced, usually at the discretion of law enforcement and unfortunately on some of the most vulnerable members of our community. As mentioned today by quite a few people in the chamber, a number of inquiries have established that Indigenous people are disproportionately affected by the BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 547 operation of this public drunkenness law. We all know of the sad case in 2017 of the young Indigenous woman, Tanya Day, who was arrested under these laws after being found asleep on a V/Line train. President, if it was you or me who was asleep on that train, I am sure that we would not have ended up in police custody. Her tragic death in custody as a result of this arrest was a catalyst for the law reform that had been recommended for so long and that we are debating here today. I regret that it took such a sad incident to arrive at this moment, and I do note that Victoria and Queensland are the last remaining states where public drunkenness remains a crime, which at least we have the chance to fix in Victoria today. At the same time as this unfortunate occurrence, at our racecourses every spring groups of drunken revellers enjoying themselves in the sunshine are not touched by this law at all. Indeed these events, which often feature much public drunkenness, are promoted as tourist attractions. In this day and age with people being affected by alcohol, even in public, if they are not making a nuisance of themselves, this behaviour can be seen as acceptable—but only when such people behave well and do not create nuisance or put others at risk of harm. Under this bill simply being drunk in public will no longer be a crime. Hopefully this change in the law will put an end to such a charge being used at discretion in a way to discriminate against certain people. But when people are behaving badly, either instigating violence or creating a nuisance when drunk in public, such behaviour should still result in police action. I am aware of some concerns that the government is repealing the law first and announcing its alternative approaches only later, and I note that the government has allowed for two years to implement changes and programs after this offence is repealed. In New South Wales when the crime of public drunkenness was removed from the statute book, so-called move-on laws were passed to give police backup power to keep public order. Such laws are not proposed for Victoria, and I look forward to hearing from the Police Association Victoria about how the changes in this bill impact on the work that they do in years to come and how further laws if proposed would only be used on people creating a public nuisance. However, overall, I believe the reform in this bill is worthy of support. It is a measure to improve fairness in the justice system and has been long recommended. Accordingly, I support the repeal of this law, and I am prepared to accept the government’s reassurances made in the other place and in this place that adequate alternative approaches to responding to problems arising from public drunkenness will be implemented across urban and regional areas of Victoria in the next few years. Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (10:49): I think I can stand here and say, at least in this Parliament and possibly in every parliament, I am the only person that has ever arrested a drunk and had that drunk die in custody. I know how this goes from A to Z, the whole lot. This is part of the baggage that I carry, but it is also an important message. This goes back 23 or 24 years ago now. We arrested this drunk; we thought he was drunk. We took him back to the station and we went off and did something else, and after a while it became apparent he was not drunk. There were about 4 or 5 hours we spent trying to get someone to come and help him—the crisis assessment and treatment team—and I think it was 4 in the morning before the team rolled up. They looked at him and said, ‘No, he’s drunk. Call an ambulance’. We called an ambulance, and he was bleeding into his brain. He was not drunk, he was dying. This was where I lost my faith in police command; it was the beginning of the end for me on that job. You go through to the Coroners Court. That guy’s family, I understand, believed we had beaten him to death. There was no reason for it, but anyway, they thought that. By the end of the Coroners Court it became clearly apparent that the only people that did everything right for this guy were the police. Now, fast-forwarding to here where we are, we are listening to a lot of these things. It is easy to say that this is only an Aboriginal problem, it is easy to say that they are over-represented—they may well be—but drunk laws are not put there to punish people. Drunk laws are there for the people you cannot redirect. They are for the people who are—well, they are not committing a crime—not able to take BILLS 548 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021 care of themselves. If you leave them where they are, they are going to either hurt themselves or someone else, or damage something. So I am kind of at a loss as to how this bill has come here in this form. To be frank, I do support decriminalising it because I think it is not a crime. But it is a mechanism for the police to deal with people that they cannot take home, they cannot move on to someone else, they cannot get their mates to deal with them, they cannot put them in a taxi. It is the only thing that is out there. This is part of the major problem I have with this bill—that we have a ‘trust me’ routine going at the end of it. ‘We will have trials, we will have this, we will have that’. The time for trials was, I think, after the royal commission in 1992. The time for trials has long passed. This bill should not have come here in its current form without a situation set up for dealing with this, or else all that is going to happen is people like the guy we had are going to die in the streets, not in the police cells with at least people trying to take care of them. I would say that most if not all of the police that are aware of this are going to be in two minds: (a) they are going to be so glad that they will not have to deal directly with drunks; and (b) they are going to worry what is going to happen to the drunks. I mean, who is going to transport them? It is easy to say they will be transported. Who is going to transport the ones that the ambulance deems are not sick enough to go to hospital but you cannot leave them there? Who is going to look after the violent ones? They do not just necessarily get violent when you pick them up. More than the odd one, once they wake up and they have got a hangover, become quite hard to deal with. Who is going to look after the homeless ones? At this stage all I am hearing is, ‘Oh, we’ll do this. We’ll have pilots. We will have all sorts of stuff’. It is incomprehensible to me that with a government, with all its resources and all its knowledge, which has had since 1992 to come up with a way—and not just this government, a range of governments— we are now dealing with this, and we have got a start date in 18 months. This trial should be starting now, and this bill should come up in 18 months so that we can rip the lid off the top of this and say we fixed it. Not that you can fix drunkenness and socio-economic issues; that is not what this is about. But I would say the police in the majority of cases do not want to be involved. They do not want to have to deal with them. But this is a very, very dangerous bill in its current form. I have lived through what happens when things go to you-know-what. It is not something anyone wants. It is actually very rare in the force, as I found out, thankfully. But no system is perfect. The police system is there and has been there to lock drunks up basically for their own protection. If they are violent, then there are other charges. If they destroy stuff, there are other charges. The fact that Aboriginals are over-represented is a problem, but getting rid of this is not going to fix that problem. All it is going to fix is incarceration rates. The issue still remains. Getting back to the Aboriginals, back in the 1990s there was a system when we were working that if you found someone that was of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander heritage you would ring a number, they would send someone who would come and pick that person up and they would go and look after them. It has been done. That was great. The more drunks we could get rid of, the better. They were in someone else’s care—they were in the care of their community. It is a worry that at the end of this bill—it will pass; I understand that—that we have now got 18 months to come up with an answer. I do not know what is going to happen if we do not come up with an answer. The government has the might of the government behind it, but even so, this is not easy. I believe South Australia have decriminalised drunkenness as such, but I think the police still look after them. So I will be supporting the reasoned amendment. I am not fond of reasoned amendments, but I have got to say that I think in this case it is probably the only logical thing to do. I have spoken to a representative from the Aboriginal communities and, to paraphrase, they are ecstatic that this bill is going through, but they have the same worry that I have—what is going to happen afterwards? It is going to be incumbent upon the government to spend a large amount of money BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 549 helping the Aboriginal communities set up for this, because all of a sudden they are going to be responsible for pretty well everything. They are looking after their own people, and in the end that is what the drunk laws were for. It is not about just trying to lock up people for the hell of it because they are drunk; it is about trying to take those that cannot look after themselves off the streets until they can look after themselves. It does not always go right—as I said, I can guarantee that—but until we have a system to replace it, it is the only thing we have got. At the moment, as we gaze into the wild blue yonder beyond this bill, we have got nothing. I think that is going to be a shame, and I really hope and trust that there will be a decent system. What we got read out to us before is not a system—it is ‘They will be transported’, ‘They will be looked after’. There is way more to it than that. We need a system, we need it quickly and the trial needs to be in and done well before November 2022. Mr ERDOGAN (Southern Metropolitan) (10:58): I am pleased to rise in support of the Summary Offences Amendment (Decriminalisation of Public Drunkenness) Bill 2020. It is an important reform and builds on our justice platform in this government. I was pleased to hear that speakers across the chamber understand that drunkenness should be decriminalised. It seems to be that a lot of the concerns have been about the remaining police powers or the public health response that we are proposing and how that will be implemented. So although I have a preprepared speech, I might just reflect on some of those comments made earlier. I notice that Mr O’Donohue raised a number of issues and asked a question around who the government consulted with in coming up with this proposal to decriminalise drunkenness. Well, the government has been quite clear on this. We had an expert reference group. The expert reference group had representatives from the Aboriginal community, the Brotherhood of St Laurence, Victoria Police and the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service also. So the experts in their field reflected on the unfair and disproportionate effect of these laws on Aboriginal Australians, and we heard about this in more detail from Ms Watt. It is difficult to stay composed when you hear the story of what happened to Tanya Day and her family and their experiences. I want to thank Ms Watt for sharing that and reminding us all about the effect of these laws and how unfairly they have prosecuted certain minorities and Aboriginal Australians. It is an important justice bill, and we did consult a range of experts. The issue of police powers was also raised. I think there was a suggestion that police will be left without tools to deal with difficult people or to de-escalate situations when there are drunk people. That is just factually incorrect. Police still have a range of powers to respond to disorder, violence and threats to public safety, and these are all preserved in a number of sections of the Summary Offences Act 1966. Under section 17(1)(d) behaving in a riotous, indecent, offensive or insulting manner is still an offence. There is disorderly conduct under section 17A, obstruction of roads and footpaths under section 4(e), property damage under section 9(1)(c) and trespass of a public place under section 9. And police can enforce offences under the Crimes Act 1958 such as intentionally causing serious injury under section 16, recklessly causing serious injury under section 17 and assault under section 31. So as we see, the police will still have quite a number of offences with which to charge people that are misbehaving in public or that are causing a disruption or jeopardising community safety. That is an important point to make for those that may be watching online. This is not about removing police powers, this is about decriminalising an offence. Public opinion is clear that drunkenness in itself should not be a crime. I also make the point that many other jurisdictions removed drunkenness as offences long ago, so it is about time. I am happy that the response we are taking is reflective of community attitudes to justice and that our response will be one based on health, of putting people’s health first. The critical first step as part of this is that we will design a holistic, health-based response to public drunkenness that will replace the current punitive approach. The health-based model will provide an effective service response to meet the immediate and long-term health needs of people who are intoxicated in public. The initial step in developing these models will be establishing trial locations based on demand and geographic and social characteristics in line with expert advice. Once the trial sites are determined, operational details of the health model will be confirmed. The services offered in these trial locations will be culturally BILLS 550 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021 responsive, tailored to local communities and based on the best available advice. They will prioritise the psychological and physical safety of both support providers and support recipients. A fellow concern was the fact that this public health response is not in place right now, but it is important to note that we have also given a time effectively. We are saying that the repeal of the drunkenness laws is not going to take place until November 2022, so there is considerable time to have these trials, have the system set up and have a tried and tested system in place by the time this comes into effect. November 2022 is around 20 months away, so it gives considerable time to implement such a system. Obviously we will be consulting with a range of stakeholders in this implementation process. Health experts, first responders—all these people will be consulted and will be part of that process. These reforms are an important first step, and they are too important to be delayed. I did note from the statistics that two of the eight municipalities where these offences were taking place the most are in my electorate of Southern Metropolitan. It is great that we have finally got a pathway forward in this long fight for justice. Passing this legislation also solidifies our commitment to reform and provides government entities and the community with the support and certainty they need to move towards a model that focuses on support and not punishment. For too long we have seen excuses for not going about doing this, and now it is time that we take action. Passing this legislation will be a landmark, an example for the rest of the nation. I do want also just note a few other points that were raised by previous speakers that I think do need to be responded to—that apparently more work can be done. But, as I touched on, I think the reform is long overdue and if we wait any longer then we will be kicking the can down the road. The need for these reforms was first outlined in the 1990s after the inquiries of that period into Aboriginal Australians in custody, and the issue was obviously reignited recently. So for 30 years steps have not been taken, and we cannot wait any longer. There are a number of other issues that I want to touch on, but I think I might leave my contribution there, except to say that this reform cannot wait any longer. Police powers are preserved in a number of acts which I have outlined, and I think the quicker we get this reform in place the better. Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (11:05): I rise to speak on the legislation today and in support of Mr O’Donohue’s reasoned amendment. I would like to start by acknowledging the tragic death of Tanya Day, a Yorta Yorta woman. Obviously I am from Shepparton, and although I did not know Ms Day, who was from Echuca, I do know members of the Day family. Of course any death in custody is a tragedy, and Tanya’s death has been well documented. What a tragedy that was. However, in speaking to this bill, I actually have spoken to a number of police officers who actually sought me out to speak to me about it because they are very concerned that this tool is being removed without the preventative tools being put in place in the first place. As other people have outlined in this place, other states that have done away with the crime of public drunkenness have actually put in place other tools that the police can use. The police have told me that they do not arrest anyone just for being drunk in a public place. There are lots of people who are drunk in a public place. I am sure if most members of this Parliament were to look back at their younger days, and their student days particularly, they would remember a time when they have been drunk in a public place, but you are not necessarily arrested just for that. There are many jovial drunks that are not arrested. There are many drunks that are with their mates, who are controlling them, and the police do not bother arresting them. What the police do use the drunk in a public place offence for is to defuse situations that they believe will get worse. This could be that there is a drunk that is agitated and on the street, and they know, if that person is not arrested and moved on, the situation will dissolve into violence, property damage, assaults or family violence situations. They can take them back to the police station and lock them up for 4 hours, and it prevents further offences being committed. They also use it to protect somebody when the person being drunk in a public place could also lead to more problems for the individual. Clearly, if they are drunk and in the gutter and the police try to move them on and they will not move BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 551 on, they are placing themselves in danger of being run over. If the police do move them on and they are staggering across the road, they could end up being hit and killed on the road, and that would be a tragedy too because it would not only destroy the individual’s life, it would also destroy the life of the person who was the unfortunate driver who hit that individual. So the police use this in a responsible manner. One former policeman who I spoke to also said that they used to use this for family violence. They would often attend a property where there was a family violence situation going on, and they would probably arrest the guy in his lounge room but they would say he was drunk on the footpath in order to get him out of the house. That actually changed when interim intervention orders were brought in in I think around 2008. I felt very proud when the police officer actually said that, because that was actually a policy that Kim Wells and I wrote and took to the 2006 election. It formed part of my women’s affairs policy in 2006. Although we did not win that election, the then government, the Bracks government at the time, picked that policy up out of my policy and implemented it. So I felt very proud that they are no longer having to invent situations to move on perpetrators of family violence and that they can now move them on through the interim intervention orders provisions. I also spoke to the police in Shepparton about what happens when they do pick up members of our Aboriginal community, because obviously 10 per cent of our community is Aboriginal. We have the largest population of Aboriginal people outside of metropolitan Melbourne. And they actually said to me that they are not in custody for very long. An Aboriginal person who is picked up and arrested for public drunkenness is taken back to the station. They are put in an individual cell, but the police officers immediately call an Aboriginal community justice panel member. As soon as a member from that panel attends the police station, the person is released into their custody and the CJP member will take them home and make sure—or they should make sure—that they stay at home. But unfortunately there are very rare times when someone does end up back on the street. They are taken home and they do not stay home, or they convince the CJP member to drop them off at a mate’s place or to drop them off at the fish and chip shop to get something to eat or something. But if they then end up back on the street and they are arrested a second time because they are causing problems, then that arrest will lead to them being locked up for 4 hours. But that is very rare, and most times members of our Aboriginal community are released very quickly into the care of a community justice panel member and returned to their homes rather than being kept in custody. As I said, the offence of public drunkenness is a tool that the police use, but they need other things put in place if this is to be removed. Ms Terpstra outlined things such as picking people up and transporting them somewhere else. Well, you cannot force somebody to be transported somewhere else unless you arrest them. So until this government actually do more work on the prevention measures so that people do not need to be arrested—things that put in place the tools for police officers to be able to deal with someone who is drunk in a public place or other programs that prevent people actually getting to be intoxicated in public places—I think that we should support Mr O’Donohue’s reasoned amendment to do further consultation and to ensure that those programs are in place before we remove the offence of public drunkenness. As I said, in other states where they have removed this they do have other measures that can be used to protect the individual who is drunk and also to protect the community as well. I commend the reasoned amendment to the house. Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (11:13): I rise today to speak on the Summary Offences Amendment (Decriminalisation of Public Drunkenness) Bill 2020. Before I begin, I would like to also acknowledge the contribution made by Ms Watt. It was personal, lived experience in the debate, and that is very important in this bill. I would also like to acknowledge the contribution made by Mr Bourman from his experiences as a police officer as well, just showing that being a police officer is a very tough job indeed. And I begin by saying that, as this is being broadcast, my speech will contain references to a deceased person, which may cause distress to Indigenous people. This bill before us comes as a result of a 30-year-old royal commission recommendation and the Tanya Day report formulated over the tragic death of an Indigenous Victorian woman. Tanya Day was BILLS 552 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021 arrested for being drunk on public transport, and what happened to Ms Day should never happen again. I send my thoughts to her family, who will grieve the loss of their loved one indefinitely. I have lived in remote Indigenous communities in my time as a schoolteacher in Western Australia, and I know what family means to each and every Indigenous person, something which I shall talk about later. The government has the right intention with this bill in decriminalising public drunkenness. However, it disappoints me to say that this bill does not strike the balance of creating a health issue whilst maintaining public safety. In reviewing this bill I considered the many, many situations I was often faced with as a police officer and how reducing the ability for police to respond to the safety and welfare of a drunk person without any alternative will impact the safety of not only that person but also those around them. As such, I cannot support the bill in its current form. This bill goes to the heart of an issue that should have been dealt with in 1991—or 1979, when New South Wales decriminalised public drunkenness—but here we are in 2021 voting on a bill to decriminalise public drunkenness without actually knowing how the government plans to deal with this as a public health issue in practice. The 2006 Victorian inquiry into strategies to reduce the harmful effects of alcohol stated that, and I quote:

… public drunkenness in Victoria should be decriminalised subject to sufficient safeguards being put in place. And it said that a necessary requirement of such a law would be:

… adequate numbers of sobering up centres and associated services. I have not heard any statement from the government on how many sobering-up centres will be needed, where they will be, what they will look like and who will be the responsible organisation taking care of intoxicated persons. Further, the expert reference group, the ERG, from the Day report said that the government should repeal the offence of public drunkenness, but only section 13. So why are sections 14 to 16 being repealed as well? Hopefully that will be raised in the committee process. Like I have said, we agree that public drunkenness should be decriminalised and should be treated as a health issue, but let us not leave it there. How about we look at improving the lifestyles and health of all Indigenous persons? In fact in my maiden speech I spoke of my experiences as a schoolteacher and my firsthand observations of the impact and frequency of abuse suffered by children as well as domestic abuse suffered by many families. For those of you in this place who are not aware, this week is Ochre Ribbon Week—I tried to get an ochre ribbon but I could not locate one—which aims to raise awareness of the impacts of family violence in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. My time in the Central Desert of Western Australia in the Ngaanyatjarra lands—and Hansard, you might have to contact me—has made me become a strong advocate for improved living standards for all Indigenous peoples, and that means those in rural, regional and remote areas across the country. Protesting Indigenous issues should not be confined to metropolitan areas. If we are serious about improving the health, education and lifestyles of Indigenous peoples, then we need to look beyond Bourke Street and start looking further afield, because if you think conditions are bad here for Indigenous people, you ain’t seen nothin’. By all means march on the streets of Melbourne and all the capital cities, but do not stop there—keep marching beyond the back of Bourke. I believe that I am the only person in this place and perhaps the other place who has actually lived within a remote Indigenous community. In my 2½ years of living there, and many times as the only whitefella living in the community, well, you learn a thing or two about Indigenous issues, and although my time there was some time ago, I am disappointed to read and hear that conditions have not improved much. The Close the Gap campaign was launched in 2007, and disappointingly only two of the existing key four priority areas for reform seem to be on target. On this, I have read the Worlds Apart policy paper, written in January by Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, which I encourage you all to read, if you have not already. She stated that despite the billions of dollars being spent on Indigenous communities there has been very little improvement, and even in some remote communities the situation has regressed. BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 553

Ms Price went on to say that conditions in some of these towns are often comparable to Third World countries, and having lived there and seen images of Third World countries, I can totally agree with that sentiment. Having this in our country, of a seemingly prosperous nature, should be ringing alarm bells everywhere. The problem is that those alarm bells are going off in such far off remote places that nobody hears them, unlike the alarm bells that go off in metropolitan Melbourne when tragedy strikes. Do not let the loud voices of protests in the cities drown out the voices of Indigenous communities in rural, regional and remote areas. As Ms Price summed up in her report:

Were such conditions to exist in one of our major cities it would be a national crisis. And do not give me the answer of it being a federal issue. This is an issue for all Australians, and as leaders we need to get creative in our solutions to these issues. I do not have the answers, but I will keep beating the drum for Indigenous communities that you do not see or those that you do not hear simply because of their geographical location. Anyway, back to the bill that we have before us. Put simply, this bill takes away something without putting anything in its place to address the issue. With this bill there is so much that we do not know. We do not know how drunks will get to designated places of safety. We do not know where those places of safety will be, including the trial sites. We do not know to what extent police will be involved, including when situations escalate. We do not know what the plans are on occasions of surge capacity like New Year’s Eve. We do not know what happens when family or friends do not pick up loved ones from places of safety after being contacted, and we do not know how banning notices will be replaced, if at all—and much more. This bill removes a vital police power and replaces it with no alternative. By all means, decriminalise public drunkenness. In fact do not wait for another 20-odd months, do it tomorrow. Strike it out, but replace it with a power to detain and convey to a location or facility that can best deal with a person depending on their demeanour. This could be a home, it could be a friend’s place, a hospital or any other health facility or a police station should all else fail. There needs to be a process in place that ensures the safety of an intoxicated person. I know that the 20-odd months time frame allows for these processes to be drawn out, but if that is the case, then why not simply legislate for a trial in the meantime so we get it right before launching the whole bill. It seems the process is a little bit backwards in design. Looking through the Summary Offences Act 1966, this bill takes away the opportunity for police to detain people for drunk and disorderly conduct, section 15, and those who behave in a riotous or disorderly manner in a public place while drunk, section 16. This is replaced with no other power to arrest or detain. Following the passage of this bill the closest thing police will have in place of the two aforementioned offences is a move-on notice if someone is likely to breach the peace or is a risk to public safety. This does not give them a power to arrest. In fact if a drunk offender comes back to the place you have moved them on from, you can only give them a fine of 5 penalty units. If you think this will be a deterrent to the many drunk people out on a Saturday night, you need to walk a night in the shoes of a police officer. This bill is unfortunately premised on the fact, and assumes, that every person who is drunk is willing to go home or to wherever they are asked to—a hospital, home to bed or even a place of safety. This is simply not the case regardless of if the person assisting them wears a uniform or not. It seems the solution is clear: repeal section 13 but make a detention power for situations where police need to take that person to a place until they are safe to be released. Police also need this detention power to move the person until a family member, friend or carer signs a waiver or similar and they are handed over. This ensures a drunk person is safe but also that our police can get back on the beat. I have experience as a Victoria Police member not that long ago. I believe Ms Terpstra in her speech— I stand to be corrected here, but I believe she spoke about people that are so drunk they are stumbling around and slurring their words and asked, ‘How can they throw a punch?’. Well, they can. I have been on the end of many punches thrown by many drunk people. It does happen. I am happy to talk BILLS 554 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021 to Ms Terpstra, perhaps later on, and explain to her my experiences as a police officer dealing with intoxicated persons. Not all of them are loving and caring. But I do agree that drunkenness should be treated as a health complaint and not a criminal one. Being drunk should not attract a fine or a conviction; it should be decriminalised. In fact that is what most of the police currently do with drunk people. We seek to have them taken or conveyed anywhere but the police station. Conveying and having a drunk person in the cells is and always has been a last resort for police. Like I said, drunk people are not always compliant. In fact the majority are non-compliant, and their state of drunkenness is often exacerbated by mental health and drug issues. This bill seems to allow for the actions to deal with compliant drunk persons, but what about the non- compliant ones? I am not too sure how many of you in this place have had to deal with a drunk person in the early hours of the morning and to convince them to do something that they do not want to do— for instance, leave a pub—but it is extremely difficult. Police are the first call to attend a drunk causing a disturbance, and I can guarantee this will still occur despite the triage system proposed in the bill as there will be simply not enough alternative transport options or people willing and able to assist in managing a belligerent drunk person. I can also guarantee that police will be called out on many occasions to those places where drunks are conveyed to under this bill as many drunk people do not simply go to sleep and comply with the rules and regulations of where they are staying. In the end the police will be called to assist as it is their duty to protect the community and this involves protecting the community from violent and aggressive drunks. On this, police, or any other person or organisation for that matter, will need to be extremely vigilant and mindful of putting an intoxicated person back into the home because of the possibility of the escalation of domestic violence. Also, what happens during major events, especially New Year’s Eve, if this bill should pass? I can tell you from my experience that in Geelong, as an example, on New Year’s Eve it is not unusual to have all the cells full of intoxicated persons, and we are talking 50 to 60-odd coming through the books. What happens to all of these people? Hospitals will not be able to take them and other facilities will not. It then becomes a duty of care issue, and given the risk-adverse nature of policing nowadays, I can see some situations where a drunk person left to their own devices may come to grief in a serious way. Also, what about single-person stations and smaller rural police stations having drunk person complaints? It is hard enough to get an ambulance out to these areas for an emergency, let alone to take care of a drunk. In regard to sobering-up centres, I note that in other states that have decriminalised public drunkenness sobering-up centres existed before legislation was put in place. It has become quite evident that in most states sobering-up centres have become a refuge for the homeless, which is a good thing at times. The reason I raise this here is that there is no outlined threshold to displace someone from a sobering- up centre but what we will find, as other states including Western Australia have, is that beds are quickly taken up by those who have nowhere else to go. This becomes an issue when we need surge capacity. On one day over summer the Surf Coast tragically experienced three or four near drownings and occupied all of our ambulance services and hospitals in that area. It has been reported to me that our closest ambulance was being sent there from North Melbourne. I know as a former cop that there are quiet times and there are busy times, but we need to prepare for the busy times appropriately for the safety of the community. In relation to surge capacity, news just came out this week that almost half the acute mental health patients in our state spend 8 hours or more waiting for a hospital bed. Considering that many regularly intoxicated people have underlying mental health issues, how is the government prepared to deal with a large number of people requiring hospital beds for intoxication and those with acute mental health issues who our hospitals cannot deal with right now? Of concern with regard to transport, the expert reference group provided a table of the transport options under the health model in the Day report. None of these bodies except police deal with high-risk individuals or those who do not consent to being transported. Speaking from experience, this is a large BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 555 proportion of intoxicated people, like I have said. The police have extensive training in dealing with intoxicated persons, especially as many have underlying mental health issues, like I just said, and drug dependence issues. Are we expecting volunteers or untrained persons at sobering-up centres to safely manage these people? I hope not. Taxis and Ubers—I am sorry, Rod, for mentioning that name—already reject drunk people from getting in their taxis. If we are recruiting them to take intoxicated persons and at-risk passengers, are we asking them to assume responsibility for that person, and are they then liable for negligence should that person suffer an injury or worse? For those who may think that this is a bit of a cop-out, Crown Casino submitted the following in their submission to the 2006 Victorian inquiry. They said that they did not support decriminalising public drunkenness because:

In Crown’s experience, where a person is intoxicated and unaccompanied by others, it has few alternatives open to it for the removal of drunken patrons, other than calling for police assistance … Members of the police force who are on the front line are frequently the only resource occupiers of licensed premises can call upon at any time. Any licensee who deals with intoxicated persons is constantly juggling between providing a duty of care to that person and maintaining the safety of their patrons. Who else are they going to call with drunks entering their premises? Ghostbusters perhaps. I have spoken previously about banning notices. Under section 148B of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 a banning notice can be made for up to 72 hours where police have reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is committing or has committed a specific offence in the designated area. I make the point that without having public drunkenness, drunk and disorderly in a public place or behaving in a riotous manner in a public place designated as offences, banning notices for these offences will not be able to be issued. When I was a police officer, many times issuing a banning notice, in particular on a weekend, to stop someone from coming back to certain licensed premises or even the CBD the following night was an incredibly effective way of allowing the police to maintain the power to reduce not only further offences but also the risks to members of the public when that drunk person did not comply. So my question is: what happens with banning notices as a result of this bill? It is a good thing to look at other states when considering this bill and how it may play out in practice. New South Wales decriminalised public drunkenness in 1979 but replaced this with move-on laws whereby police members can direct someone to leave a public place and not return for a maximum of 6 hours due to being intoxicated and disorderly. If they return, it is an offence. South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory decriminalised public drunkenness but they can detain a person when there is a welfare concern for that person. Western Australia decriminalised public drunkenness in 2004 but they can detain a person without being charged with an offence if they appear intoxicated in public without there needing to be a concern for the person’s welfare. Interestingly, in 2011 Western Australia started recriminalising public drunkenness or giving police additional powers to deal with offences by drunk persons. Greg Swensen from the University of Western Australia stated, and I quote:

The tranche of ‘law and order’ reforms adopted since mid 2004 seem to involve the re-criminalisation of the management of public intoxication in WA, which has been justified as necessary to increase public safety, particularly in the Northbridge night time entertainment precinct by targeting anti-social behaviour, attributable to public intoxication. As I and my staff always do, we have consulted a number of people and listened to the feedback and the sentiment from the Australian Nursing & Midwifery Federation and the Salvation Army, to name a few who support this bill. My interest lies with the police and ambulance unions, who have major concerns about aspects of this legislation and who will literally be our front line for any cases of public drunkenness. The intent to decriminalise is not in question. The Police Association Victoria has made it very clear to the government that it supports decriminalising public drunkenness but states that this bill does not support police in keeping the community safe. BILLS 556 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

In summary, Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party supports decriminalising public drunkenness; it needs to be treated as a health issue. However, this bill goes beyond its intention and will limit the ability for the community to be protected. Removing the offences in sections 14, 15 and 16, which pose threats to the safety of others, is a dangerous move without anything, including detaining powers, to replace them with. Without any information about how this law will work in practice, we cannot support the bill in its current form. Mr TARLAMIS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (11:31): It is with pleasure that I rise to make a contribution in support of the Summary Offences Amendment (Decriminalisation of Public Drunkenness) Bill 2020. I acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we meet today and pay my respects to their elders, past, present and emerging. In particular I acknowledge any elders and members who may be watching or listening to this broadcast today. The bill will make amendments to the Summary Offences Act 1966, repealing the public drunkenness offences in sections 13, 14 and 16 and the associated powers of arrest in section 15, and make consequential amendments to the Bail Act 1977 and the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998. Once the bill takes effect in November 2022, public drunkenness offences will no longer exist, which means that people can no longer be arrested and held in a police cell solely for being drunk in public. This is an important bill that will decriminalise public drunkenness and allow for a health-based response designed to save lives and better protect vulnerable people, and it is a long-overdue reform. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge my friend and colleague Ms Watt for her powerful contribution earlier today and thank her for sharing her personal experiences, which further highlight and reinforce the significance and importance of the reforms which we are dealing with in this bill here today. I also want to acknowledge and remember the very proud and much loved mother and grandmother, Yorta Yorta woman Tanya Day, whose tragic and preventable death in police custody in Castlemaine after being removed from a train for being drunk in public in December 2017 reignited the conversation around public drunkenness laws. I want to also acknowledge and pay tribute to her family, because without their courage, determination and pursuit of justice we might not be here today debating this bill. Their passionate advocacy for reform and better support services to prevent other families from having to experience the pain they had to endure, together with the advocacy of so many other members of Victoria’s Aboriginal community, needs to be acknowledged and commended, particularly given all they have endured and all they have contributed to the development of this long- overdue reform. Whilst I am happy to see the reform before us today, my happiness is tempered by the fact that it has taken us so long to make it this far—that is, considering that everybody has known for so long that these laws continue to discriminate against vulnerable people in our community time and time again. As well as our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, people experiencing homelessness, people from diverse cultural backgrounds and people living with trauma and mental health issues are over-represented in the statistics and have been for a long time. It has been well proven time and time again that the criminalisation of substance use does not curb demand and does not reduce the associated health harms. Rather it deters people from seeking out the very assistance that they need. It makes them feel unsafe when they are most vulnerable and in most need of support. We also know that these laws have a disproportionate impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody recommended that this law be changed 30 years ago. A subsequent Victorian drugs and crime prevention parliamentary committee inquiry into public drunkenness also recommended that the offence be removed back in 2001, yet nothing changed, and we all need to collectively accept some responsibility for that. The same recommendation was made in a recent coronial inquest into the tragic and avoidable death of Tanya Day, and on 22 August 2019 the Andrews Labor government committed to repealing the offence of public drunkenness and replacing it with a health-based response, because enough is BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 557 enough. We owe it to all those who have died in custody and their families. We owe it to all those who have been impacted in some way by these discriminatory laws to act now. We cannot wait any longer. We should not stand by for a moment longer when we know what is going on is wrong. It has been said in this house today and in the other chamber in previous weeks and we have heard many statements like, ‘Now is not the time’, ‘This bill has merits’, ‘This reform has merit’, ‘We support the intent’, ‘We are putting the cart before the horse’, ‘This is virtue signalling’ and ‘More needs to be done’. I say people have waited long enough, lives have been lost. How many more people need to suffer? This bill is here before us right now, it is ready to go, and it is a crucial first step. We know that it is not enough on its own. That is why we have established a time frame within which we are going to continue significant stakeholder engagement, communication and consultation to develop a well-designed health response to public drunkenness. This implementation period for the reform gives us time to consider, trial, test and ultimately implement a fully developed, well-designed, holistic public health response that promotes safe, culturally appropriate pathways for treatment and prevention which will be in operation when the bill comes into effect in November 2022. November 2022 is when the bill comes into effect, not when this bill passes. You would think from the contributions that people have made that this bill will come into effect when the bill passes. There is a full consultation process to develop all these issues well before the bill comes into effect. It is not like Victoria Police will have powers taken away from them and this will have issues straightaway, which is what is being suggested in the contributions that are being made today. That is not the case. Yet again it is an attempt at misleading people as to what is actually happening here today. The health-based response will be based on expert advice, real-world trials and the input from Aboriginal communities and first responders. It is important to remember that the government appointed an expert reference group to provide advice to ensure that we get this reform right. They consulted widely with Aboriginal communities, Victoria Police, health services and alcohol and other drug experts, and I pay tribute to the reference group members for the vital role they have played in designing a new system that maintains community safety and supports the health and wellbeing of intoxicated people. Their report was released on 28 November 2020 providing detailed recommendations about implementing a health-based response, delivering more social services and prevention strategies, improving first response and ensuring people are transported to a safe place. To begin work on this important reform, the government have provided $16 million in the 2020–21 Victorian budget to kickstart work on safer pathways to help people who are drunk on our streets. The government will continue to consult to make sure that the new model is effective in maintaining community safety and supporting the health and safety of people who are intoxicated in public. This will of course include consultation with first responders, including police and ambulance services, health services, licensed premises and local councils. Our health model will also be informed by input from Aboriginal stakeholders and the culturally and linguistically diverse communities to ensure that the service response is culturally safe and meets the needs of our community. This reform is too important to delay. By setting a clear date by which the new public health response must be in place, we are finally establishing a pathway to reform that so many have waited decades to see. Passing the legislation now is essential to solidify our commitment to reform and provide government entities and the community with the certainty they need to move towards the alternative model. The reform will bring Victoria in line with all other states and territories across Australia except Queensland. The Northern Territory decriminalised public drunkenness in 1974, followed by New South Wales in 1979, the ACT in 1983, Western Australia in 1990, Tasmania in 2004 and South Australia in 2016. The Northern Territory has had protective custody and intoxication laws in place since 1978. Victoria Police will still have the power to arrest and charge people for committing crimes while drunk, and BILLS 558 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021 public safety will not be compromised. My colleague Mr Erdogan in his contribution earlier outlined in some detail these powers that Victoria Police will still have. Statements earlier by the opposition that Victoria Police do not support this were again selectively quoted to try to muddy the waters. The Chief Commissioner of Police, Shane Patton, confirmed recently on ABC radio that they are supportive of the approach and the reform. In concluding my contribution I would like to acknowledge the amazing work of the former Attorney- General in the other place, my good friend and the member for Altona, Jill Hennessy, for ensuring that this very important bill and reform reached the Parliament, as well as my good friend in this place and the current Attorney-General, Jac Symes, who is as committed and passionate about this important and overdue reform. Both have done an amazing job in developing the legislation, working through community consultations and the work of the expert reference group to have this bill before us today. Here we are some 30 years after this house voted down legislation to decriminalise public drunkenness. The opposition is faced with a choice: they can proceed with their reasoned amendment today and maintain an outdated, discriminatory law even though they claim to support the removal of it—their reasoned amendment talks about all the things that we have outlined will happen in the process of consultation that is going to occur well and truly before the impacts of the bill become effective in November 2022—or they can support our bill here before us today and say, ‘Enough is enough’. They can take this important first step of voting to support this bill, work with us and come together to let us get this important reform done, a long overdue reform that should have been done a long time ago. I commend the bill to the house, and I wish it a speedy passage. Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (11:42): In commencing my speech on this bill I do want to acknowledge, as other speakers have done, that it is focused on public policy issues with a very long history in Victoria. I would also like to thank Ms Watt for her very touching contribution and acknowledgement of the tragic death of Tanya Day. I also want to recognise and thank the current government for doing the hard work to try to formulate the kind of policy response that has eluded many governments before them. That clearly has not been an easy thing to do, and they do deserve credit for confronting that largely thankless task. Likewise, I thank the expert reference group (ERG) for consulting with many affected groups and individuals, particularly from Indigenous and CALD backgrounds, in the course of compiling their Seeing the Clear Light of Day report. That report is informative in many ways and not least for any politician seeking to understand and analyse the background to the development of this bill, including the Tanya Day case. Indeed, in turning to the bill, let me repeat Mr Grimley’s earlier statement that Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party supports the basic intent of this legislation to shift to a health-based response to public drunkenness. Like other members, though, we also have many serious concerns and questions in relation to its practical implementation. We share the view expressed by Mr O’Donohue that there are serious issues for us with repealing laws but not having certainty about what arrangements will replace them. We are therefore uncomfortable, unfortunately, about voting for this bill. I will also air some of our specific concerns and questions about implementation shortly. We do think that the overall approach in this bill conforms with what the majority of expert stakeholders and past inquiries are telling the government in relation to the issues that it covers. Obviously some of those issues are difficult and challenging, especially when one reflects on cases that have ended in tragedy. Therefore we believe the motivation behind this bill is right, the spirit is right and the end goal is right. Another group of people that I would like to thank are the stakeholders and constituents with whom I have discussed the bill, many of them from the health and emergency services sector, particularly in Northern Victoria. It is on their behalf primarily that I do now want to raise some of those implementation issues which I flagged earlier. Those stakeholders, constituents and I have a very long list of questions. I do not plan to recite them here, but I do think it is extremely important to air some of these queries to convey what I have been hearing from my electorate. I would also like to refer to BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 559

Ms Terpstra’s speech. She stated that she disagreed with a move-on law, saying it does not provide a health response, and yet the ERG report recommends there is a preference to take someone home who is drunk, and I quote:

The Victorian Government ensures intoxicated people who pose a safety risk to themselves and/or others should, in general, be transported to one of three safe place locations to sober up, including to: a) their home or other private residence where it is determined that the individual is at low-risk and can be adequately and safely cared for by family or friends That does not mean that that is always a health response. As most of you will know, my husband is a police officer and he has had to attend many incidents where a report has been made of somebody being drunk. My husband has been glassed in the face, spat on, kicked at, threatened. Not many people will continue to take that behaviour. Nobody really wants to ever take on that role, to have to respond to violent behaviour, and it does concern me that some of our health sector will now have to bear the brunt of that behaviour. I am certainly not saying by any means that everybody who is intoxicated is violent or behaves badly. Can I just go back a moment so I can raise some of the questions that have been raised with me. Given the government is saying it will have to phase in and trial the changes in the bill over the next 21 months, would that transition potentially be halted at any point if things clearly were not working as well as expected? And if so, what would the likely threshold for that course of action be? That is a question in my conversations with people about the bill that has arisen often. I do not think anyone should regard that reaction as surprising in circumstances where the passage of the relevant legislation precedes the dissemination of a lot of information and detail about how it is going to practically operate. Another recurring question has been: isn’t there a very significant likelihood that the numbers of drunk individuals in police cells will be lowered but that there will be an increase in their presence in hospital waiting rooms and emergency departments instead? Following on from that, whose responsibility will it become to manage unruly drunken people in these settings? Will police need to be called by the hospitals to attend and manage people in waiting rooms, or will the hospital have to think about employing more security guards? In turn, what will their presence potentially mean for all those people at the hospital, including other patients who are waiting for treatment, potentially now at risk from someone unable to adequately control their own behaviour? There are in fact countless questions in this area in the absence of full detail about how these critical issues are going to be overcome. As Mr Grimley and I often say in this place, the ever-increasing risk and harm to hospital staff and other frontline workers in Victoria and many other parts of Australia should never be downplayed or overlooked, and it must occupy a crucial part of the consideration of this bill also. I would refer members to the review released this very week in New South Wales by the state’s former health and police minister Peter Anderson. That review catalogues the shocking proliferation of the dangers and threats faced from angry, unruly patients, including alcohol-affected patients; looks at the urgent need to better protect and safeguard the welfare of hospital staff, visitors and other patients; and regards these problems as being so serious that it even recommends hospital staff now be given access to pepper spray to de-escalate violent and aggressive confrontations. Now, I am not saying I condone that use of force, but it certainly is a consideration. On a related front, it would also be nice to know how the changes in this bill before us today will work in a practical sense, when we already have shortages of paramedics to respond to call-outs—and I have raised that issue many times in this place. These shortages are something I have often spoken about, as many of you will know, but it is an area that still has not been suitably acknowledged. If the approach to public drunkenness is to become a health-based one across the state, then what does it mean for the general availability of those paramedics for all Victorians? Without significantly boosted staff numbers, won’t their relative availability now decrease even further? BILLS 560 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

If public drunkenness is to be met with a health-based response, then I would say that it does put a significant obligation back onto the government to enhance the provision of health infrastructure more generally, especially in rural and regional areas, where it is often in need of very substantial improvement. Hospitals in particular are under severe strain as it is, in many parts of my electorate of Northern Victoria. Typically they already do not have enough beds, resources and/or space, without more pressure being placed upon them from what may be a new group of potential patients. More broadly, health-based responses do typically need to be holistic and comprehensive rather than just dealing with one issue in isolation. I would therefore hope that the government is giving very serious thought alongside the introduction of this legislation to establishing more drug and alcohol rehabilitation facilities. I do appreciate that there is now considerable movement occurring on the establishment of such a facility in Wangaratta, but there are many other places just in my electorate alone—Mildura being a very prominent example—which require this kind of local health infrastructure too. Broadly allied to all of that, the ERG report canvasses the prospect of introducing three trial sites for responses to public drunkenness in the very widely separated locations of Mildura, Dandenong and the Melbourne CBD. It is not immediately clear to me whether the government intends to pursue this idea or not. However, it still obviously raises the question: if there are people who are drunk in a public place who cannot or should not be taken home or to a hospital and there is no other obvious local alternative to which they should be taken, will they need to be transported potentially hundreds of kilometres away to one of these sites? Or where else might they go, and whose responsibility will it now be exactly in these and many other circumstances to have to transport them at all? We know that this legislation is based in the first instance upon addressing the risks that arise when people who are drunk are taken into police custody. However, it is vitally important that a balance needs to be struck here too, and I am unable to support the legislation in the absence of having certainty that alternative forms of very serious danger are not created. If full decriminalisation does occur, then extremely careful thought and vigilance also must be devoted to how to minimise the possibility that people who are drunk in a public place might also be at risk of harm, or causing harm, in a multitude of other ways. I say that particularly in the sense that the responsibilities and duty of care of every police officer in this state regarding these incidents are now in effect being legislated away. Repeatedly people have been saying to me that one of the inevitable consequences of the way the bill is currently written will be that police will essentially be encouraged to avoid interactions with people who are drunk in public. Naturally that will leave a very problematic vacuum in a number of cases. It is not hard to worry that new forms of harm—including the inability to adequately protect a drunk person from endangering themselves, let alone others—might potentially be created. For now, I will leave my list of practical concerns and questions there. I may ask some or all of those questions at the committee stage. But I also put them on the record now in the hope that, either way, the Attorney-General and her staff hear them. Naturally I realise that most will not come as new questions to them, and I recognise that other MPs may have similar questions as well. To return to where I began, I do want to reaffirm my thanks to Ms Symes and her predecessor, Ms Hennessy, and a number of other ministers, members and staff inside the government for the work they have done on this legislation. I also thank a large number of people outside the Parliament for the work they have done. It is apparent that the numbers are such in the Council that the bill will pass today. However, I will say again that the government clearly does still face much more hard work ahead and needs to pay very strong heed to the many potential practical and logistical problems that have been raised about this bill. I obviously hope that happens and that the legislation is implemented diligently and with full consideration of every concern being raised today. Assuming that does occur and the bill does therefore ultimately lead to significantly improved health and safety outcomes, especially fewer deaths, then those will naturally be outcomes worthy of great celebration, particularly after such a long QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 561 wait over so many decades for legislative and policy change on this subject. In the meantime, I thank the house. Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (11:55): It has been very thought-provoking listening to the various speeches here today, and in particular I will extend my regards to Ms Watt and her incredibly powerful contribution today and her sharing of some issues which are particularly disturbing, like having to have ‘the talk’. I can say personally I have never had to have ‘the talk’. I do not think anyone in my family has had to have ‘the talk’. And it certainly lends itself to the long and pretty shocking history and the shame that we have in our nation with regard to the way that we have acted towards our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population. Unless we make change, the past will predict the future and it will be groundhog day over and over and over again. I do understand that there are concerns about being able to implement all the requirements to ensure that this reform does fulfil what I believe we all want to achieve in this place, but the sad fact is that the cons of maintaining this particular law as it are far outweighed by the many benefits that will arrive as a result of being courageous and driving forward this reform here and now in this place, noting that there is a specific time line allocated—that is, until November 2022—upon which the reform will be implemented. And so I really believe—and I know it is not just about belief—after having extensive consultation and recommendation to move forward with this reform, that we cannot stand by and allow irreversible consequences to be repeated, because we would have to have that on our conscience, and I do not believe we want to repeat what has led us to this point in time. Accordingly, 30 years— 30 years too long. The great benefit of this legislation coming here and now is that we are actually giving certainty to the various stakeholders on this matter. They need certainty so that they can plan and prepare and be ready. If they are flailing in the wind, waiting for a reform that may never pass, then we will not get to where we need to be. Accordingly, we will not be supporting the reasoned amendment here today, and I will speak further to that perhaps after question time, with liberty from the President. I am just thinking that we are right on question time as well. I am happy to keep going, but I am thinking— A member: You have got 20 seconds. Ms TAYLOR: Twenty seconds? Okay. We note the irreversible consequences and the very sad example of Tanya Day speak to the very reason why it is upon us, upon our shoulders here, to now have the courage and the conviction and the organisation to carry this reform forward. And I believe that we are up to it. Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders. Questions without notice and ministers statements AGL CRIB POINT GAS TERMINAL Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (11:59): My question is to the Minister for Resources. Minister, I refer you to the Andrews government’s current process to consider approving the extremely controversial AGL Crib Point gas import jetty and pipeline project. I note the extensive opposition to the project from the Mornington Peninsula shire; the Cardinia shire; the Bass Coast shire; the Crib Point community and broader Western Port residents; Indigenous groups; the MP for Hastings, Neale Burgess; and the state Liberal-Nationals. Opposition to the gas project reflects widespread community concern about its potential impact on the environment, local amenity and Indigenous cultural heritage and corresponding limited, if any, benefit to the peninsula economy. Further, a Mornington Peninsula shire poll last August regarding the project elicited 2000 responses, with an overwhelming 93 per cent rejecting the proposal. Minister, given the enormous flaws and opposition to the project, will the Andrews government now join with the Liberal-Nationals in opposing this project? Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (12:00): I thank Mr O’Donohue for his question. Mr O’Donohue, when it comes to QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 562 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021 projects of this magnitude, and indeed many projects in the resources portfolio, the processes that the government undertakes involve other agencies—in this instance, the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning because these projects are subject to an environment effects statement (EES)—and they have not reached my department for my department’s advice in relation to that project. It is underway. It would be inappropriate for me as the final decision-maker to have a view expressed publicly. There are appropriate processes in place to ensure due diligence is followed, so there is not much I can add to my response, Mr O’Donohue. Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (12:01): Minister, with respect, that sort of bureaucratic process answer I think will not give the community much comfort. Many in the community, many stakeholders, believe that the government is not listening to the concerns that have been raised and has not given due consideration to those concerns. You are the Leader of the Government in this place. You represent the government in this place. Will you commit to fully listening to the community and ensuring that the strong opposition by the community to this project is given appropriate weight in any consideration by the government of this project? Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (12:02): Mr O’Donohue, what you are seeking for me to do through your questioning is pre-empt appropriate processes. Of course the government listens to community concerns and stakeholder concerns. That is why we have the processes that we have. When there is an EES underway, that is the whole purpose of it. It is for people to be involved. We have community consultations. I am very committed to open communication with affected communities when industry is involved in projects or proposed projects like this. That is what I demand of the industry and government to facilitate. Of course I will listen to people, but asking me to form a view is completely inappropriate and would undermine the important role that ministers have. DUCK HUNTING The PRESIDENT: I call the birthday boy. Happy birthday, Mr Bourman. Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (12:03): So much for thinking I was going to get away with that. A member interjected. Mr BOURMAN: Okay, you are now my friend. Thirty-five is a little bit in the rear-view mirror. My question is for the minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, who I believe is Minister Tierney. Minister, New South Wales have upped their authority to control wildlife for the ducks 16.5 per cent. Tasmania has announced a full bag and a full season, and South Australia has had a decent season announced. We have had what is probably an insult of a season based on science. Why is our science so markedly different to everyone else’s? Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:03): I thank Mr Bourman for his question and also extend my congratulations on his birthday today. I will refer the matter to the Minister for Agriculture for her response. Similar to Mr Meddick’s question yesterday, I am sure that she will respond as per the standing orders. Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (12:04): I thank the minister for her answer. Minister, will you change the season, to reflect what is obviously the science, to a full bag and a full season? Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:04): Again, I will refer the matter to the minister, Mary-Anne Thomas. Again, as I mentioned yesterday, the minister receives advice from the Game Management Authority, and that forms the basis of the decisions that she undertakes. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 563

MINISTERS STATEMENTS: TAFE FUNDING Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:04): Free TAFE is back for 2021. It is bigger and it is better than ever. We have seen since the beginning of free TAFE a critical initiative to get a pipeline of skilled workers into jobs that are being created. In the economic recovery from the pandemic it is, more than ever, important. Last week I had the opportunity to visit the restaurant Sunda to mark the beginning of free TAFE. In doing so, I met Nabil. Nabil is a sous-chef and a William Angliss Institute graduate, and what an impressive young man he is. His skills are second to none. If you like Vegemite, you will love his special roti with Vegemite mousse. The outstanding training at William Angliss is helping to develop chefs like Nabil—highly skilled, passionate and committed to good food. I am pleased to advise that TAFEs are still accepting enrolments for 2021. I encourage Victorians to take up the opportunities that come from free TAFE. With 60 000 additional places and additional spots for people with existing qualifications funded in last year’s budget, now is the time to skill up. There are over 50 priority courses, including preapprenticeship courses, as we continue to roll out three new courses on the list: mental health peer work, health services assistance and civil construction plant operations. Labor will always back in TAFE; it is in our DNA. COVID-19 Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (12:06): My question is to the Minister for Workplace Safety. Minister, yesterday in response to my question about your powers pursuant to section 7(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 you said there is a broad power for you as minister to request that WorkSafe undertake an investigation. Since the election of the Andrews government in 2014 on how many occasions have you or your predecessors exercised this broad power and requested a WorkSafe investigation into alleged workplace safety breaches? Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:07): I thank the member for his question. In relation to the answer that I gave yesterday, the point that I was making was about the fact that that is a general power in the health and safety act and one which obviously is an important part of the legislation, but it does not take away from the very important independence of the safety regulator, WorkSafe, and it does not take away from the fact that their compliance activities are at arm’s length from me as minister and my office, and that is entirely appropriate. They are the independent safety regulator, and they will exercise those powers without fear or favour and independently from me. Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (12:07): I note the minister has again confirmed what the statute says—that she has a broad power contained within section 7(1)(a) of the OH&S act to request an investigation and to put a time limit on that investigation—but she has refused to answer how many times that request has been made by her or her predecessors. I ask by way of supplementary: the ongoing hotel quarantine fiasco is costing Victorians so much, with the most recent five-day lockdown estimated to have had a financial impact to the Victorian economy of over $1 billion, let alone the devastating social impacts with a near record number of calls for help to Lifeline last weekend. Minister, you are refusing to act while Victoria suffers. What are the criteria you set for ministerial activation of these broad powers contained in section 7(1)(a) of the OH&S act? Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:08): I think that the question really is taking out of context the answer that I gave yesterday. The answer that I gave yesterday was that the opposition can invite me as many times as they like to interfere in the independence of the safety regulator; I will not be doing that. In relation to hotel quarantine, in terms of the member’s supplementary question, he is very well aware of the fact that hotel quarantine is not within my portfolio responsibilities. I have explained a number of times in the house, and I am happy to do so again, the very important role that the independent safety regulator has in ensuring that our Victorian workplaces are safe. This is a very broad obligation, and it includes being safe from COVID-19. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 564 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

BAIL REFORM Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (12:09): My question is for the Attorney-General. Attorney, under the amended Bail Act 1977 a person charged with multiple very minor offences, often related to poverty, will have to meet two tests to receive bail: an unacceptable risk test and a compelling reasons test. While everyone recognises the need for a risk-based bail test for community safety, the additional compelling reasons test has no clear purpose. In practical terms it is used in the courts as a test of whether a person has housing or employment or is engaged in programs, and it means that two people charged with exactly the same crime and with the same criminal history and who are judged to be exactly the same risk to the community are either locked in prison or released free based on factors such as their housing situation. Attorney, when bail is being determined not on public risk but on the relative level of disadvantage or social disadvantage of the accused, can the claim be made that this system is fair and non-discriminatory? Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (12:10): I thank Dr Ratnam for her question. There is a little bit in that, and you are actually asking me for an opinion, ultimately. What I would say is that there have been significant reforms to our bail system. Obviously we have got the Coghlan review also, which is being implemented, and obviously there have been questions that Mr O’Donohue and I have had exchanges on as well. When it comes to individual considerations of bail, they are not made by me; they are made by the appropriate authorities, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the decisions that they make. Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (12:11): Thank you, Attorney, for your response and acknowledging some of the investments. I acknowledge that some investments have been made, but the data tells quite a different story. If you look at the level of low offending that does not result in an actual prison sentence when it comes to trial, women offenders, who are more often victims of family violence or homelessness, are remanded in prison at significantly higher rates than male offenders in Victoria, and Aboriginal women are remanded in prison at even higher rates than white women because they are more likely to have multiple disadvantages and have distrust of justice institutions and programs. Isn’t it the case that cumulatively what we are doing in Victoria is using our prison system as a holding cell to triage vulnerable people, such as women victims of family violence, into housing programs? Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (12:12): You are effectively asking for another opinion, Dr Ratnam. I acknowledge that it is a very difficult balance to make for those that are deciding whether to ensure someone is given bail or indeed remanded. They are always challenging things, and there are obviously different opinions. Often police support bail or they might support remand, and a lot of those factors are weighed up. It is the fact that compelling reasons and compelling exceptions can apply for people that there might be suitable alternatives for, and they are factored in. But we continue to examine our laws and continue to work through the Coghlan review, and we do not make apologies for keeping the community safe by putting people in jail when they need to be put in jail. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: WORKPLACE MENTAL HEALTH Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:13): Supporting Victorian workers’ mental health and wellbeing is an absolute priority for the Andrews Labor government. I was proud that earlier this week this Parliament passed new provisional payment laws so that Victorians who suffer a mental health injury at work will be eligible to receive WorkCover payments for reasonable medical expenses while they await the outcome of their claim. We know that mental health injury claims can be complex and take longer to determine than physical injury claims. Prior to this reform, workers could wait up to five weeks before receiving payments to access treatment or support for mental injuries. The reforms will mean workers will get the treatment they need quickly so they can return to work as soon as they can. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 565

WorkSafe is also delivering its WorkWell program to promote mental health and focus on the prevention of mental injury in Victorian workplaces. The WorkWell Toolkit is a free online resource which links Victorian employers with practical tools, information and clear action plans to support them in building a mentally healthy workplace and preventing mental injury. More than 8800 businesses have already registered to use the online toolkit to support mentally healthy workplaces. WorkSafe has a range of tools available to assist workers and employers, including guidance and information on mental health safety during the COVID-19 pandemic, including information on working remotely and work-life balance. The Andrews Labor government is committed to making our workplaces safer while giving Victorians the support they need when they put their hand up for help. COVID-19 Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (12:15): My question is again to the Minister for Workplace Safety. Minister, yesterday in response to my question to you about WorkSafe’s role in the hotel quarantine system you said WorkSafe had undertaken 20 000 inspections relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. How many of these 20 000 inspections are related to the hotel quarantine operations? Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:15): Thank you for your question, Mr O’Donohue. I need to just clarify for you that the more than 20 000 workplace visits include inspections and inquiries, so it is workplace visits and inquiries. I do not have to hand the statistics that you are seeking, although I would point out that I think the WorkSafe CEO was asked questions about hotel quarantine WorkSafe activities during a recent Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearing, and I would invite you to review the transcript of that PAEC hearing. I am happy to see what further information I might be able to provide in respect of your question about the number of visits in those facilities. Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (12:16): Noting the clarification with inspections and inquiries, I ask by way of supplementary: how many of the 20 000 inspections and inquiries specifically relate to the post Coates report hotel quarantine mark 2 operation? Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:16): Thank you for your supplementary question. I am not in a position to answer that. I do not have those figures to hand, but I am happy to see what I might be able to provide the member. LOCAL GOVERNMENT GENDER EQUALITY Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (12:17): My question is for the Minister for Local Government. At the beginning of this month you announced the Gender Equality Advisory Committee, which among other things will drive the implementation of the Australian-first Gender Equality Act 2020 across local government. I think you spoke more about it, if I am right, in your ministers statement this week. Local government is a massive employer of women, but many of the services that they provide are contracted on a short-term basis. This leads to job insecurity and knowledge loss through job churn. Can the minister explain what the rationale is for delivering these essential services on short-term contracts? Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (12:18): I thank Ms Patten for her question. It is a very good question, a very interesting question. I will get to the crux of her question, but can I start by saying that local government is its own tier of government through the Victorian state constitution, and they have the right to set their own budgets and their own priorities in line with, I would hope, the community they represent’s priorities. On the gender equality local government committee, my original thoughts around that are that we do have a goal set to get to a certain point where, particularly with elected representatives, there is a gender balance. I think I have crowed a few times about how we were quite happy with the last election going QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 566 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021 towards that, but it has not got to the goal we had set. In saying that, I think that is important work, but I think there is a lot more this group can do as far as assisting and advising how we achieve the objectives in the act go, so I am pretty keen for this group to do work in this area. One of the areas that I was hoping to work in was a bit of a culture change as well as far as attitudes go in some of the sector, not all of the sector. When you read the monitor reports, which brought legislation to this house to remove some councillors in recent times and appoint administrators, it is quite horrifying, actually, some of the behaviour towards staff. Staff is an area that I think we need to get an awareness of, and that is why this group will have high-level members of staff but also members of staff that may not be in the high ranks of management, to get that feedback. As far as job security as far as contracting out goes, as I said, councils have the right, outside of whatever I think, to set their own budgets and how they go about it and how they go about their contracting, but I think it is an area that I am more than happy to consider. One thing about the local government sector which I think is great is that gender balance is really good. When you look at libraries, I think in libraries the gender balance is about 85 per cent women. Members interjecting. Mr LEANE: I know it might be an outrage that there are more women than men in some workplaces for some people. I mean, that might be a shock. Get the smelling salts out. So the answer to your question is that I cannot give you a definitive answer, but I am more than happy to look at it and work towards a better outcome for those workers that you are concerned about. Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (12:21): Thank you, Minister, and in some ways you have almost affirmed the question I was going to ask as supplementary. The Queensland government has acknowledged the short-sightedness of short-term contracts in regard to local government and now issues five-year contracts, which has been a huge success in ensuring the job security of many women in the sector. Has the minister spoken to his interstate counterparts to ascertain how Queensland implemented longer term contracts in the local government sector? Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (12:21): The answer to the supplementary is no, but there is a ‘but’. With any jurisdiction that is doing anything better than we may be doing in this sector I am more than happy to have a conversation. I think that with COVID there is a bit of a rethink about the way people should be employed—this was a sector where people were a bit caught out, I think, in their employment arrangements and their contracting arrangements—and about making sure there are ways to look after really good people that are doing really good work. I think this is a sector that was a bit caught out in that area, so I am more than happy to speak to, I think it is, the Deputy Premier in Queensland that is now the local government minister, and what a ripping bloke he is. His attitude towards the federal government is just gold, so thank you for inviting me to have a chat to him. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: RESOURCES SECTOR Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (12:22): I wish to update the house today on the state of our resources sector and the continued growth it has seen over the past few years. The Earth Resources Regulation: 2019–20 Annual Statistical Report has been released, and it shows the sector is booming. Quarry production has now grown by 25 per cent over the last six years, providing over 63 million tonnes of sand, rock and gravel last financial year to help deliver new housing and record infrastructure development. Minerals exploration spending in Victoria has also maintained strong growth. Data from the ABS shows expenditure on mineral exploration has gone gangbusters, growing by close to 600 per cent over the past six years thanks to the policies and certainties provided to industry by this government. The news of Victoria’s exploration and mining potential has sparked an increase in minerals licensing, with total applications for 2019–20 up 75 per cent to 154. It is no surprise that gold is leading the way, QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 567 but expenditure in mineral sands has also increased over fourfold in the past four years. This rapid increase in expenditure is being supported by an extra $1.1 million provided in last year’s state budget. This funding will help process the unprecedented number of applications and ensure the sector can ramp up its works right across regional areas to help the state’s economies recover. The economic activity coming from the sector is stimulating our regional economies and indeed provides high- quality jobs in country communities so people can get good jobs close to home. Victoria’s profile as a global hub for resources will be on show again in 2021 at the International Mining and Resources Conference, Australia’s largest annual mining resources event, taking place at the Melbourne Showgrounds this year. IMARC will bring eyeballs and investors from around the world to Victoria and showcase the very best of what we have to offer. Victoria is certainly a great place to work and invest in if you are in the resources sector. The sector is going from strength to strength and will continue to play a critical role in our economic recovery over the coming years. COVID-19 Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (12:24): My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Minister, Haymes Paint is a Ballarat success story, with 130 years of manufacturing pedigree and a history of innovation and investment. They provide a livelihood for 340 local families and remain proudly Victorian based and Australian owned. Are you aware the Premier’s recent lockdown, thanks to 13 cases in six local government areas in metropolitan Melbourne, cost this iconic regional Ballarat business—based close to your office, actually—over half a million dollars? Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:25): I thank Mrs McArthur for her interest in Ballarat icon Haymes Paint. In direct response to her question, I have not had a discussion with them about the impact of the five-day lockdown in the days since then. Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (12:25): Thank you, Minister. Well, you should be aware that Haymes Paint has given a huge amount to the Ballarat community, most recently a $4 million investment in a new paint shop on Creswick Road, but the family feel rightly angered by this latest damaging lockdown, affecting not only them but so many small and medium businesses, and they rightly fear another. So why would they—or anyone else, for that matter—in their right mind continue to invest in Ballarat when Victoria faces a perpetual state of emergency and repeated lockdowns? Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:26): That is a great question, and it is a shame I only have a minute. Yesterday there was the latest ABS data released on the January employment figures, and it showed the Victorian economy recovering strongly. If Mrs McArthur spent a fraction of the time in Ballarat that I spend in Ballarat, she would be aware that there is a very significant housing and construction boom underway and that a business that is so intimately linked to population movements and housing developments has probably got very, very good reasons to stay in Ballarat. Haymes is not just a Ballarat icon, it is a national icon, and the family have deep roots and connections in the community and are indeed community leaders that are involved in all manner of activities in Ballarat. If the Haymes company is of a mind to leave Ballarat, I would be very, very surprised by that. But of course, if that is their intention, I would be very happy to talk to them about that as well. COVID-19 Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (12:27): My question is for the Attorney-General. As we all know, the entire state of Victoria was subjected to a five-day lockdown recently, and I would like to ask the Attorney-General to provide some assurances to the house on whether she is satisfied that this response was both proportionate and the least restrictive of rights of the individual, as required by the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 568 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (12:28): I thank Mr Limbrick for his question. Again I am being invited to provide an opinion, and so I would probably seek— Members interjecting. Ms SYMES: I think what I would say, Mr Limbrick, is that this is a similar question to what you asked last week. When it comes to the health directions, they are based on the health advice from the chief health officer, and all government agencies, including our health agencies, have to give proper consideration to human rights in making all of their decisions. Therefore, in assessing human rights and the restrictions, they give due consideration to balancing the impost of the restrictions as opposed to the rights that are afforded under the charter, and that is a matter for the CHO in making that determination when providing the advice to government. Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (12:29): I thank the Attorney-General for her answer. On a related note, I would like to ask the Attorney-General: during the lockdown what activities were the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (VEOHRC) undertaking to safeguard the human rights of Victorians? Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (12:29): Do you mean the five days or last year? Mr Limbrick: The five days, yes. Ms SYMES: I will have to seek some advice in relation to VEOHRC’s activities during that period. I do not have that at hand, but I am more than happy to provide you with an answer in accordance with the standing orders. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: SMALL BUSINESS MENTAL HEALTH SUPPORT Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:29): The Andrews Labor government is providing mental health support to thousands of hairdressing and beauty salon workers across Victoria as part of a new partnership with the Australian Retailers Association hair and beauty arm, the Hair and Beauty Industry Association. The association is the first of 10 industry and business associations to have a mental health specialist based in their team providing direct support to small business owners who are doing it tough. The specialist will work within the HBIA until the end of June, identifying the mental health and wellbeing needs of the association’s members and staff and developing a tailored support service for hairdressers and beauty therapists, whose businesses have been significantly impacted through 2020 and again as a result of the recent lockdown. The recruitment of mental health specialists for industry associations is the third phase to go live from the $26 million wellbeing and mental health support for Victorian businesses initiative that we announced back in August. This includes expanding the services of the Partners in Wellbeing helpline—1300 375 330—which provides free confidential professional advice and support to all Victorian small business owners seven days a week, and a mental health first response training program run by St John Ambulance. Confirmed industry partners so far are the Australian Retailers Association, the Hair and Beauty Industry Association, the Australian Hotels Association Victoria, the Victorian Tourism Industry Council, the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Geelong Chamber of Commerce and Kinaway Chamber of Commerce. Mental health matters, so we are pleased to be able to work with leading small business organisations to make accessing help as straightforward for people as we possibly can. CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 569

WRITTEN RESPONSES The PRESIDENT (12:31): Regarding today’s questions: Mr Bourman’s question and supplementary to Ms Tierney, two days; Mr O’Donohue to Ms Stitt, one day, question and supplementary; and Mr Limbrick to Ms Symes, one day, the supplementary. Mr O’Donohue: On a point of clarification, President, are you referring to both of my questions? The PRESIDENT: No, to the second question. Mr O’Donohue: President, I submit to you that in my first question to the minister my questions were very clear and straightforward, and the minister did not provide an answer. The PRESIDENT: I will have a look at Hansard, unless the minister wants to— Ms Stitt: President, I would just make the point that the standing orders are clear that the member does not get to dictate how I answer the question. The PRESIDENT: I will have a look at Hansard and get back to you. Constituency questions WESTERN METROPOLITAN REGION Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (12:33): On behalf of the Brooklyn Residents Action Group and the Don’t Destroy Millers Road Community Group, my constituents want to know: will the Minister for Roads and Road Safety and the relevant ministers urgently upgrade Millers Road and ban trucks between Geelong Road and the West Gate Freeway at Brooklyn? Will the Department of Transport move towards recommending trucks use Grieve Parade and Boundary Road and upgrade the Grieve Parade exit? What options has the Department of Transport investigated that would actually reduce the effects of freight movements through the inner west? NORTHERN VICTORIA REGION Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (12:34): My constituency question is for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, and again it concerns the need for a new station for the Currawa fire brigade. I previously raised this issue with the minister in March 2020, but her response only shifted blame without the mention of any funding possibilities. The brigade was once the highest priority in region 22 for station replacement due to the cramped and inadequate conditions and the impending delivery of a new fire truck that does not fit into the current station. Nearly 12 months after I raised the issue the old Currawa fire station remains unchanged, and it is little wonder that the CFA volunteers feel that Daniel Andrews has turned his back on their needs and those in this organisation. Will the minister provide an update on the current situation regarding the construction of a new fire station for the Currawa fire brigade? NORTHERN VICTORIA REGION Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (12:34): My constituency question is for the Minister for Education. Our education system is designed to offer equal opportunities for all. Where students encounter challenges, we offer additional help to make sure those challenges do not become roadblocks—unless, it seems, the student is severely visually impaired. I have been contacted by the parents of a bright and enthusiastic five-year-old who is legally blind. Her parents have encountered enormous resistance from the mainstream education system in their hometown; no schools seem willing to take her. It is of course a major undertaking to meet the needs of a severely visually impaired student, but her condition is hardly unique or new. One school stated the student should attend the special needs school; another seemed to imply her parents were mollycoddling her. After much effort, they have found a school prepared to take her on—if they can travel to Melbourne and jump through all the testing and bureaucratic hoops that unlock support. Can the minister explain why two ordinary CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS 570 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021 parents have found it so very hard to give their bright and bubbly daughter a decent start to her schooling? WESTERN METROPOLITAN REGION Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (12:35): My constituency question is to the Minister for Health, and this email that I am about to read reflects a number of concerns from a number of my constituents. It says:

My daughter travelled to Sydney last Monday the 8th February. Upon arrival they were only allowed to leave the plane 20 passengers at a time. Arriving passengers were separated from departing passengers, and they were met by officials who checked their entry permits, asked them where they had been, showed them the list of hot-spots in Melbourne and asked if they had been to any of these … There were police present, and all of the workers were in full PPE. While she was in Sydney, she received a call from NSW Health who asked her to get a COVID test and isolate until a negative result was received. She had the test in the afternoon; by 7 the next morning she had the result. Upon flying back to Melbourne the next night, she:

… was greeted by no one. No permit check, no temperature check, nothing! Minister, how could you be letting this happen to people in my electorate? Ms Symes: On a point of order, President, without casting a view on the actual matter that Mr Finn has raised, can I just confirm that the constituent you are referring to is in fact your constituent? Mr FINN: As I understand it, yes. Ms Symes: I only make the point as I had a constituent in my electorate with the exact, exact wording that you just read out, so I was just seeking— Mr FINN: President, what I can say is that Tullamarine airport is certainly in my electorate. NORTHERN METROPOLITAN REGION Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (12:37): My constituency question is for the Minister for Agriculture. My constituent, a greyhound owner, has a question on behalf of the thousands of greyhounds in my electorate—ruff! Under Victorian law greyhounds must be on a leash in public areas, making it very difficult for owners to responsibly give their beloved speedsters some freedom to run. My constituent points out these restrictions are a little rough. Well over 1000 former racing greyhounds are adopted out every year through the Greyhound Adoption Program, with that number steadily increasing. Given the growing popularity and specific needs of this beautiful breed, will the minister work with Greyhound Racing Victoria and local councils in my area to identify sites which will comply with the Victorian law and fund more enclosed slipping tracks, similar to the one in Orchard Parks, for greyhounds to get the exercise they love? WESTERN VICTORIA REGION Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (12:38): My question, for the Minister for Agriculture, concerns this year’s duck season. A 20-day cap on what should be a three-month season with a bag limit of two birds per day, not 10, is an absolute insult. It is no season at all. Strictly regulated on welfare, conservation and public safety grounds, duck hunting promotes physical health and has historical and cultural significance, performs a necessary agricultural function in some areas and promotes conservation work done as a by-product of the industry. This paltry season means no-one will travel. Hundreds of millions of dollars will be lost to the regional economy. And as a Western Victoria Region holiday park owner has told me, it is hopeless. What is the point in giving out vouchers for regional tourism with one hand and destroying tourism opportunities with the other? My question, Minister, is: how much will this reduced season cost the regional economy? CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 571

SOUTHERN METROPOLITAN REGION Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (12:39): My constituency question is to the Minister for Housing. My office has been contacted by three local residents of St Kilda who say that they are too scared to walk down Fitzroy Street at the moment due to a large group of people who congregate daily outside the Pride Centre and the 7-Eleven store. Locals say they feel threatened by this group and feel it is unsafe to walk the street. I know it is a complicated issue, but I do feel that residents have a right to feel safe walking near their homes. Is the minister able to advise if there is an area that can be allocated for this group to congregate in other than a main public thoroughfare or establish a community facility for this large group of people, many of whom are homeless? SOUTHERN METROPOLITAN REGION Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:40): My constituency question is for the attention of the Minister for Small Business, and it concerns the events industry in my electorate. The events industry is heavily concentrated in Southern Metro, and both I and Ms Crozier have been in receipt of correspondence from Simon Thewlis, a prominent advocate of the events industry. He points to a survey undertaken by the sector showing 83 per cent of the events industry need to let staff go and 43 per cent potentially will close their business given the way the sector is heading at the moment. Events have been cancelled as far out as September this year. Some are moving interstate. He says the events industry has been requesting a meeting with you, Minister, since October last year. So I ask: why do you continue to turn your back on this important sector, which employs thousands of Victorians and contributes millions of dollars to the economy? EASTERN METROPOLITAN REGION Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:41): My constituency question today is for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure. As part of the government’s Hurstbridge line duplication, works include the building of new, modern stations at Greensborough and Montmorency. The Montmorency community feels as though they have received the short end of the stick, with insufficient community consultation when compared with the Greensborough community. In what was meant to be online community consultation on 17 December, the meeting was not recorded, the community was put on mute and no questions were raised. There are concerns over the environmental impact and whether the new pedestrian crossing meets safety standards as well as if the car park meets community expectations. So I ask: will the minister release the justification for the Montmorency station plans as well as the environmental assessment and the record of community consultation? EASTERN VICTORIA REGION Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (12:42): My constituency question is for the Minister for Agriculture in the other place, and it relates to ongoing issues that are not being addressed by this government. Now, two weeks ago I, in an adjournment debate, called on the minister to release on-the-spot fines to protect our farming community, our livestock community—farms, animals and staff—and to protect biosecurity. Now, the minister has a right not to answer for 30 days, but she has a moral responsibility to do something about this issue. So I ask the minister: when will she introduce on-the-spot fines to protect farmers, their livestock and our biosecurity? EASTERN METROPOLITAN REGION Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:43): My constituency question is for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, and it is concerning the government’s seemingly bizarre plan to use the Surrey Park ovals as a storage facility for construction materials that are the result of the government’s plan that I have spoken about in this place before to destroy or at a minimum decommission both Surrey Hills and Mont Albert stations. I have been contacted by many local residents who are deeply concerned about this. The Surrey Park ovals are the home to a whole range of really important local sporting groups, groups like the Surrey Park Football Club, the Melbourne Baseball Club, the Surrey Park—this is one of my favourites—Model Boat Club and the Surrey Hills Cricket Club. But this is a CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS 572 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021 serious matter. These clubs and these ovals are utilised by a huge number of my constituents. Now, a local group has put forward an alternate plan to the minister that on my reading of it seems to have some merit. My question is: why won’t the minister consider this alternate plan? EASTERN VICTORIA REGION Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (12:44): My question is for the Minister for Health. I have been contacted by a Gippsland constituent who is concerned that the contact-tracing system in Victoria is not up to scratch. The question I have is: when will the Victorian contact-tracing system be as good as and equivalent to New South Wales? I received a message from my constituent that said:

Thought I’d share a very small but illustrative example of the enduring incompetence around contact tracing … Last week I got a text message and multiple phone calls from NSW Health … after transiting through Sydney Airport—

advising of the need to self isolate and get a COVID test as we went through Melbourne Airport on 7th Feb. The tests for us came back negative which was good, but to this day, we have received no communication whatsoever from the authorities in Victoria. Seems NSW are doing Victoria’s job for them! This question or variant of question is a question I have received from so many constituents who travel regularly interstate: why are the systems so much better in New South Wales and elsewhere and when will Victoria’s be brought up to scratch? The PRESIDENT: I have a concern about Ms Bath’s constituency question and Mr O’Donohue’s question. Mr O’Donohue reflected back to his electorate, but Ms Bath asked a question for the minister in Victoria. I think you meant in your electorate. Ms Bath: I can list about 10 different farmers who this relates to. One of them is Mr John Gommans, who has a farm in my electorate. The PRESIDENT: In your electorate, thank you. NORTHERN VICTORIA REGION Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (12:46): My constituency question is for the Minister for Agriculture regarding the highly successful Goulburn-Murray Valley Queensland fruit fly program. This award-winning program has activated more than 3000 volunteers, reduced Qfly numbers by 83 per cent and removed more than 93 000 unwanted fruit trees in this region. That is significant to our agricultural output. Local producers are despairing of the lack of seasonal workers, which leaves market-ready fruit poised to drop and rot, further increasing the risk of Queensland fruit fly. The Cobram & District Fruit Growers Association say that the entire fruit fly program is at threat without government support that maintains a focus on the management of existing Qfly in tandem with exotics. My question is: will the minister urgently meet with the Cobram & District Fruit Growers Association to discuss this crisis threatening our horticultural industry? EASTERN METROPOLITAN REGION Mr ATKINSON (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:47): My constituency question is to the Minister for Planning, and it concerns the Banyule Flats area and a proposal for a treetops adventure program that would be located in a fairly sensitive area of the Banyule Flats that has river red gums. Now, this particular project has been advanced and is seeking a planning scheme amendment, which would be Banyule planning scheme amendment C107. It would alienate for a commercial purpose some 4 acres of this river red gum area and trees that are quite fragile in some respects, which of course are very important in that community and indeed for the metropolitan area. What I ask is if the minister could meet with the Banyule residents association to discuss this project further. ANNOUNCEMENTS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 573

Announcements LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SPECIAL SITTING The PRESIDENT (12:48): I have a message from the Assembly:

The Legislative Assembly informs the Legislative Council that it has agreed to the following resolution— The Legislative Assembly invites members of the Legislative Council to attend an Assembly sitting at the Royal Exhibition Buildings, Melbourne on Tuesday 2 March 2021 at 10.00 am to hear addresses by the Chair of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System Penny Armytage AM, Professor Patrick McGorry AO and members of the Victorian community with lived experience of mental illness. Bills SUMMARY OFFENCES AMENDMENT (DECRIMINALISATION OF PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS) BILL 2020 Second reading Debate resumed. Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (12:49): I want to acquit some of the other matters that have been raised in this very important debate. There was an issue that was raised that, I have to be honest, I really did not understand. I am not trying to mock the member in any way, I just do not understand the proposition, which was that we cannot bring forward this reform because there are other matters impacting Aboriginal people that have to be dealt with. I am like, ‘Well, bringing forward this reform does not in any way interrupt or hold back other reforms or other matters that need to be dealt with in the Aboriginal community’. I think that was an unnecessary conflation. I just wanted to put clarity to that because I did not understand that contention, so I just wanted to put that forward. I think we as a government are acutely aware of how critical it is to empower Aboriginal people, and hence the First Peoples’ Assembly and progression towards treaty fundamentally is being propelled by the knowledge that not having Aboriginal people leading the conversation and reforms has meant that all those matters that we would have liked to have seen dealt with, improved and enhanced by now have not taken place. I would suggest this is all the more reason for this very critical reform to be put forward at this moment in time. I also want to again just pursue the matter of the reasoned amendment that would ultimately delay this reform for who knows how long. I have to say I do not have confidence that we will get to where we need to go unless we act on this now. I think it is also very important because there has been a lot of discussion about police and their integral involvement, very regularly, with people who are drunk, people who are drunk and violent and so much more that can result from inebriation. I think it is very careful in this debate that we are talking about drunkenness. We are not here to say that you can be disorderly, you can be violent and all of those other matters that would normally be under the auspices of police to manage. This is not in any way saying, ‘Okay, well, you’re drunk and violent, you can get away with anything. It’s all now endorsed’. None of it is endorsed. Public drunkenness is not endorsed either. The point is that the way this has been managed to date has had devastating consequences, and it has been highly recommended in the strongest words and contentions and studies. Let us see here, I was just thinking back to what has led to this in the first place. The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody recommended that public drunkenness be decriminalised in its final report in 1991. The 1989 Victorian Law Reform Commission report on public drunkenness also recommended its decriminalisation. The Victorian Parliament’s Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee also recommended decriminalisation of public drunkenness offences in the final report of its inquiry into public drunkenness in June 2001. I think we can all do the maths—many, many years have gone by and these matters are still sadly in place. I should point out that Victoria Police have been consulted heavily and will be integral as part of these reforms moving forward. It is not in any way to abandon police and to overlook the incredible BILLS 574 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021 challenges that they face on a daily basis with all of the various matters that they have to handle. In fact it is with great empathy and understanding for the rigour and for the challenges that Victoria Police, and I should say frontline workers, have to face when dealing with people who are inebriated. I did want to say that I think what has also evolved through this debate is the acute understanding that addiction, and we are talking about alcoholism, is very complex. It is not a simple matter to deal with. That is why this is being tackled from the point of view of necessitating a health response, but that does not do away with Victoria Police and the elements that are involved in managing disorderly and otherwise antisocial behaviour. I will say I learned quite early on in life—I am just going to reflect on a couple of relatives, two generations back—that addiction is far more complicated than simply popping someone in a cell or otherwise. I remember actually tipping a cask of wine down the sink because I thought, ‘Oh, if I just get rid of the wine, they won’t keep drinking. It’ll stop the problem, and it’ll all be resolved’. But of course we know that people who suffer from addiction will, generally speaking, find a mechanism to fulfil that requirement. They might have a stash somewhere, as certainly my relatives did. I understand the excruciating impact it can have on family and friends, having to witness someone who is truly struggling with some or other unrelenting pain that is fuelling that addiction in the first place. I think that there would be some consensus here, and I hope I am not taking an inordinate licence in saying that it is because of the evolution of the community and our understanding of the complexity of addiction and alcoholism and all those aspects that we do need to tackle this with a very concerted health response. Now, I did hear concerns about what this would mean for public safety. It is in all our interests to protect public safety. No-one here is endorsing otherwise. I know that there were concerns raised about, ‘Well, you’ve got to get through these pilots’ and, ‘Why are you putting the law ahead of the pilots?’, but I would like to reiterate that we have seen what happens when we do not put mechanisms in place to make sure that this reform is implemented. We have a very, very sad legacy, and I do not believe that these reforms will come through unless we commit now and give certainty to the stakeholders who are going to be on that front line, including Victoria Police. We know the government committed $16 million in the 2019–20 state budget to commence implementation of a health-based response. Why am I saying that? It is because we are absolutely committed to the pragmatic implementation of this reform. Implementation planning is already underway to outline a clear pathway for all the necessary work to be undertaken and implemented to ensure a statewide public health response is in place before November 2022. I am not questioning concerns raised in the chamber. I get that there is a genuine desire to ensure that what we are hoping for will be delivered. I accept that, and I am not putting that particular contention down, but I just want to allay concerns here. The government will continue to work with key stakeholders, including the Aboriginal community, first responders and health services, to make sure we can implement a health model that provides safer outcomes for all Victorians. The other point that I was going to speak to is that in its report—I apologise for jumping around a little bit here—the expert reference group (ERG) concluded that the current response to public drunkenness is unsafe, unnecessary and inconsistent with current community standards. Therefore status quo, which is perhaps what people are pushing for here, is not a good thing—far from it. In fact it is counterproductive to progressing as a community. That is why we do need to take these steps now in order to see this reform through. In terms of Victoria Police’s intentions regarding this reform, I would like to reflect that Victoria Police and the Police Association Victoria support the decriminalisation of public drunkenness and remain important partners in developing a new way to respond to public drunkenness. I think that is a very critical point. Having heard some of the concerns in the chamber, noting just how significant the involvement of Victoria Police is in this outcome should allay those concerns, particularly noting the time line and the very concerted commitment of our government to the right outcome here. BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 575

I would also like to pay respect to the former Attorney-General, Jill Hennessy, and also to our current Attorney-General, Jac Symes, for having the courage to bring this reform through. It is the right time. It is not an easy reform because we all know that drunkenness is complicated, and no-one is suggesting that it is easy to deal with somebody who is inebriated. I am sure we have all experienced having to negotiate with somebody who has had too much alcohol at one point or another, and no-one knows that more perhaps than Victoria Police. But that is not a reason to not proceed with the reform, it is all the more reason to conquer this here and now. Now, you could say—and I would like to acquit that final fundamental issue—why legislate now and not in 12 or 24 months time? The reform is long overdue, and we cannot delay work on this any longer. The government is committing to getting on with decriminalising public drunkenness and implementing a public health model to ensure that those who are intoxicated in public can access health care and the support that they need. The ERG’s report provides a framework for reform that government supports and will work to take forward and implement, and I get that there are many issues and matters and details to be put in place. Case in point, so let us make that happen here today. Sitting suspended 1.00 pm until 2.04 pm. Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (02:04): I am pleased to speak today on the Summary Offences Amendment (Decriminalisation of Public Drunkenness) Bill 2020. The Liberal Democrats are not anti-government. We are pro liberty. When the government or any other member of this place introduces legislation or policy proposals that are pro liberty, we will support them. It is refreshing to have an opportunity to say some nice things about the government for a change, and I am pleased to do that today. This legislation has been a long time coming. Victoria is one of the last states where public drunkenness is still an offence. It has been a long time—a very long time—since the interim report from the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody was tabled in 1989, with the final report tabled in 1991. There were 339 recommendations, with recommendations 79 and 80 stating that public drunkenness should be decriminalised and replaced with non-custodial facilities for the care and treatment of intoxicated persons. In 1989 the Victorian Law Reform Commission reviewed the public drunkenness laws and found there was no support for continued reliance on the criminal law as a means of dealing with the problem of public drunkenness. The Kirner government, to their credit, had a go at a bill, with it being defeated in this place. In June 2001 the Victorian Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee inquiry into public drunkenness recommended decriminalising the offence of public drunkenness also. The committee stated that:

Although it is expected that police must exert a certain level of latitude in their dealings with members in a community, their job is not made easy when it is considered that, unlike many other areas within policing that are defined precisely by judicial or statute interpretation, such precise limits are almost non-existent when it comes to exercising discretion in areas such as public drunkenness … In 2005 the Victorian Implementation Review of the Recommendations from the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody recommended that the government should proceed as a matter of urgency to abolish the offence of public drunkenness. The review recommended that appropriately resourced Aboriginal-run sobering-up centres be established and that the Victorian government implement and monitor recommendations 79, 80 and 81 from this royal commission. In 2006 the Victorian inquiry into strategies to reduce harmful alcohol consumption also recommended that public drunkenness be decriminalised and that the recommendations from the 2001 Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee report be implemented. It reiterated that sobering-up services are an essential requirement of such decriminalisation. BILLS 576 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

In February 2008 the Brumby government flagged its intention to address public drunkenness. The Attorney-General’s submissions to the Victorian alcohol plan 2008–2013 called again for the decriminalisation of public drunkenness. The Victorian Alcohol Action Plan 2013–2017 stated that the government should:

… develop improved health and crisis responses through health and community agencies to the needs of intoxicated persons held in custody for public drunkenness in order to minimise adverse health and social outcomes related to incarceration In 2015 IBAC investigated the mistreatment of a woman in a Ballarat police cell. Although outside the scope of the investigation, IBAC did recommend that the Victorian government consider decriminalising public drunkenness. It also acknowledged that this is a complex issue but that previous inquiries have:

… highlighted the detrimental consequences that assigning criminal penalties to public drunkenness can have, including increasing the likelihood that harm will come to vulnerable persons while they are detained in police custody. If you were born in the late 1980s, this discussion has been happening for your entire life, with every expert body and inquiry into the issue saying the same thing. It was not until the tragic death of Yorta Yorta woman Tanya Day that we finally got some movement. But even then this may not have happened without the advocacy of her family, the broader Aboriginal community and other advocates and activists within the community. A coronial inquest into the death of Ms Day reiterated what we already knew, that these laws needed to change. I personally copped a bit of criticism for attending the Black Lives Matter event last year. While I did not know whether I would support many of the things they were calling for, I went there to listen. There were several very reasonable demands that these people made, and one of them was for the decriminalisation of public drunkenness. While they copped some criticism for organising the protest also, after waiting three decades for reforms like this, I can certainly appreciate why they would feel that they need to take to the streets to express their frustration. For the Liberal Democrats this issue is completely non-controversial. We simply do not believe that victimless crimes should be crimes at all. Public drunkenness might be considered almost a form of pre-crime, where people are taken into custody because they are considered at risk of committing some other crime. Others might consider it a form of public safety, where people are apprehended for their own good in a similar way to our laws on drug use and possession. We should know by now that sending police to address the possible health concerns of people is like sending a surgeon to fight a house fire. While there might be good intentions, that is the wrong person for the job. There have been reasonable concerns raised by people, including in Victoria Police, about how this might work—concerns about how people that are severely intoxicated might be protected or about the risk that people might be charged with a more severe offence. While there might be some validity to these concerns, they are once again best addressed through a system with a health focus. I commend this bill to the house. Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (14:10): I would like to start by first of all acknowledging the contribution of my colleague Ms Watt. I know how difficult that contribution was to make. I also acknowledge that I speak to this bill coming from a position of privilege as a whitefella who has never been impacted by that law. I would also like to acknowledge and pay my respects to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who will be watching this debate feeling and reliving the pain and hurt that they continue to suffer due to the injustices and the deaths of their relatives. I apologise to all First Nations peoples for any hurt that may be caused by the contributions in this chamber. Police use their discretion to enforce the law in varying ways. This we know. Too often these judgements are made in the absence of crime. Even in public gardens and parks where the responsible consumption of alcohol is entirely permitted, certain groups of people are targeted for public BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 577 drunkenness: youth, rough sleepers and Indigenous Australians, who, despite making up less than 0.8 per cent of the Victorian population, represent 30 per cent of all people incarcerated for public order offences. A recommendation to remove this racial bias was first made alongside 339 others as an outcome of the 1991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. At the time Victoria had the second- highest disproportion in the rate of death of Indigenous peoples compared to non-Indigenous persons. It was abundantly clear even then that something needed to be fixed. Thirty years later we are still looking at the same set of recommendations, very few of which have been implemented by this state. We are moving too slowly, and in 2021 Aboriginal people are dying at even higher rates as a result. This bill does not allow community violence, nor will it jeopardise the safety of law enforcement officers. On those two points I want to be abundantly clear, because it has been stated so in previous contributions, and that is incorrect. It simply removes non-violent symptoms of intoxication from what defines a criminal offence. For Yorta Yorta woman Tanya Day that symptom was simply falling asleep. This bill does something we should have always done: treat public drunkenness as a health issue, not a crime issue. Sobering-up shelters which are being implemented across Australia are a good example of this. They offer a bed for the night, they provide food and washing-up facilities and importantly they monitor patients throughout their stay. Nobody under this treatment regime should run the risk of dying from catastrophic brain injuries, as they previously have as offenders under police custody. Alcohol misuse is a health issue. This begs the question: how do we as a society intend to treat those who have mental illness or those suffering from addiction or those who are just down on their luck? If our answer is punishment or, worse, violence, then the remedy might be far worse than the behaviour we seek to avoid. Thirty-eight per cent of Aboriginal deaths under police watch since the royal commission have been attributed to the person requiring care that was not given, compared to 15 per cent of non-Indigenous deaths for the same period. This staggering reality is exactly what this piece of legislation seeks to reinvent. Understanding and managing the complex relationships with alcohol that are faced by our whole community begins with support. It is clear that, even should this bill pass, we have a long way to go, but it is a good starting point and I commend it to the house. Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (14:14): I too rise to speak about the Summary Offences Amendment (Decriminalisation of Public Drunkenness) Bill 2020. Those of you who know me will know that I will be supporting this bill; of course I will. Every year over 8000 individuals are arrested for being drunk in public places under one of the three public drunkenness offences. On average approximately 22 Victorians are taken into custody while drunk every day. After two royal commissions and one parliamentary inquiry into public drunkenness over the last 30 years we know that a public health response to public drunkenness is what Victoria needs and must have, and later today we will have it. Statistics show us that those experiencing homelessness and those of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent as well as those of Sudanese descent are over-represented in alcohol-related offences. As an advocate for overcoming Victoria’s homelessness crisis, I strongly recognise the need for wraparound support services to aid individuals in overcoming alcohol and drug abuse, to find suitable housing and to provide health support. Sadly since the first royal commission in 1991 there have been a startling number of deaths in custody, particularly Indigenous Australian deaths. While not all involved intoxication, a significant portion did. Preventing deaths in custody, supporting Victorians and reducing alcohol-related crime are why this bill is a step in the right direction. Many have raised concerns around the implementation of this bill, and I think the concerns are being raised because we do not know what we do not know. Things are going to be done over the next 20-odd months. BILLS 578 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

Firstly, a total public health response would see no involvement of police officers whatsoever. In a perfect world that would be fantastic. Our public health services are already struggling. You only have to go to our local emergency department on a weekend to know how they are overflowing, and even more so in our rural and regional communities where there is a challenge with staffing and services. But we must ask ourselves: how will this bill work in reality? Secondly, we must consider the safety of those who will be charged with the duty of moving and handling these individuals. We have heard from two ex-coppers in this place of their experiences. I am also someone who has worked for more than 30 years dealing with people who have over- refreshed. I can tell you as a taxidriver that I have been punched, I have been robbed, I have been kicked in the head, I have had rear-vision mirrors smashed off my car, I have been vomited on—it does not always happen on the same night. There were some very sad cases and there were some very violent cases, but I was always in a position—I was big enough and ugly enough—to settle it down. I think the two ex-coppers would agree with me in saying that dealing with those who are drunk is not pleasant. It is obviously dangerous, and even more so when drugs are involved. Thus if not the commercial passenger vehicle industry or Ambulance Victoria, who will be employed when transferring these drunk individuals? This is going to be specialised work. I would like to think that the taxidrivers are pretty good at this, because it is what we do seven days a week. Is $16 million for the trial sufficient? Not only does this amount need to cover the cost of creating sober-up centres but it must cover staff, equipment, training and transport and fund additional wraparound services. Further, how will this trial effectively cover both metropolitan and particularly rural Victoria? How does the government propose to sufficiently cover all of regional Victoria? Thirdly, after speaking with former police officers and hearing from existing numbers of the police force, I found myself asking: how will we ensure the safety of those drunk individuals? What about the police officer’s duty of care, and what about those involved in family violence? We know 48 per cent of repeat offenders of public drunkenness are also recorded perpetrators of family violence, and it is 28 per cent for one-time offenders. As an advocate for family violence survivors and for those experiencing family violence, I ask: how will the government ensure the drunk perpetrators are removed to sober up away from their families rather than returned home under this new program, and how will this new service know not to take these individuals home? Someone very close to me had an ex-partner with a restraining order return to her home drunk. The situation escalated and violence was committed. This is the real world. It is rare that our police are able to be proactive before a more violent crime occurs, but public drunkenness is one example. It enables police members to step in before brawls break out and before that one punch occurs, and it protects women from domestic violence, from being forced to take their aggressive drunk husbands home, by enabling police to step in and take them to cool off at the station. Further data shows us that 85 per cent of offenders only end up in custody on one occasion in their entire life. I ask myself, would the government not be better off to commit to employing a medical officer—as has been suggested, like they do in South Australia—at every police station with cells with a watch house? I agree wholeheartedly that it is well overdue that Victoria remove the offence of public drunkenness, but I ask the government to be cautious, to be practical and to think about the safety for not only those intoxicated but those affected by the actions of those individuals. I commend this bill to the house. Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (14:22): I am pleased to rise today to make a contribution on the debate on the decriminalisation of public drunkenness. Let me be very clear from the outset, the Reason Party will be supporting this legislation today. We think it is a very important step to start framing substance use and misuse as a health issue and not a criminal one. But I think more importantly it is another step to reducing deaths in custody, particularly the deaths in custody of Aboriginal and BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 579

Torres Strait Islanders, who we know are 10 times more likely to die in custody than non-Indigenous people in Australia. We certainly have not rushed to get here. Thirty years ago the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody made 339 recommendations, one of which was to decriminalise drunkenness. As we have heard today, there have been many other reports, even from this very Parliament, about public drunkenness. We have seen every other state in Australia decriminalise public drunkenness, so I am pleased that we are finally here. I would like to really acknowledge the very hard work of Nerita Waight from the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, Jill Gallagher from the Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, the Human Rights Law Centre and, as most of us today have acknowledged, the Day family. We know that Tanya Day was much loved and a proud Yorta Yorta woman. She was removed from a train and taken into police custody for being intoxicated in public. In fact she was asleep in public. While in custody she sustained a serious head injury from falling in a police cell and died 17 days later. If it was not tough enough that a grandmother, a mother, died in custody, the fact that in 1982 her uncle also died in custody made this even more tragic and certainly more poignant. To think how strong the Day family has been to continue on this campaign, because Harrison Day died in police custody in Echuca in 1982, having been arrested for a $10 unpaid fine, a charge for being drunk and disorderly. So I thank the Day family and the many First Nations people and families who have brought this to this house today, because while Aboriginal people account for 0.8 per cent of the population in Victoria, they account for 6.5 per cent of all public drunkenness offences. I welcome this amendment to the Summary Offences Act 1966 to decriminalise public drunkenness. This obviously was recommended 30 years ago in the deaths in custody report. This was recommended by the expert reference group in Seeing the Clear Light of Day. It was recommended in the coroner’s report, and as we have heard, recommended in many other reports. We have heard from Mr Grimley, Mr Bourman and certainly Mr O’Donohue about some of the concerns from the police. I too met with the Police Association Victoria and heard some of their concerns about this. They are concerned that they are going to find themselves at the front line ill- equipped to help someone who is intoxicated, that they are not going to know how to manage this— and, frankly, this is what we heard. They are not equipped to manage this; they do not have the appropriate health- and community-based skill sets. If you look at the testimony that the police gave in the coroner’s report, they could not find a service available for Ms Day. The local resource, such as the Aboriginal community justice panel, which is a volunteer service run by VALS, the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, are so profoundly under-resourced that they were unable to intervene on that particular day with Tanya Day. In fact Mr Bourman had a story where he reflected on a circumstance that he was in as a police officer when he was not able to help a person and that person died in custody. While Mr Bourman was using that as an example to oppose the legislation, in my mind it just further strengthened the fact that police are not equipped. It is not right when you think someone is very drunk, dangerously drunk, to have them locked in a police cell, where the police with all the good will in the world to keep that person safe certainly do not have the skills to do it. That poor man that Mr Bourman spoke about, who sadly died because he had bleeding on the brain, to me is just yet another reason why we should be welcoming these amendments today. And we should welcome them today. We do not need to delay this any further. We do need to fund organisations. There is no doubt about that. In fact had these been funded earlier, maybe Tanya Day could have actually had a different pathway and maybe her family would not be missing her every day—children without a mother, grandchildren without a grandmother. So I support the initial budget announcement of $16 million, and I think that will certainly go a long way to initiating the reforms outlined in the Seeing the Clear Light of Day report. BILLS 580 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

Despite what we have heard today that we are not ready to do this and maybe we need to get ready to do this, we have seen from that report that we are very ready to do this. We are more than ready to do this. In fact we have been trying to do it. In fact— Mr Limbrick interjected. Ms PATTEN: I will take up Mr Limbrick’s interjection. We should have done this 30 years ago. This is something that we are well behind in. I acknowledge that the legislation is largely a vessel. It enables us to set up the systems that will keep people safe, to establish pathways to a health response rather than a criminal response. And also there is that 24 months, so this is not going to be implemented tomorrow, as you would kind of assume with some of the contributions we have heard today; this will be implemented in November 2022. We have a number of months to get this right, to prepare for this, to train for this, to establish services. There will be three trial sites, as we know—Mildura, Dandenong and the Melbourne CBD—and what might work in Fitzroy will not work in Mildura. This is what we are going to look at. When I look at the expert reference group’s recommendations—of which there are many—they also talk about the fact that there may be other legislated powers that will be required. So as we are working towards this implementation we may see that we may need to give police further powers in a strictly limited way to enable police to detain people or to transport them. But there are so many other recommendations here that set through really clear pathways—that talk about staff ratios for sobering- up centres, that really go into significant detail. So I do not think that we are not ready for this, that we need to delay this while we try and work out what we are going to do. We know what we are going to do. The expert reference group has given us a very clear path, has given us very clear recommendations and instructions, as did the coroner in her report. She went to great detail in discussing what changes needed to be made in the health system and what changes needed to be made in our emergency response when someone is found intoxicated in a public place. Of course that this is the first step also in treating all drugs as a health issue. We speak about this often. We cannot keep arresting our way out of the drugs issue or the drug war. We have to treat drug use as a health issue, and this does that. But I would love to see us go further. I would like to see the decriminalisation of drug use across the board—treating it as a health issue, because that is what it is. I am pleased to support this bill. I thank Ms Watt for her really powerful and personal stories. What gives me great optimism about this legislation probably for the most part is that when someone is intoxicated to that degree, they are in trouble. They need help. And when someone is—as we see in some of our regional areas and certainly as I was hearing about in Mildura—getting picked up every Friday for being so intoxicated that they cannot walk, then they are not getting the help they need in that police cell. What they actually need and what has been laid out in front of us by the expert reference group is a pathway to help. That first point of call—when we treat that drunk person as someone in need of a health response, not a criminal response—also opens up the doors to further rehab. I will watch with interest as we start preparing for this legislation. I will watch with interest as we start establishing the systems and putting them in place. I will watch with interest the trials that will be underway over the next two years. And what I really hope is that this is for many people the first step to recovery, that it is not that they go into a sobering-up centre and then leave but that they are then given the opportunity to take that next step to recovery—that this is actually a non-judgemental, non- stigmatised way of enabling more people to seek help for their drug use or misuse. I commend the bill. Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (14:33): I will be brief. I will echo the words of my colleague, David. The Liberal Democrats are not part of the opposition. We are not elected to spend our time attacking the government, however it may appear from the government benches. We are always excited when we get a chance to praise the government—God knows those chances come along rarely enough. But today is one of those days. Today the government is going to remove a piece of BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 581 unnecessary legislation that impinges on the rights of the individual. It has been a long time coming. I commend you for it. We have heard that the enforcement of this law is an area where the police have a great deal of discretion. Let me talk about that for a moment. Is it a good idea to give the police discretion? Governments have made so many things illegal—so very many things—that many people break laws every day as they go about their daily lives, sometimes without even being aware of it. If the police enforced every law, every time, our entire justice system would seize up within hours. Fortunately even the police do not know what most of the laws are, and when they do, they do not enforce them all the time. So far so good, but as we see, when laws are enforced selectively, they are enforced with the biases of the enforcers. Biases, conscious or unconscious, influence our behaviour. You do not need to have signed up to the latest junk social theories in our universities to acknowledge this as obviously true. So we have the situation where, with police discretion, minority groups will find themselves disproportionately impacted. Discretionary laws act as excuses. We would hope that the police would find the person breaking a law and then decide to arrest them. Often instead the police decide they need to arrest someone and then find a law to use as an excuse. Without discretion everything comes to a halt; with discretion we get discrimination against minorities. What is the solution? The libertarian solution— abolish the laws, stop making everything illegal or double illegal or triple illegal, have fewer laws and then only police things that are worth policing. Eric Garner was killed by police attempting to arrest him for selling tax-free cigarettes. Philando Castile was shot after he was stopped for a broken tail-light. Tanya Day died in custody after she fell asleep on the train. None of these situations needed to happen. These are the results of too many laws policing too many things. I note this government loves a good law and so does the opposition. You love to wrap us all up in virtuous laws, enforcing your own versions of morality, but then you do not like the consequences of those laws. If you do not want the police arresting, assaulting and killing people for minor offences, the solution is not defunding the police or increased diversity in recruitment or sensitivity training; the solution is to get rid of the laws for minor offences. For a brief moment, after over 30 years of recommendations, sanity emerges. In this one case we are about to make things better. We will all pat ourselves on the back, there will be celebrations and the government will trumpet their enhanced credibility with Indigenous groups and other minorities. Then we will go back to passing more laws that will impact disproportionately on minorities and the disadvantaged. We support this bill without question, but I implore you to look at the bigger picture. You cannot feel good about this small improvement when you continue to make things worse in all other areas. I beg of you: look, understand, have the epiphany—the problem is laws. Stop making unnecessary laws— set the people free. Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (14:38): In rising today to make my contribution on the Summary Offences Amendment (Decriminalisation of Public Drunkenness) Bill 2020, I would like to also acknowledge the Indigenous people, our elders past and present. What we are doing today should obviously have been done 30 years ago, because there was in 1991 a Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and it had recommendations, and those recommendations actually went to the heart of what we are doing today, which is actually decriminalising public drunkenness. It might not make much sense in lots of ways. Alcohol is legal, so why is it that for such a long time we have actually had public drunkenness being illegal? Now, if governments in the past had actually taken up these recommendations—and now we are in Parliament and we see many recommendations coming before us and the importance of actually picking up recommendations while you are in power—we possibly could have had a better healthcare system. If governments 30 years ago had picked this up, we could possibly have better rehab facilities, because that is the heart of it. For many BILLS 582 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021 years over and over we have not had the facilities available for the community to be able to have the health care that they actually need. And I think this virus and the pandemic have shown that up—our public health system and the problems that we are facing now—because our public health system has been very poor for very many years. I understand the concerns that have been raised today, and I have also read how the Police Association Victoria is concerned that this is all press release and no policy. They are also concerned that the government needs to be clear on a number of issues, including transport, how call-outs would operate and how police officers should deal with the assessment of risk to intoxicated people. But I do understand that it is not and it should not be a legal problem. They are putting drunk people into cells, but police officers are not equipped to deal with someone who is completely intoxicated. The appropriate health pathway is to actually take them to an emergency facility. It is absolutely imperative the young people who are drunk and the elderly that we find that are drunk are in reach of proper health care to make sure that they stay alive or survive. For me, this makes perfect sense. But I do understand how the police and others in the community are going to struggle with how this is actively going to operate. Do I believe that the government has put enough money towards this and what they are actually proposing? No. It is clear from the community that there are not enough drug and alcohol facilities and rehab facilities out there. That is half of the problem that occurs time and time again when you go to an emergency facility or you have someone who has an alcohol problem or a drug problem and you are trying to get them into rehab. There are not the beds available. And until we actually have a system where when people need help they get that help, we are always going to be in trouble. How is this going to work when we do not have the amount of drug and rehabilitation facilities that we actually need because of the size of the problem? Do I blame this government? No. I probably blame the government from 30 years ago that had these recommendations sitting there. If they had started to invest 30 years ago, we probably would not be in this situation. We probably would have the actual facilities there currently. The community would actually have the rehab and drug facilities that they need to be able to dry out, to be able to get the help that they need. The police would have started realising 30 years ago that when they come across someone who is intoxicated or who has a drug problem and is actually saying to the police officer, ‘Yes, I know that I’m under the influence of drugs or alcohol, but I have a heart complaint’, the first thing they should do is take them to an emergency facility rather than trying to deal with the offence of either being intoxicated or being under the influence of drugs. Police can deal with that later once the person has actually had the proper health care that they need at that particular time. I am thankful that I am in a parliament today where we can actually finally make public drunkenness not a crime. This government is actually taking a very small step and putting small amounts of money towards actually having a couple more beds available for a problem that needs a lot more money, a lot more facilities and needs the appropriate response, which is that when someone is actually crying out for help and they are experiencing these kinds of problems, they can actually get that rehab bed and they do not have to be on a waiting list, and that when the police or others can see that there is some need, they can have those facilities available and they can go straight to them. I commend the bill. Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (14:45): I will just provide a few words in summing up. I do want to thank all members who have taken part in today’s debate on this incredibly important bill. The contributions by members have certainly highlighted many important issues, but I think nearly every member spoke of the highlighted tragedy that has led us to this point, and that is the death of Tanya Day. I would like to provide support and reiterate the government’s indebtedness to Tanya’s family, who have fought hard to make sure that their mum’s death and the deaths of so many before her would not be repeated. Many members have also acknowledged, and I would really like to recognise, the thoughtful, impassioned contributions of all members, but in particular a member for Northern Metropolitan, BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 583

Sheena Watt, for her contribution. She spoke very movingly about the importance of this issue to her community, and I agree with her that Aunty Tanya Day’s death should make our hearts hurt. I am also very pleased to say, to use Sheena’s words, that ‘today is a new day’. I would just point out that I really think that our chamber is better for Sheena’s presence. Her insights are invaluable to our consideration of some really important issues, not just this week or last week but ongoing. This bill certainly demonstrates actual action, and that is why it is important. It is overdue reform. Yes, I acknowledge there is a two-year design and implementation stage, and that was certainly a feature of many people’s contributions. We do not underestimate the complexities involved in the reform, in taking us from a justice-led response to a health-led response. But passing this bill today is a commitment to not only getting it done but doing it properly. I want to acknowledge the tireless work of Aboriginal leaders, communities, organisations and families in their ongoing advocacy for change. If this bill passes today—and it seems like we are looking pretty good given my read of the contributions today—we can finally provide certainty that this is actually going to get done. People have waited 30 years, and I certainly do not want to ask them to wait any longer. We have started already. There is a stakeholder task force that has been established. They met this week. They will be crucial to creating a well-designed, collaborative and culturally safe public health response. We will also develop the additional statutory powers that may be necessary for first responders in order to effectively support the public health model and maintain public safety. Service providers, first responders and the community need to be certain that the repeal will happen so that investment can occur in the necessary infrastructure and programs. During the design and implementation period government will establish trial sites in several locations to refine the public health model. The sites will be evaluated to assess the performance of the health model, and the findings will be used to inform the design and rollout of the model across the entire state. I would pick up on Mr O’Donohue’s contribution, where he acknowledged that if all the stakeholders work together on a model, the reform will be met with little dissent in this chamber. It is with that confidence that I ask those that seek to support Mr O’Donohue’s reasoned amendment: if you have the confidence that we will get there, why not support the bill to progress it through the chamber today? Without the passing of the legislation, there is no certainty that the stakeholders’ work will be implemented, and worse, it sends a message to the Victorian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities that the Parliament again is putting off long-overdue reform. Just on a couple of other points that I think were raised, I know there was a lot said about the different views of members of the police, and obviously I want to acknowledge the good work that police do in keeping us safe. There are going to be people with different views, but I do think it is important that the Chief Commissioner of Police’s views are featured in this chamber. He was on radio recently explaining the support of Victoria Police for the decriminalisation of public drunkenness. He has recognised that there is a need for work to be done to work out the best operating models so that we can provide a means for intoxicated people to be looked after safely of course. But he has also said that he and his organisation will work through the complexities through the trials and will work with police, other first responders, the healthcare sector, the Aboriginal community and many others on what the best health model is. I would certainly like to acknowledge my predecessor, Jill Hennessy, on the work that she has done. Mr Foley has also been heavily involved, as have Minister Williams and of course the expert reference group, who have provided a very good report and have given us a great pathway to this legislation. We do agree with the opposition on the issue of more work, and I want to just make that absolute commitment that that is underway and well advanced. We are confident that in less than two years the model will be implementable to line up with the repeal. I do note that Mr O’Donohue raised some concerns about why 24 months, not 12 months. I would just point out that the ERG advised 24 months, and we really do want to take the time to get this right. BILLS 584 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

I just did want to touch on move-on powers. The opposition suggested during the debate that police will need to have wider move-on powers to deal with people who are drunk and causing trouble. I certainly would like to take a moment just to refute that. In reality police have broad powers to respond to disorder, violence and threats to public safety. Once this law takes effect they will still have the power to arrest people for a range of offences, including assault, disorderly conduct, offensive behaviour, threats, affray and many others. The police also have the power to direct people to move on from a public place if they suspect a likely breach of peace, damage to property or a risk to public safety. I know that we will have a few questions in committee, but I would urge members of the chamber to vote against the reasoned amendment, which will be the first vote before the second-reading vote, for the reasons that I have outlined. This is going to be really important reform. I do want to acknowledge again the many tireless efforts of getting here. I did not listen to everyone’s contribution, but I think Mr Limbrick certainly outlined how many people have looked at this and for how long. And although I am very proud that we are doing this today, it is a bit embarrassing that we are doing it in 2021, so I look forward to passing this bill today. House divided on amendment:

Ayes, 9 Atkinson, Mr Bourman, Mr Lovell, Ms Bach, Dr Davis, Mr O’Donohue, Mr Bath, Ms Finn, Mr Rich-Phillips, Mr Noes, 24 Barton, Mr Leane, Mr Stitt, Ms Cumming, Dr Limbrick, Mr Symes, Ms Elasmar, Mr Maxwell, Ms Tarlamis, Mr Erdogan, Mr Meddick, Mr Taylor, Ms Garrett, Ms Melhem, Mr Terpstra, Ms Grimley, Mr Patten, Ms Tierney, Ms Hayes, Mr Quilty, Mr Vaghela, Ms Kieu, Dr Ratnam, Dr Watt, Ms Amendment negatived. House divided on motion:

Ayes, 24 Barton, Mr Leane, Mr Stitt, Ms Cumming, Dr Limbrick, Mr Symes, Ms Elasmar, Mr Maxwell, Ms Tarlamis, Mr Erdogan, Mr Meddick, Mr Taylor, Ms Garrett, Ms Melhem, Mr Terpstra, Ms Grimley, Mr Patten, Ms Tierney, Ms Hayes, Mr Quilty, Mr Vaghela, Ms Kieu, Dr Ratnam, Dr Watt, Ms Noes, 9 Atkinson, Mr Bourman, Mr Lovell, Ms Bach, Dr Davis, Mr O’Donohue, Mr Bath, Ms Finn, Mr Rich-Phillips, Mr Motion agreed to. Read second time. Committed. BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 585

Committee Clause 1 (15:04) Mr BOURMAN: Attorney, the police owe a duty of care to everyone they come across and deal with in the course of their duties. How is this duty of care going to be discharged with drunken people that are not suitable to be dealt with under whatever program you come up with? Ms SYMES: Thank you, Mr Bourman, and thank you for your contribution today. Obviously you bring to this chamber some experience in this regard and will have an appreciation of the complexities of this reform and hopefully the importance of getting the model right. The bill does not change the duty of care that emergency services and other first responder agencies owe in the course of their employment. Victoria Police have a general duty to take action to stop the law being broken and to maintain public order. When an officer exercises a power, such as apprehending or transporting a person, they then owe a duty of care over that person’s safety and wellbeing. The health and safety of the intoxicated person and of staff from first responder agencies and health and other services are certainly key priorities that will be centre of mind as we work to develop the public health model. The trials will be a good opportunity to test and refine the models of care and inform the development of any statutory powers and provisions that may be needed to most effectively support the public health model. The interaction between the duty of care and the role and powers of different first responders will be an important consideration during implementation and development of the statutory powers if any are identified as necessary to support the health model. Mr BOURMAN: I thank the Attorney-General. And again I am going to put it on record: this law must go; I just do not think the time is right right now. Regarding police, ‘in custody’ is a very, very wide term. It does not necessarily mean being hands on. It does not even necessarily mean you are detaining them. Now, with regard to a drunk or disorderly, which is generally just passed out in the gutter or whatever, if the police are not allowed to deal with them, the question, I guess, is: where does their duty of care end and where does it go? Whose duty of care will it be? Ms SYMES: Mr Bourman, I think I addressed largely the duty of care of police officers and how that will be factored into the development of the model. Through the trials first responders will be identified and those issues will all be front and centre in developing a model that can be rolled out across the state. I acknowledge your concerns. These are certainly identified issues that will be worked through. Mr BOURMAN: Thank you, Attorney. With regard to the pilots and things like that, the law will not come into effect until the end of 2022 effectively, so the existing arrangements will stay. How are the pilot and the current duty-of-care arrangements going to interface? Ms SYMES: During the implementation period, or I guess the ‘design period’ is probably more appropriate, police will retain their powers of arrest and enforcement of public drunkenness offences until the bill takes effect on 7 November 2022. During this transitional period the government will work with Victoria Police to promote the use of alternatives to police custody and referrals to health service pathways ahead of the formal repeal. We will also work with Victoria Police in the interim to reduce the negative impacts on cohorts that are disproportionately affected by public drunkenness laws, including Aboriginal people, people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and people experiencing homelessness. So, Mr Bourman, these are matters that will be worked through in conjunction with Victoria Police and, in relation to the trial sites, with appropriate arrangements in place where the alternatives can be tested. Mr BOURMAN: Thank you, Attorney. I am glad you brought up the Aboriginals. Back in the 1990s when I was locking up drunks, amongst other things, we had an arrangement, I guess you would call it, with the local community that if we got one of their people in and we could identify them as such, we would call them and they would come and get them. Now, obviously this takes funding. I BILLS 586 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021 am of the understanding, though I have not researched it properly, that this funding is not forthcoming. So what is the government going to do to help the Aboriginal communities in particular prepare for when this law comes into existence? Ms SYMES: Mr Bourman, the government committed $16 million in last year’s budget to commence the implementation of the health model. Implementation planning is underway to outline clear pathways of all necessary work to be undertaken and implemented and to ensure a statewide public health response can be in place by 2022. We will continue to work with key stakeholders, including the Aboriginal community, first responders and health services, to ensure we can implement a health model that provides safer outcomes. The government acknowledges that adequate resourcing is a key factor in the successful implementation of this reform, so the $16 million was just basically to kick it off. Once trial locations are confirmed and announced in the coming months government will determine the resources needed for the trials, and the resources needed for the statewide rollout of the public health model will be determined based on the evaluation of the trial period. Mr BOURMAN: Thank you, Attorney. I am going to ask an obvious question, but is the government going to commit to all required future funding to make all these things happen—it is not going to be $16 million to get it going and then it sort of peters off? Is there a commitment to making sure that this will always be adequately funded? Ms SYMES: Mr Bourman, I cannot make funding announcements or give funding commitments, and I certainly cannot bind future governments, but it is our intention to make this work. This is important reform; that is why we are taking the time to get it right. The 24 months will inform what the model will look like, which will be able to be costed, and it will be funded. Mr BOURMAN: Thank you, Attorney. I actually might just finalise one question. It has kind of been bothering me. If we—the royal we, the police—find a drunk in the gutter and there is a system of some sort but no-one can be contacted or there is no room or there is something like that, it leaves the police the only people on the scene and they are left with only two options. One is to go and leave them there, which brings up the problem of their exposure, or two, they are going to have to actually deal with it. So there are two questions in that, but I think they are very important questions. Ms SYMES: Mr Bourman, because of the development of the model and the trial site these are the very issues that we want to iron out to make sure that we get the best model for Victoria. Dr CUMMING: My question is in a similar vein, Attorney, and it is around how this is actually going to be rolled out and how it is actually going to be effectively working. From what I can see under the proposed health model it is going to be voluntary as a second response for people to go into alcohol or drug services. How are the police as the first responders going to be able to actually get someone who might not necessarily want to to voluntarily go to an emergency facility or voluntarily go to a sobering-up facility? How is that actually going to work? Because obviously the current model would be that they see that they are a danger to themselves and therefore we can get them to an emergency facility or to another facility. Ms SYMES: Thank you, Dr Cumming, for your question. Over the next 18 months we will be consulting with experts in this field. Obviously there will be heavy involvement from the health department and the health experts. If I could take you to the expert reference group (ERG) report, that probably gives you a bit of an indication of where the health model is looking. It is an immediate response provided to people found intoxicated in public, including health-led first responders, safe transportation to a place of safety and a safe space where an individual can rest and recover, and a secondary response for people with complex health and social needs to provide referral pathways to support services, a universal response that will target prevention activity et cetera. So the model will be underpinned by principles of health and safety, and I guess these are issues that our health providers face regularly. Whether they are confronted by people with other forms of complex needs such as mental health issues and the like, obviously they are always faced with issues BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 587 of consent and how they can help people, and we hope that the trial sites will provide some invaluable information to ensure that we can get the model right and are able to deal with some of those tricky issues that you have rightly identified. Dr CUMMING: Thank you, Minister. Still just in that vein of questioning, my greatest concerns are that there are sometimes the health professionals—the ambulance drivers, the emergency workers—that actually need the assistance of the police to help the patient into care of sorts, because they are obviously intoxicated or under the influence of drugs, and yes, at times they do have mental health issues. I believe that there will possibly need to be work done under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 because you are going to be able to see gaps. This is going to create a gap that needs to be filled with some possible amendments to the public health act. When people present with mental health issues under the public health act, it is pretty clear, but I believe that this is going to actually create a vacuum. Minister, do you believe that that possibly could be the case? Ms SYMES: Dr Cumming, I do not think that police should be fulfilling the role of what is more appropriately done by our health professionals. I acknowledge that a lot of our first responders deal concurrently, together. Police often help ambulance and other emergency services workers in the performance of their duties. Yes, there may be difficult clients that present, where different services have to come together to support that person. But I think what you have identified clearly demonstrates that in most of those circumstances it is the health treatment that that person will be best to receive. So yes, we acknowledge that there are gaps in the system, which is why we want to fix it. We do not want police filling the gaps that are currently there. That is why it will take 24 months to transition away from a justice response to a much more appropriate health response to these matters. Dr CUMMING: I think we both are in agreeance. It is a hand-in-glove approach with the police as well as the emergency services. But there are situations where the police need to be able to have their powers to actually enforce that they need to go to an emergency facility or help them along. I guess I will give you the scenario. If you have got someone who is very intoxicated and we do not have this public drunkenness situation—this law is no longer there—how will the police have the powers to actually get that person into the ambulance and to the facility? Ms SYMES: Police already play an important role in responding to violence or restraint in many health settings. I would also make the point that health professionals already through their duty of care can deal with involuntary clients or patients as well. The issues that you identified already exist in many other settings and are already dealt with by the professionals. This is all subject to development, implementation and the stakeholder reference group, which will include Victoria Police working with health officials to work through some of these issues, but a lot of the issues you identified are not new issues that will confront our emergency personnel. Dr CUMMING: I guess, correctly so, there definitely are things in place when you get into a health setting such as a hospital, but in the way of an ambulance I am not quite sure, with an ambulance driver or in this new situation other workers that will be there, what powers they will actually have once the police vacate this space. Ms SYMES: Well, Dr Cumming, I do not anticipate Victoria Police vacating the space. The proposal is to repeal the offence of public drunkenness. Once it is decriminalised police will no longer be able to arrest people for merely being drunk in a public place, but they will still be able to arrest and charge people for committing other offences. Under a health model the whole purpose of our reform is that first responders to incidents of public intoxication should be primarily health-based services and agencies. However, as was noted by the ERG, there was an acknowledgement that law enforcement officers would continue to have a role in responding to incidents of public intoxication, and they recommended additional powers for police officers and PSOs to intervene in limited circumstances to support the public health response. BILLS 588 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

I guess what I just have to keep coming back to is that this is not happening tomorrow. Work has started, and we have got people representing all of the agencies that will be impacted to come together and talk through these issues to land a model to be tested through the trial sites that will take into account the issues that you raised. Dr CUMMING: I thank the minister for her response, and I understand that this is going to be worked out. I do understand the need for this because I am completely of the belief that when a person is very heavily under the influence of drugs or they are drunk they definitely should not go to a police cell; they actually should go to a medical facility of some description for them to be able to have that appropriate care. But there is the issue of actually getting them there, but I am hoping that if we need to we can actually look at the health act in particular to make sure that the ambulance drivers, the police and other health services who need that—I really struggle to see how it is just going to be done under regulation when, when a person is intoxicated or under the influence, sometimes they cannot make those decisions. It is not going to be a voluntary situation, and I still wonder if there is going to be a vacuum in the space that the police currently fill. Ms SYMES: Dr Cumming, we have not ruled out further legislation that may become apparent as being necessary through the consultation period. I guess the points you have raised are good points, but that is why we have a 24-month implementation period. I guess probably the only other point I would make is that emergency departments and paramedics already treat intoxicated people regularly, and they certainly receive training to do so. Where there is a crossover between police powers and the powers of other first responders, they will certainly be topics of consideration for the implementation period. Ms PATTEN: Attorney, alcohol is often mixed with other drugs, especially probably what are largely called party drugs, amongst young people. If someone is intoxicated, will the police still be able to detain them on the suspicion of illicit drug use? Ms SYMES: It is certainly acknowledged—and was recognised by the ERG—that the practical reality is that there would be a range of factors and substances that contribute to a person’s intoxication, and it is often very difficult for first responders to assess what substances are actually affecting the person. So I guess it would be the intention of the model to treat the person for their underlying health concerns. However, if police have suspicion of other offences in connection to the intoxication, there is certainly no repealing of the drug offences proposed. Ms PATTEN: Damn. Just moving over to something that was actually in the expert reference group, and it was around their recommendation 18. This goes to the oversight mandate of the national preventative mechanism, which is being established under the OPCAT, the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. They note it in here, but what I have been asked is: will the oversight mandate of the national preventative mechanism include police custody? Ms SYMES: Ms Patten, we might seek some further advice and get you a specific answer on that. I think it is probably broad enough to do so, but I want to be sure and get you a more definitive answer. Ms PATTEN: Thank you, Attorney; that would actually be quite helpful. I would be interested in particular in what our preventative mechanisms are going to be specifically in this state. Certainly going by the recommendations from the ERG and as this rolls out, I wonder: what will be the mechanisms by which the legal sector and in particular the Aboriginal community-controlled health organisations, the ACCHOs, are consulted when it comes to police powers under the new legislative framework? These are looking at the limits to those powers and the oversight mechanisms. So the question is: what will be the mechanisms by which the legal sector and those ACCHOs are consulted? Ms SYMES: Ms Patten, obviously the government has already consulted extensively with Victorian Aboriginal communities on the reforms, and we will continue to engage closely. We are certainly very, very committed to self-determination principles and want to make sure that that is embedded in our reform. That is a very firm commitment. We also want to continue to consult with BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 589 the numerous affected stakeholders to ensure that the public health model is designed and implemented in a collaborative and culturally safe way, and that will include the development of commissioning of services within the health-based response. We are also considering ways to enable Aboriginal organisations and other key stakeholders to play a role in the oversight of the reforms. We know that involving stakeholders in overseeing reforms will help to ensure that the changes across the justice and health systems are implemented in a safe and responsive way and meet the needs of the whole community, including the Aboriginal community. Not to be critical of other jurisdictions, but the lesson from other jurisdictions is that the models, although well intended, are still having a disproportionate impact on Aboriginal communities, and the whole purpose of this reform is to repeal an outdated law but also to very heavily acknowledge that this has a disproportionate impact on Aboriginal people. We do not want to fix it for everyone else and not the Aboriginal community. That is certainly front and centre in making sure that our reforms meet that objective. Ms PATTEN: Just one follow-up on that section, I do not think I have seen it, but is there already a specific stakeholder group that has been announced? I am just wondering if you could let us know which Aboriginal groups are on that stakeholder group. Ms SYMES: Yes. The Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation is the peak and they are on that, plus there is engagement with the Aboriginal Justice Forum, who will play a big role in seeking community views and relaying them back. But yes, VACCHO is certainly on the stakeholder task force. Mr O’DONOHUE: Minister, I listened with interest to your summation. You clearly had listened to the second-reading contributions; that was reflected in your summation. The discussion that has been happening thus far in the committee stage I suppose just reinforces some of the concerns I outlined in the second-reading debate and some of the conversations you and I have had. There are many legitimate questions that have been asked about a range of scenarios, and my colleague Ms Crozier is interested in the concerns of the AMA that I expressed during the second-reading debate. You yourself have flagged the potential need for other legislative change once the work that is on foot is concluded. I suppose just in this forum—in the committee stage—I just want to again express my disappointment that the bill does not come before us as part of a package of reforms that gives the chamber and I think the community confidence about how the alternative model will operate but comes as the start of the process rather than the end of the process. I think for us as legislators to make informed decisions it would be much better if this was occurring at the end of the process, with other legislative change required as part of this bill and with the alternative health model fully developed and fully understood. Whilst I appreciate government members and others have said we cannot waste another day, government members and you, Attorney, have also said this will not become law until the end of November next year. I also make the point that the expert report was concluded six months ago and we still do not know where the trial sites will be and how they will operate. Indeed, this legislation itself was introduced last November, and if its passage was as urgent as government members have contended today, it could have passed several sitting weeks ago. Minister, I appreciate the committee’s indulgence, but rather than ask a range of hypothetical questions about the delivery model I would just make the point that that is the principal concern of the opposition with the passage of this legislation: that the chamber is in fact being asked to have faith in a process over which the chamber and the Parliament has no input or control. And whilst obviously government must get on and do the job of government, if that work had been done, if other legislative change was part of this bill, I think there would be much more comfort about an understanding about what that alternative model looks like. BILLS 590 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

Ms SYMES: Without needing to relitigate the reasoned amendment, Mr O’Donohue, which the chamber certainly dismissed, we do acknowledge that there is work to do, and I think you would acknowledge that the last time that this was attempted in the Parliament it was because the alternative model was not satisfactory to the chamber and it got defeated. I do not want to send a message to the advocates of decriminalisation of public drunkenness that we are just going to keep talking about this, because we have been doing it for 30 years and we have never got anywhere. So having a commitment from this Parliament that this law will change and then we will develop the model, I acknowledge, is not necessarily the usual way we do things, but I think in this case it is perfectly justified. I get the sense from nearly everyone in this chamber that there is agreement around repealing of this law, and that is all that this bill is asking us to do. We want to get the health model right. We are well advanced. The ERG have given us advice. We have a commitment from Victoria Police to work towards a model that is going to be satisfactory. So I have confidence that the model will be the best model for Victoria and provide the best health response to deal with public drunkenness. But I do not want to ask people to go on this journey with the uncertainty or thinking that, yet again, we will fail them, because as we have demonstrated here in Victoria, we continue to fail in this space, particularly for the Aboriginal community. I do not want to ask them to do that, so I want to get on with the bill today, which enables the certainty and provides some public commitment from our government and from the Parliament that this is actually going to get done. Mr O’DONOHUE: I thank you for your answer, Minister. I only really have one follow-up question/observation. The Labor Party has been in power for 17 of the last 21 years in Victoria, and it has had a long time to develop what that alternative model looks like but is yet to do so. Many members have spoken of the various reports and inquiries that have recommended the decriminalisation of public drunkenness. So successive Labor governments have had a generation, effectively, to identify that alternative model and what it looks like, and it has not done so. Whilst I appreciate your perspective that passing this legislation gives certainty, I think another perspective is, again, that the government is asking the Parliament to have faith in processes over which it has virtually no input. I just make that as a follow-up observation, Minister. Ms SYMES: Mr O’Donohue, I think the fact that it has not happened yet is a good indication of why we should get this bill done today. I cannot apologise for the delay of my predecessors over successive years. I know lots of people have tried. Today we are going to get it done. I just look forward to this bill passing and actually being able to get on with implementing a new system to deal with public drunkenness that is way overdue. Dr CUMMING: With what has just been said, yes, the reasoned amendment was defeated, and I am one of the others who voted against the reasoned amendment, but I just want to say to the Attorney that everything that is in that reasoned amendment is something I would be hoping that the government is actually doing. I just do not want it on the record to say that we dismissed the reasoned amendment. I want to be clear about the concerns that were in the reasoned amendment, which are the community safety concerns, the need to implement alternative police powers to manage public drunkenness, as well as the further consultation that is needed with the Police Association Victoria, Ambulance Victoria, other health providers and other stakeholders, that these are needed and they need to be comprehensive. There will be other legislation that spills out of this, I would hope. But, yes, as someone who voted against it, I do not want it on the record that we just dismissed it. On this matter I am taking it that the government is doing the work and will be doing the work. Ms SYMES: Thank you, Dr Cumming. I guess the best way to look at this is that the only difference between the proposal that Mr O’Donohue supports and the government’s proposal is the timing of the legislation and timing of the repeal. Mr BOURMAN: This is more of a statement than anything. Attorney-General, you said that we were here just to get rid of public drunkenness today, but really what we are doing is we are changing the fundamental way of how we deal with a lot of our most vulnerable people. I am just worried that BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 591 in 18 months, or whatever it works out to be, if this is not done properly those vulnerable people are going to be left hanging. So as I said, I do not expect a response, it is just my opinion. Ms MAXWELL: I have just got a few questions which have not been raised yet. Attorney, given the government is saying that it will take that time to phase in the changes in the bill over the next 21 months, would that transition potentially be halted at any point if things clearly were not working as well as expected? Has the government considered that that may in fact happen, and what would the likely response be? Ms SYMES: I thank Ms Maxwell for her question. In terms of the trials being halted—I think you are being specific as opposed to the implementation development—we have committed $16 million already to get on with the development of a health-based response. We have indicated that there will be trials and will continue to work with key stakeholders, including the Aboriginal community, first responders and health services, to ensure that we can implement a model that is safer. We do want to replace a system which does not work with a better one. That is the whole intention of bringing about change. The trials are intended to help us understand what works and what does not so that the final statewide model delivers the best evidence-based care for the community. The trials will incorporate a strong monitoring and evaluation framework to provide regular intelligence on operations and to ensure immediate action can be taken if a major quality or safety risk is identified. Police will also maintain their power during the trials to arrest people for public drunkenness and may do so if they consider that there is a serious risk to public safety. Implementation planning is underway to outline a clear pathway for all of the necessary work, and as you have identified, this is with an aim for it to be in place before November 2022. Ms MAXWELL: Thank you, Attorney. Attorney, I am just wondering if you could confirm this for me. With the first responders, metropolitan areas and the trial areas obviously have those resources available. What is the government’s intention for more rural and regional areas where we know now that we struggle just to have resources, whether it be to cover shifts at a hospital, provide mental health support or provide any sort of drug and alcohol response? I am just really interested to know how that will take effect in rural and regional areas. Ms SYMES: The proposed model obviously could look different, and it will look different in country and city areas, but it is based on increasing access to health and social services as the primary response to public intoxication, including transport and a safe place to sober up if a person needs it. The ERG certainly picked up on the issues that you raised. They note that many regional areas are within the target of a 30-minute drive to a hospital with an emergency department or urgent care centre and that investing in these existing health networks would ensure that the vast majority of people in regional Victoria would have reasonable access to the care they need. In areas outside of the regions with more than 30 minutes to appropriate facilities, localised solutions will be developed in partnership with community stakeholders. Over the design and implementation stage we will work with all of the stakeholders in local communities to co-design a statewide model and operationalise locally developed responses, taking into account the differences that you have identified, Ms Maxwell. We know this will involve a detailed analysis across local regions to determine the expected demand for sobering support in the region and available facilities that will ensure that we can effectively meet this demand. We will work closely with all of the relevant providers. As you would be aware, different health providers in different communities will be a good source of intel in relation to how they believe a model might be effective for their communities. Ms MAXWELL: Thank you, Attorney. Just another quick question in relation to supports, once this goes over to a health model, and I totally agree that it should, will the government consider opportunities for other referrals and for people to then have access to be referred on and supported to go to other organisations? BILLS 592 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

Ms SYMES: Yes, Ms Maxwell. In terms of the health-led response, it will hopefully lead to better outcomes in the long term. Obviously the whole issue with public drunkenness is that the response is a justice response, and we know the damaging effect of people’s contact with the justice system, so a good reason to have a health response is that people not only get the immediate response they need but you can better deal with the underlying causes of the behaviour, the addiction, the problems that people have. In a health setting we believe they will have better long-term outcomes rather than just dealing with the immediacy of the particular incident. Ms MAXWELL: Thank you, Attorney. Just following on from that answer, will there be campaigns that will run alongside this new health model? Obviously prevention is better than cure in this case, so if we are going to increase the resources anyway once this goes under the health model, what preventive strategies are we going to use so that community can be aware that there are extra resources prior to them getting to that stage where they actually perhaps need to be taken to hospital et cetera? What sort of campaigning will be done around this new model? Ms SYMES: Thank you, Ms Maxwell. It is the intention that broader prevention strategies to address the underlying causes of high-risk drinking and harm minimisation approaches will form a key part of the public health response in relation to this. It was actually identified in the ERG as an important component to this reform. Dr CUMMING: Just one question, Attorney. Will there actually be the possibility of extra ambulances in this scenario rather than just actual beds? I am just raising that there are a lot of ambulance students that have been fully qualified that are actually sitting around now waiting for an ambulance and work to do. Ms SYMES: Yes, the transport options and services are certainly part of the consultation and development process. Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 7 agreed to. Clause 8 (15:49) Mr MEDDICK: Attorney, this is the first time I have had the pleasure of addressing you in the chamber in your new role, so congratulations. I will endeavour to remember the right terminology. Ms Symes: I struggle too, mate. It is all right. Mr MEDDICK: Look, I will try to keep this as brief as I can. I just have got a very brief statement about what this does, for everybody here, and then what I am seeking to have clarified. This is one of those little hangovers from the original enactment of this particular act, the Summary Offences Act 1966. There are all sorts of weird and wonderful things that happen when we have a look at repealing sections of bills that have been enacted so far in the past, and this is one of them. Paragraph (a) of this particular section, section 16—repealing that is completely consistent with the rest of the bill. No problems there. But paragraph (b) is a bit of an interesting one. In the original act it creates an offence of being in charge:

… of a carriage (not including a motor vehicle within the meaning of the Road Safety Act 1986) or a horse or cattle or a steam engine … in a public place while drunk, and I think you would be battling to find someone who is in charge of a steam engine going down Swanston Street at this stage of the game while intoxicated. The effect of repealing this— Ms Symes interjected. Mr MEDDICK: Well, some people might be rather inventive; I do not know. Steampunk is back in fashion. It primarily is to take care though of the offence where someone is in charge of a bicycle, BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 593 which again is very much a commonsense thing. But the unintended consequence here, or so it appears, is that word ‘carriage’. Under the Road Safety Act 1986 a motor vehicle is defined, but it does not include horse-drawn carriages. The hangover of those bygone eras in this particular state is that we do have horse-drawn carriages. We have them in the CBD and we have them in various places around the state. So I think the unintended consequence of repealing this particular section—this paragraph—is that someone can potentially be in charge of a horse-drawn carriage while intoxicated and then not be committing an offence. One of the largest subjects of complaints to the Melbourne City Council is traffic offences committed on a daily basis by the operators of the horse-drawn carriages in the CBD, and the repealing by clause 8 of section 16(b) seems to inadvertently allow those operators across the state to be in charge of these vehicles while drunk. A typical thing they do—the most common one—is that they will do an illegal U-turn in front of a tram, the consequences of which we saw only a few years ago, where that particular carriage collided with a tram and a horse had its head slammed through the glass window, shattering the glass window and injuring the horse. They do this continuously. They go through super-stops; they do all sorts of different things. Again, it might seem a bit nonsensical, but this is perhaps an unintended consequence—that should this particular part not be clarified, potentially they could be committing one of these offences while drunk, and whilst they might be committing an offence under the Road Safety Act insofar as doing an illegal U-turn for everyone is illegal, they could not be prosecuted for being drunk while doing so. And that is where this falls into a bit of a grey area—and they would be doing so with impunity under the law. Can the Attorney confirm that this is not the intent of the repealing of that particular one, and further that the repealing of section 16(b) will not hand these operators a free pass to be drunk and in charge of the vehicles? Ms SYMES: I thank Mr Meddick for his question and his knowledge of issues relating to horse- drawn carriage incidents in Victoria, which sound awful. I certainly can confirm that it is not the intention to repeal any offences that would allow for drivers of horse-drawn carts to indeed be intoxicated while performing that activity. So in that vein I can assure the house that working horses will not be endangered as a result of the repeal of this provision. At the outset it might be useful for the house to know that according to police records the offence in section 16(b) has not been used at all for the past 10 years. Nonetheless even without section 16(b) in place we are confident that horses would not be put at risk, because being drunk in charge of a carriage will still be illegal. While the drink-driving provisions of the Road Safety Act do not apply directly to a horse-drawn carriage, there are a number of other provisions that make it illegal for a carriage driver to be drunk while driving a carriage. Specifically the following provisions would apply: a road user other than a driver of a motor vehicle must not use a road in an unsafe manner; a road user must take reasonable care to avoid endangering the safety or welfare of other road users; and a person must not drive a vehicle, including a carriage, carelessly. Contravening any of these sections can be punished by a fine. In addition, the road safety rules specifically apply to animal-drawn vehicles. We should not discriminate against the donkeys and the cows that might be used as well. This means that the same road rules that apply to cars apply to all animal-drawn vehicles, including the requirement that a person have proper control of a vehicle. So while it will not be legal after the bill commences to drive a horse-drawn carriage while drunk, to avoid any doubt and to ensure there is no uncertainty created by the repeal, the Department of Transport will also undertake a review of the road safety laws before this repeal commences in November 2022. So you can have additional assurances, Mr Meddick, in relation to that. In relation to just the application of that law, it will apply statewide. I am not sure how many horse-drawn carriage services there are these days. I certainly believe that the Melbourne City Council banned carriages in the CBD some time ago. But the issue you raised is very important because it did on the face of it look as though there would be a gap in the laws. Hopefully that explanation has explained that the good horses of Victoria are not impacted by this repeal. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 594 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

Mr MEDDICK: I thank the Attorney for that fulsome answer because it actually negated the second question that I had, that is, what laws would still exist that applied to capture them. So I thank you very much for that. Clause agreed to; clauses 9 to 14 agreed to. Reported to house without amendment. Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (15:57): I move:

That the report be adopted. Motion agreed to. Report adopted. Third reading Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (15:57): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Read third time. The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be returned to the Assembly informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment. Business of the house ADJOURNMENT Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (15:58): I move:

That the Council, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 2 March 2021, at 12.00 pm. Motion agreed to. Sitting suspended 3.59 pm until 4.19 pm. Bills EDUCATION AND TRAINING REFORM AMENDMENT (MISCELLANEOUS) BILL 2020 Second reading Debate resumed on motion of Ms STITT: That the bill be now read a second time. Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (16:19): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Education and Training Reform Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2020. At the outset I want to make it plain that my colleagues and I in the coalition will not oppose this bill, which in and of itself is an uncontroversial measure, or perhaps I should say it contains a whole series of relatively uncontroversial measures. It proposes a whole suite of amendments to part 2.6 and section 5.2.1 of the Education and Training Reform Act 2006. Part 2.6 of that act establishes the governance framework, powers and functions of the Victorian Institute of Teaching. The VIT is the statutory authority that regulates the Victorian teaching profession, which includes, importantly, early childhood educators. BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 595

The bill, we are advised by the government, is an acquittal of an important independent review in 2018 of the Victorian Institute of Teaching that followed revelations that the VIT allowed a teacher, and I quote, ‘who told incest stories and paid students for massages to continue working in schools’. I will come back a little later in my contribution to the findings of that review. The proposed amendments clarify the responsibilities and powers of both the VIT and also the Minister for Education in relation to the regulation of initial teacher education programs, so-called ITE programs—that is, programs that lead to qualification for entry to teaching. Ms Taylor: On a point of order, Acting President, I am just checking that the member is on the right bill. I am sorry, I do not mean that disrespectfully, but we just want to make sure that you are on the right bill. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): The way I understand it is that Dr Bach, as long as he is relatively relevant, can talk about anything he wants. Dr BACH: I note the reason, for the benefit of those thousands of people watching at home, for the extended delay. This government can get nothing right when it comes to education. Members of the government actually thought that we were debating an entirely different bill to the one that we are now debating, so over opposite—you will not see them on the cameras—the advisers are scurrying away. The Government Whip genuinely thought that we were debating an entirely different bill. This government when it comes to education and, as you have seen this week, when it comes to the hotel quarantine, contact tracing and indeed anything of note in public administrations can get nothing right. They could not even note the bill that is clearly on the notice paper that we are here to debate this afternoon—cock-up after cock-up. The purpose of this bill before the house today, laying on the table of the house today, on the notice paper today, is to strengthen the regulation of so-called ITE programs—I was talking about that before I was rudely interrupted by members of the government who erroneously thought we were here to debate an entirely different bill—to improve standards and compliance, including entry requirements such as minimum ATARs. Now, of course those of us on this side of the house support reforms which improve the quality of our teachers, because high-quality teachers—all the research shows us—lead to better learning outcomes for our kids. And schools, education systems and education ministers are there for one overriding purpose, and that is to improve the learning outcomes of our kids. I want to be clear, though, as I am always clear when discussing teacher standards and teacher quality, that the vast majority of our teachers here in Victoria in state schools, Catholic schools and independent schools are just fantastic. There are far bigger issues at play in our education system than teacher quality. Teacher quality is important nonetheless, and so after I have discussed teacher quality in this place on many occasions and Mr Hodgett, the shadow minister, has discussed teacher quality on occasions in the other place, I am pleased to see some modest measures in this bill—the bill before the house today despite the fact that a crisis meeting is still going on opposite between the relevant minister and the government whip to determine how on earth they thought it was that indeed we were discussing an entirely different bill today, as more advisers scurry into the advisers box opposite. What an appalling cock-up. The bill also confirms that the VIT has the power to endorse continuing education programs for teachers and early childhood educators. The proposed voluntary endorsement framework seeks to enable the VIT to quality assure continuing education programs for registered teachers and early childhood teachers and is designed to strengthen the quality of entrance to ITE and teachers’ continuing education. Now, I have more questions about this that I will be asking to the Minister for Early Childhood—who luckily is in the house—during the committee of the whole a little later on. I am sure she is prepared. The bill amends the principal act to make clear that the minister can issue mandatory policy— BILLS 596 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

Ms Stitt: On a point of order, Acting President, I would just like to make it clear to the house that these bills are with Minister Tierney—both of the education bills on the notice paper—as the minister representing the education minister in our place. Mr Finn: On the point of order, Acting President, I am just wondering exactly what the implications are for that information that Minister Stitt has just relayed to the house. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): It is actually not a point of order. It is kind of like a point of information, so we will move on. Dr BACH: Well, thank you. I am very happy to move on. It is proposed further in this bill, as one of the further minor changes that is made in this bill, that the VIT should be given powers to dismiss matters that are vexatious, frivolous or misconceived, lacking in substance, by removing current limitations on the VIT council’s power to delegate matters below the level of the council. This, we are informed, is to enable the VIT to deal more effectively and efficiently with its current case load. I have been told by government officials that that case load is currently around the number of 700. I have my concerns about this element of the bill. I understand the logic being put forward by the government, and yet I will be seeking to learn a little bit more about that. There are also proposed changes to limit the length of time to six years—with exception for certain special circumstances—that the VIT can grant provisional registration. The provisional registration scheme is a scheme that we on this side of the house support, and so that change seems to be one that is commonsense enough to me. These proposed changes—these numerous, sometimes somewhat disconnected proposed changes— are ones that we support, with the caveat, as I said, that the power given to the VIT to dismiss or delegate a matter for hearing with a view to efficiency of the management of case loads must mean that matters of serious misconduct or incompetence continue to receive an appropriate hearing. Government officials tell me that that will be the case. We will be watching that closely to ensure that indeed that is the case, especially given some of the failures that were identified by the review that I spoke about earlier. We nonetheless have serious concerns about what is not contained in this bill before the house today. To return to the Armytage review, it was a review that made a series of really quite troubling findings. It found in particular that the teaching regulator needed to be more focused on the wellbeing of children. To quote directly from the review:

There is no object or function which mentions child safety and wellbeing, or that requires the VIT to take into account community expectations … Now, I thought that that was an omission, something that should be changed. The minister ordered the review following the revelations that I briefly discussed, although not in the quite grisly detail that the review itself discusses them. He was concerned that some of the institute’s decisions were, and I quote, ‘at odds with community expectations’. Indeed recommendation 2 of the review states:

As part of the overhaul of Part 2.6 of the Act: The VIT hearing panel system be abolished. That is what the review recommended to avoid the issue of the regulator, quote, ‘acting as “prosecutor, judge and jury”’. Now, all of that seemed sensible enough to me. That seemed to me to be a sound recommendation. And yet this recommendation has not been acted upon here in this bill, which the government informs me is designed to enact the changes necessary as a result of the review. The review made numerous other recommendations for legislative changes that are not in this bill even though the government in its response advised that it would consider them. And yet this BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 597 government makes many empty promises when it comes to education. The Minister for Education, Mr Merlino, the member for Monbulk in the other place, said:

In 2014 we promised to make Victoria the Education State, and every day— every day, he said—

… we have delivered on that commitment. What demonstrable rot. What utter piffle and unadulterated nonsense. The minister has said in the other place that he has recently been reading some of my speeches here in this place. I am gratified by that. He should continue to do so. His staff should continue to do so. I have returned the favour, and I read his second-reading speech. It consists of 1726 words. Not one of those words is ‘learning’. Mr Merlino never talks about learning. He talks about comparisons between Australian states, he talks about spending, but he will never talk about learning. As a former teacher and a former head of a large secondary school, I can inform the minister that all members of the teaching profession think that there is one overriding purpose to our school system, to our education department. There is one overriding purpose that must be enacted by our Minister for Education, and that is to improve student learning. And yet we have learned just this month that last year, before the months-long lockdown that had a devastating impact on student learning, our Victorian kids had received their worst ever learning outcomes. And that is not according to me, that is according to the Productivity Commission. Even before that, we have learned from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) survey, a highly reputable international test, that Victorian students had received their worst ever results at the end of 2019. I have expressed my concern in this place on a number of occasions about the deleterious impact of the government’s precipitous lockdowns on student learning outcomes. I was interested in reading the bill that there are measures specifically designed to increase teacher competence when it comes to literacy and numeracy. Members of the government this week have been talking about STEM skills—the need to instil in our students skills in science, technology, engineering and maths. I agree. The jobs of the 21st century will require a high level of STEM skills. But whatever survey you look at, whether it is the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, whether it is PISA, whether it is the new data from the Productivity Commission just this month, it is plain to see that Victorian students have recently received their worst-ever learning outcomes in science and in maths. So I will be interested to interrogate the relevant minister, whoever that may be, in the committee of the whole regarding the intended impact of the changes put forward in this bill to the learning, because that is what we are here for when it comes to education. We are here to improve the learning outcomes of our students, especially in the critical areas of science and of maths. I was also troubled when I read the Report on Government Services from the Productivity Commission just earlier this month on a number of other important areas that are touched on by this bill. In 2007, I learned when I read the Productivity Commission report, 87.9 per cent of year 4 students met or were above international benchmarks across a whole range of important areas, including in numeracy and science. But in 2019 that had fallen all the way down to 72 per cent. That troubles me. So while I do not oppose the elements of this bill that are intended to better tool up teachers to ensure that their teaching meets a high standard when it comes to important learning areas like literacy and numeracy—they are mentioned specifically in the bill—I wonder how far they will be able to go to change the trend, the marked trend, one of decline. Ever since the year 2000, the year after the Labor government embarked upon its long period of ascendancy here in the state of Victoria, the best part of 20 years, senior students—and this is important given our current jobs crisis in Victoria, the result of the Labor government’s wrongheaded lockdowns, which in and of themselves were the result of the Labor government’s shocking ineptitude in running hotel quarantine and contact tracing—have had worse prospects than ever before. The number of school leavers aged 15 to 24, the Productivity Commission says, who then went on to participate in BILLS 598 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021 further education and training and/or employment dropped drastically from 85 per cent in 2019 to only 64 per cent in the year 2020. So again, what I do not understand in relation to this bill, what I did not hear from the minister in his second-reading speech in relation to this bill, is what impact these changes—that I do not oppose in and of themselves—will have upon the learning outcomes and the prospects of young Victorians. I do understand why Mr Merlino never talks about learning—he did not mention the word once in his second-reading speech—given the Labor government’s failure over such a long period to improve the learning outcomes of our students. And yet we as legislators must have an understanding, when considering education bills, of the desired impact on student learning of the changes that we are looking at. The measures in this bill, as I have said, are largely uncontroversial. I do not oppose them. I will be keen to learn more when we hear from the minister in the committee of the whole. As I said, my colleagues and I will not oppose the bill, which clearly is on the notice paper and lies on the table of the house today. Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (16:38): I rise to speak on this bill— Dr Bach: Which one? Mr HAYES: Hopefully the right bill, Dr Bach. During the coronavirus pandemic our communities gained a deep appreciation for first responders, frontline medical staff and so forth. We have found a new respect for their tireless dedication to our health and our wellbeing in the face of danger and adversity. Alongside these fine responders and healthcare professionals, we need to praise and honour our teachers, who have also carried a heavy load through this. Our teachers have been there through thick and thin during these tumultuous times, undertaking a job that is so fundamentally important to our society. They do not receive nearly enough appreciation for the vital work they do, and that brings me to today’s bill, which I am happy to indicate I wholeheartedly support. There are a number of components to this bill. They are mostly focused on improving the quality of prospective teachers and raising the bar for individuals to become teachers, which is a big step in the right direction. I support any legislative and regulatory changes that facilitate a higher standard of teaching, and I support additional uncontroversial changes, such as allowing the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority to employ more staff during peak exam times. These are very simple, commonsense amendments. I wholeheartedly believe that we should be setting higher ATAR requirements for teachers. We should do everything we can to ensure that the most dedicated, impressive and intelligent individuals are teaching our future generations here in Australia. However, in saying that, I must stress that high entry requirements must be reflected in the salaries and conditions that teachers receive. This is essential, but we are nowhere near this. I do not think they are coming up to that standard. I think successive state governments and even the federal government have seriously dropped the ball here. We have seen over the years cuts to education going on bit by bit, and both parties have been to blame in defunding the public sector the way it has been. During that time we have seen Australia’s place in education standards slip dramatically. It really is a sad thing to see. Teaching, as I have mentioned previously, is one of the most important jobs in our society, alongside our first responders and healthcare professionals, but they are not paid enough. According to PayScale, the average high school teacher in Victoria earns a salary of $71 698. Now, just compare that to a train driver in Victoria, who receives an average salary of $109 863. That is a $40 000 difference and this is all happening in the Education State, or what is claimed to be the Education State. This is very disproportionate and unfair, and it must be changed. If we expect prospective teachers to be of a higher quality and have higher academic achievements, we must pay them accordingly. BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 599

We are coming out of the coronavirus. This has been a huge event for us. I believe it is a turning point for Australia. We are faced with where we are going. We have had time to get off the treadmill for a while and really have a look. Are we going to continue, hopefully, to be a lucky country or are we going to become the smart country? We must really put our attention into the wellbeing of our community, not just the profits of some large companies. What is our path going to be? Are we going to continue down the path and become a Third World country relying on selling resources and real estate, or are we going to have a real smart manufacturing industry, for which we need smart children coming out of our schools? We need a better education system, one that employs professional teachers of the highest calibre; otherwise we will go on relying on a population Ponzi scheme supporting fake growth. It was only about seven years ago that year 12 graduates could enter education courses at university with ATAR scores below 50. Since then the government has mandated a minimum of a 70 ATAR score for most prospective teachers. Now, this is good. We need individuals who have demonstrated success in teaching and mentoring our children and grandchildren. There are alternate pathways for those that do not reach minimum ATAR scores to still pursue teaching, but it does require further work and dedication. The requirement for further work and dedication is a good thing because it demonstrates commitment to this profession. In short, I support the bill. I support any changes that facilitate a higher standard of teaching and I support the more minor mechanical changes in the legislation. But again, I must stress that if the government wants to truly show they are fair dinkum about future learning and education, they must give those who teach and care for our children the salaries and conditions they deserve and fund our education system properly. This, more than anything else, would attract high-calibre candidates into the teaching profession and foster better outcomes for our children and our community. Mr MELHEM (Western Metropolitan) (16:45): I want to echo some of the comments made by Mr Hayes. I am pleased Mr Hayes was actually speaking and talking about the content of the bill. It was disappointing to me to listen to Dr Bach. His contribution went on for nearly half an hour and not much of it was on the bill itself, apart from basically having a go at the government and COVID and everything else, but there was no real focus on the purposes of this bill and why this bill is before this house. This bill has been brought into this house to actually look at one thing—how we can improve the quality of our teachers. As Mr Hayes said, they are the very people we put in charge of educating our kids, whether it is in early years or secondary years or high school. We make no apology as a government. We have always said we want to improve and continually improve the quality of our teaching staff in the state of Victoria, and I think we have been doing that. This bill will go a long way to continue that continuous improvement process, if you like, to make sure we have excellent teachers who can deliver excellent quality training and teaching to our kids. Now, I just want to reflect on the role that our teachers play in our society, and particularly in the last 12 months. Mr Hayes said we cannot pay them enough and they should be rewarded accordingly, and I agree. I think it is people like teachers, like nurses and like police—people who are actually at the front, who educate us, look after us when we are ill and protect us when we need protection—who should be first quality and who should be rewarded accordingly. As a former union official I agree with that wholeheartedly, particularly these people who stood up to the task at hand during the COVID period—and we are still going through it—for the whole of 2020. They are the very people we depended on to make sure life continued on in the way that we knew it, particularly our teachers who managed to switch; they had to change completely the way that they delivered their teaching and their training from face to face, making sure the curriculum was delivered, to going online. We have asked of them a fair bit. But I tell you what, they have actually proven they were up to the task and they have delivered a first-class service to make sure our kids, whether they are in early childhood, primary schools or secondary schools, received an excellent education. I think these people are amazing. You are right, Mr Hayes; I do not think whatever we are paying them is enough. There is always an argument over what is enough. BILLS 600 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

But I think most of these people take that up as a profession because it is something that they are very passionate about. They want to actually be out there educating kids. Basically it is a passion. You have got to have the passion to be a teacher, because it is not a job that is nine to five. It is not a job where you just turn up and then pass the hours and leave your brain at the gate because you are not supposed to think. It is not a job like that. It is a job you have to give 110 per cent to. You have got to have care, you have got to have skills and you have got to have integrity. That is what these teachers do. That is what they were doing in 2020 in particular when they had to put in extra effort to make sure that they continued to deliver that service to our kids, and in 2021 the challenge continues. Hopefully there will not be many days online. But they stood up to the task and they stood up and they said, ‘We’re ready’ Unfortunately what amazed me about the members opposite is they take COVID-19 as a joke. They believe COVID-19 is a conspiracy. They believe the state government, the Andrews Labor government, and the Premier enjoy getting on TV and saying, ‘We’re going to make the hard decision, and we’re going to go into lockdown’. Mr Finn: On a point of order, Acting President, I think the member, Mr Melhem, may well have strayed from the bill just a tad, like a couple of hundred thousand kilometres. He is over near Perth somewhere at the minute, so might I humbly suggest to you that you might like to bring him back to the legislation before the house. Mr MELHEM: On the point of order, Acting President, I am just responding to Dr Bach’s contribution. He spent a fair bit of time talking about the Andrews Labor government and COVID and lockdown. He actually spent half of his contribution talking about that; he was not talking about the bill. I am actually reflecting on the bill. I talked about the contribution teachers have made during COVID and I was continuing that contribution. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): I will actually dismiss the point of order, but it would be really nice if we could just stick to the bill at hand, Mr Melhem. Mr MELHEM: Thank you, Acting President. The point I was making is that the Premier had to stand up last week and make hard decisions, not soft decisions. The decision was the state had to be locked down for five days to protect Victorians. But knowing that we have got excellent teachers who are ready for the task and able to just, with a minimum notice, switch between face-to-face learning and online learning. That was the point I was making, and they actually did just that for three days, made sure that they were able to do that switch. That is going back to the quality of our teaching staff. Now, this bill will actually strengthen that by making sure that we improve the standard to both protect our teachers and make sure we have got quality ones going in, and also there are a lot of just basically administrative changes to the current legislation. For example, the current legislation does not give the Victorian Institute of Teaching flexibility. If a teacher’s registration expires on 30 September and the teacher does not apply for renewal within three months, they lose their registration. So that is another technical change the bill will allow. It will give the VIT the discretion, because for whatever reason teachers might forget to do that or they become occupied with other matters and be unable to do that. Then they are able to reapply and get their registration back and they will continue to comply with the requirements of the act and make sure they remain in the system. So the bill makes largely, as I said, technical amendments. I am interested in seeing what Dr Bach has got. I think he indicated that he will be looking at asking some questions in the committee of the whole, and to my understanding the opposition have actually been briefed on this bill and they were very supportive. But as I said, I am looking forward to seeing what he has got to say, and I hope he is actually supporting the bill. A member interjected. Mr MELHEM: You are supporting the bill. On that note, I commend the bill to the house, and I hope everyone will support this bill and then we can get on with it. BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 601

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (16:54): What a delight it is always to follow Mr Melhem, because I always sound so much better when he is finished, and that is a very good thing indeed. I rise to speak on the Education and Training Reform Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2020. I think I have got that right. I hope I have got that right. This is a bill that the opposition will not oppose at all. In fact it is a very important piece of legislation because this is a piece of legislation that refers specifically to the role of teachers in our schools. My view on this is very clear, and that is a good teacher cannot be beaten. If we could put good teachers into every position in the state and Catholic and independent systems, we would not have a problem in the world. A bad teacher on the other hand can go a fair way towards destroying lives. It never ceases to amaze me that you get some teachers who seem more concerned about telling kids about what their political views are than actually preparing them for life by teaching them the important things like the three Rs. That might be something that is a bit alien to members opposite but reading, writing and arithmetic is extremely important. I have to say it does concern me enormously when I see kids leave school—sometimes even leave university—and they are semiliterate. And I have to wonder how you can do that. I really have to wonder how you can go through 12 years of school and maybe two, three, four years of university and nobody picks up that you are actually semiliterate. I do not know how that works. But fortunately that does not happen to all, and in my own case I can share a personal experience with you. Back in the dim, distant past I was attending a Catholic school in the country and I was in that situation. I had completely fallen through the cracks, and a teacher—who later married my second cousin in fact—pointed out to my parents that things were not going as well as she would like with my education. My parents took me to the local state school, Alvie Consolidated School, down near Colac in case you are wondering. There was a teacher down there who I have spoken of in this chamber before, a bloke called Ken Dunne, who was just an extraordinary teacher, the sort of teacher that you would really like to think could be, should be, would be in every classroom in the state because if he was, we would have outstanding results on every front. Ken Dunne got hold of me and he taught me things that I had not been taught before, or perhaps I had been taught before but I actually learned them that time, and that is a hell of a difference. For example, I will never forget his interesting way of teaching me how to read. At that stage my reading was pretty abysmal and I really was not up to scratch at all. He taught me how to read by walking into class one day and holding up the Sporting Globe. I am sure Mr Leane will remember the Sporting Globe—it was the pink paper that came out I think twice a week from memory, Saturday and Wednesday. He held up the Sporting Globe and he said, ‘Royce Hart has done his knee’, and I of course was mortified. How old was I? I was about nine or 10 at the time, and Ken Dunne came out and held up the Sporting Globe and said, ‘Royce Hart has done his knee’. Of course Royce Hart at that point had not done his knee, but I did not know that because I could not read it. So I actually had to learn to read to find out that Royce was okay, and that is fair dinkum, ridgy-didge. I mean, that goes to show some of the imagination I suppose that goes into teaching somebody. You have got to find out what makes them tick, I suppose, before you can make that tick go faster, and that is what Ken Dunne did. Ken has unfortunately left us now; he left us a few years ago, and I went to his funeral up in Castlemaine. He went on to be a councillor up in Castlemaine and a prominent businessman up there as well, and he will always be, in my mind, one of the great influences on my life. I can say without fear or hesitation—I plead with members opposite not to hold this against him— that without him I would not be here. I can guarantee that because I would not have been able to fill in the application form—by the time he got to me I was pretty much in a bad way. Teachers like Ken Dunne I would like to think we would have more of, I really do. I am not saying that teachers are bad—there are a lot of very good teachers about—but I am just saying that it is so, so important that we do encourage good teachers, that we do reward good teachers, and I think that is something that we should have a closer look at in terms of rewarding them. I think that we should reward good teachers. We should reward teachers on the basis of merit. If they are doing the job, if they are getting the results that we expect, they should be paid more than the ones who are BILLS 602 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021 not. I think that would be a fairly reasonable thing. If somebody is getting results, if somebody is a good teacher, they should be paid for being a good teacher. If somebody is not such a good teacher, well, then they perhaps would not be paid as much. That is something that I think all governments should consider at some point. I have no doubt the teachers union will go absolutely feral, but it does not take much for the teachers union to go feral. That is an unfortunate fact of life, and we have seen that. It does not matter whether it is a federal election, it does not matter whether it is a pay dispute, it does not matter what it is—the teachers union will go feral. That is something that we have come to expect, and they never let us down. If ever there was an organisation that brings into disrepute the trade union movement, it is certainly the teachers union. But to get back to what I was saying before, the role of teachers in children’s lives is absolutely vital. I see from my two 15-year-old daughters, who are still at secondary school, the important role that teachers play in their lives, whether that be for good or bad. They tell me how good a teacher is or how a teacher is perhaps not up to scratch. It is very interesting to hear them and their friends talk about the various teachers. You know you have got a good teacher when kids actually look forward to the classes that that teacher teaches, and that is something that I think is almost a truism. I hear it from my two 15-year-old daughters every day. They are in separate classes now, but they report back, whether it be deliberate or not, on the various teachers that they have at school, and I get a fair idea of who is doing a good job and who is not. It is really important that we have a standard that everybody adheres to because, as I said before, we cannot have a situation where kids are leaving school or university only semiliterate. We cannot have a situation where they can barely read, they can barely write and in many cases they can barely count— seminumerate as well. I remember some years ago up in Sydney in fact—so this is not just a Victorian thing, this is Australia-wide—a bloke who was an employer pulled out a file and showed me what would have been 100 job applications from kids for a job that he had advertised, and he said, ‘Take a look at these, will you?’. And going on the job applications, I can honestly say to you I would not have employed any of them. It was embarrassing; it was cringeworthy. I could not believe that anybody would be able to go through school and have that level of literacy. I mean, it was appalling. There was no grammar in many of them, the spelling was atrocious. There was no concept of a message being conveyed. It was absolutely dreadful. When I got back to Melbourne, I made it a point to go and see a few employers and ask them the same question about some of the applications that they get for jobs, and they told me the same thing, and that is really, really sad. It is great that a child or a young adult has a great education and is able to read and write and is able to count, but that should not give them a great advantage over the other kids who cannot. Everybody when they leave school should be able to read, should be able to write and should be able to count and do those basic arithmetic things. It seems to me that governments—not just this one, but governments over the years—have lost the plot a bit in this regard. I am loath to use a cliché, but when we hear ‘back to basics’, it is not such a bad idea. We have got this situation here in Victoria where kids can tell you how they can change gender but they cannot tell you how to spell their own name. Ms Terpstra: Oh, come on! You were doing all right until then. Mr FINN: Well, that is the truth. If you do not want to hear the truth, that is unfortunate, but I will tell you the truth—that is what is going on out there. Kids are being mixed up and their brains are being totally confused by all manner of things, when they should be being taught the basics of what is going to get them through life. How do you get through life? How do you get a job? How do you even fill out a licence form when you get a drivers licence if you cannot read and you cannot write? These are things that the government, I am hoping, at some stage might actually concentrate on, because we need to do that. We hear the government talk about fairness all the time. Well, let me tell you, it is most unfair to those kids to put them out into the world when they cannot cope with the basics, when they have not achieved what we would expect all of them to achieve. BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 603

Ms Terpstra: On a point of order, Acting President, I just would like to perhaps remind the member opposite in his contribution that this bill is actually about the Education and Training Reform Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2020 that has to do with regulation of the Victorian Institute of Teaching. I notice his contribution is much more broad and wideranging than the context of the bill, and I would ask him to be relevant to the bill. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Mr Finn, if you can just come back at least roughly to the bill, that would be good. Mr FINN: I am talking about the quality of education, the quality of teachers and education, and that is what the bill is about. Ms Terpstra: No, it’s not. Mr FINN: That is what the bill is about, so that is what I am talking about. It is a fairly thick bill— not as thick as Ms Terpstra, but it is a fairly thick bill nonetheless. It covers a lot of areas pertaining to education, pertaining to teacher quality, and that is exactly what I am talking about. If you do not talk about results, if you do not talk about the end product, then what goes before does not matter. As I said before, you have got to have teachers who care, teachers who are totally and absolutely committed. We have a great number of those teachers, I know, but we have a few that we could do without. Unfortunately some of them are more intent on teaching their kids how to vote Labor or Greens or whatever silliness that they might be involved in rather than teaching them how to spell their name. I think that is a bit sad, and as I was saying before, it is very unfair to those kids who get through 12 years of education and they know how to put number 1 in the Labor Party box or give out Labor how-to-vote cards, and that is about it. It is very sad for them. It is very unfair. I am hoping that this bill might do something about it—I am not overly confident, but I hope so—and the opposition will in fact support this legislation. Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (17:09): I rise to make a brief contribution in relation to this bill. I know that I have a number of colleagues in the house today that also want to make a brief contribution, so I will cut to the chase. I think it is unfortunate to hear those opposite critical of teachers and making some fairly sweeping generalisations about the profession. I would just like to place on the record my appreciation of all of the incredible teachers in our state who have got kids from three- and four-year-old kinder, right through the primary years, the secondary years and indeed VCE students through the most difficult of years. I think it is important that they know that we support their efforts and that we are incredibly grateful. I know that many families had to juggle many pressures during this global pandemic, and I think that the way in which our teachers and our school system adapted, embraced new ways of teaching and got on board with new technology was absolutely outstanding, and they need to know that we appreciate that effort. It is also disappointing to hear those opposite talk about performance pay as if that is going to be the panacea. Dr Bach interjected. Ms STITT: This bill is pretty simple. It is about the Victorian Institute of Teaching with respect to the approval of— The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Dr Bach, if you are going to interject, interject from your place. Ms STITT: In terms of the many sectors that I have been involved in over the years where performance pay was a feature, I understand the inequalities that can arise out of such a pay structure, the gender bias that can be— BILLS 604 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

Dr Bach interjected. Ms STITT: Dr Bach, I am pretty courteous when you are making a contribution— Ms Terpstra: On a point of order, Acting President, I cannot hear the minister’s contribution in regard to this bill—there is that much interjection from those opposite. I cannot hear what she is saying, and I ask that the minister be heard in silence. Mr Ondarchie: On the point of order, Acting President, I just want to make sure that the minister knows that she is speaking on the right bill on this one—just some confirmation on that. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Thank you for that, Mr Ondarchie, but that is not a point of order—or even related to the point of order. Dr Bach: On the point of order, Acting President, I was not heard in silence. When those opposite realised that they had the entirely wrong— Ms Terpstra interjected. Dr Bach: It is on your point of order. I have the call, Ms Terpstra, and I am responding to the point of order. Ms Terpstra would like the minister, Minister Stitt, to be heard in silence. Well, I was not heard in silence when the Government Whip needed to discuss with the advisers—the wrong set of advisers—in the advisers box about the wrong bill when I was speaking. So the assertion— Ms Terpstra interjected. Dr Bach: No. I am speaking on your point of order. I am responding to your point of order. A member interjected. Dr Bach: I have the call. I am responding to your point of order. I was not heard in silence in my speech on the second reading, so I think it is a little rich of Ms Terpstra to assert that the minister should be heard in dead silence when members opposite were not. Ms Terpstra: Further to the point of order, Acting President, complaining that he was not heard in silence is not a point of order. So I would like to understand what the member’s point of order is in regard to my issue. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Dr Bach, I think I have got a solution to this. Dr Bach: I am not making a point of order, I am responding to Ms Terpstra’s point of order. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Yes, well, she was responding to your point of order. We are getting towards the end of the day and the end of the week. Let us just let the minister get on and everyone have some relative silence. A little bit of argy-bargy is good, but now we are getting a little silly, so could we just let the minister continue. Ms STITT: Thank you, Acting President. I do have just a few things that I want to place on the record. I certainly did not come for a toing and froing with Dr Bach. He seems quite agitated this afternoon. But nevertheless I do have views about the relative merits of performance-based pay versus other ways of renumerating, rewarding and indeed respecting our teachers, and I am of the view that performance pay does throw up inequalities and unintended impacts in terms of gender bias, and I think it undermines a culture of collaboration and support. In stark contrast, the Andrews Labor government is about actually respecting and rewarding our teachers. For example, in terms of kindergarten teachers there is an in-principle agreement that is making its way through the process of approval between sessional kindergartens and those unions that represent kindergarten teachers, and I am delighted that that agreement, subject to its approval through the Fair Work Commission, will for the first time actually give pay parity between early childhood teachers and their counterparts in the primary and state school system. I think that that is an absolute BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 605 triumph, frankly, because these teachers in early childhood have been arguing around pay equity compared to the school sector for decades. We all know that it is a part of the profession that is female dominated, and so of course gender inequality and pay equity are a feature. I am very proud of the fact that the parties to this agreement have been able to address that and come up with solutions to see parity for early childhood educators. That is very important because we are, as members would be aware, embarking on some significant reforms in the early childhood teaching space. That means that we need to attract an additional 4000 early childhood teachers over the decade of the reform, which is a great opportunity for Victorians looking for a career in the teaching professions to actually think about early childhood as an option without having to accept second-rate pay and conditions. We are absolutely committed to seeing these reforms through, with an additional 4000 early childhood teachers and 2000 additional early childhood educators. There are a range of incentives in place to support students to get their qualifications so that they can teach in this wonderful part of our education system. This bill will enhance those efforts. The Victorian Institute of Teaching changes in this bill, in respect to the approval of initial teacher education programs that lead to qualifications for entry to teaching in our schools, will certainly assist in terms of the quality of educators coming through the system. I commend the bill to the house. Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (17:18): I am very pleased to speak on this bill. I am sure we are all very passionate about furthering education in this chamber. From the tone of this debate I picked up that as a result of a recent sort of mending of relationships—the opposition have had their bonding session and their every-kiddie-gets-a-prize day—we can see that we have got a new peacock in town. Dr Bach is coming in; the tail feathers are getting fluffed out. He is strutting around because on every- kiddie-gets-a-prize day Dr Bach, I understand, became a shadow to a shadow. Now, I do not believe a shadow of a shadow actually even exists. We are talking about education. I was thinking about this the other day: I saw that there was a shadow of a tree next to my car and my car was casting a shadow as well. As the sun went over, the higher item, the tree, actually took over the shadow of the car and there was only one shadow. Mr Finn: On a point of order, Acting President, I do not care how many times you read this bill, I will put money down that there is nothing in it even remotely near what Mr Leane is talking about just at the minute. I ask you to bring him back to the legislation before the house. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Mr Leane, thanks for the zoological review and character review—all that sort of thing. Can we come back to the bill, please. Mr LEANE: Well, I thought I was talking about applied science and observation. I think that is an important part of education. I think we kind of know what is going on sometimes in this place. There are certain things, activities, that certain individuals are carrying on with. That will not take away from the agenda of the government, particularly in furthering education. We look forward to future strutting and tail feathers puffing out into the future, because for us on this side it can be enjoyable. We like to watch. It is like documentaries, where you can watch activities, you know, like the activities of peacocks. It is like watching a documentary for us. Mr Finn: On a point of order, Acting President, I do not know if there is anything about peacocks in this bill—I did not see it—but let me say to you again that Mr Leane is taking a very, very wide view of this bill. The view in fact is so wide that he cannot even see the thing, so can I suggest to you very strongly that you bring him back to the legislation before the house. Ms Terpstra: On the point of order, Acting President, further to the point raised by Mr Finn that the minister was being too far reaching or broad ranging with regard to his contribution, I might remind Mr Finn that in fact he did the same thing earlier and then did not accept my point of order. So, Acting President, I ask you to dismiss Mr Finn’s point of order as irrelevant. BILLS 606 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

Mr Finn: On the point of order— The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Order! Mr Finn, I think we are getting a little out of control here with our points of order. Minister Leane, how about speaking on the bill? It would be good. Mr LEANE: I would just like to say— Mr Finn interjected. Mr LEANE: What do peacocks sound like? Anyway, I will tell you what, the day that both Mr Finn and I speak on a bill and we are both absolutely relevant to it will be a historic day in this chamber, I have got to say. I might leave my commentary there, and thank you for— Members interjecting. Mr LEANE: Hang on, the plumes are fluffing up! ‘Look at me, look at me, Michael. I’m so smart’— The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Order! Minister Leane, the bill or not the bill? That is the question. Mr LEANE: I am finished on the bill. Thank you. Members interjecting. Mr LEANE: Is that the noise it makes? The tail feathers are fluffing up. I do not know if leaders of parties actually sit and watch contributions of their members and go, ‘That person’s going to be the Premier of this state one day. You see that peacock? That peacock is going to be the Premier of the state one day’. Members interjecting. Mr LEANE: Hang on, it is a peacock again. One thing about this bill is that I listened to some of the contributions and I noticed the attention seeking from the shadow of the shadow. As I said, I am sure that the experiment I did in my driveway that late afternoon scientifically proved that a shadow of a shadow does not exist. Mr Ondarchie: On a point of order, Acting President, it goes to relevance, and I will help the minister out here. It seems that the Government Whip has now got another speaker in place, Minister, so you can rest your case and get someone who knows something about the bill to speak to it. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Actually, Minister Leane, I ask you—and you are a former President—to at least come back to the bill. It is hard to hear what is going on between— Members interjecting. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Order! I am talking! It is hard to hear what is going on between your irrelevance, what is coming from your side of the chamber and what is coming from their side of the chamber, so if you are going to speak, can you just please get to the bill. Mr LEANE: I think I am okay. Call the next speaker. Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (17:25): I rise to support the Education and Training Reform Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2020. This is a very technical bill, but nevertheless so important. It is important because it talks about the training of teachers, and teachers, as we all know, are very important. Teachers are the people who shape the thinking and the ability of not just one person, of not just one class, but of a whole generation to come. I would like to offer my personal story. I will not be long, because it would be very long if I told it from A to Z. I will just briefly say that when I was in high school, due to the influence and inspiration BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 607 of my teacher, I decided to choose science, particularly physics and mathematics, to be the career of my life. There are many reasons for that, but it suffices to say that it was my wish to have science technology to help lift up the standard of living and bring the people around me out of poverty, and I kept that when I came to Australia via a refugee camp. After a while, after working in a factory, I was lucky enough to be admitted back to university at the University of Queensland, and people in my cohort, my friends, refugee Vietnamese boat people, who were also lucky enough to be admitted, all chose topics that are very practical and very important nevertheless—namely, computer science or engineering or something else that can provide a better chance of a professional career later on. But I stuck to my person and I chose physics, and it had a very uncertain future doing physics because, as you know, the career path is not as wide as some of the other subjects. That illustrates two points: the influence and the inspiration of a teacher on a person and on a generation to come; and the second point is about the relevance and the importance of STEM, science and technology, particularly in my case. Today, this morning, actually very early morning in Australian time, NASA successfully landed the Perseverance on Mars, and there will be a rover to collect samples and do the analysis from afar. But more than that, after that journey—which took about seven months to get there—another return journey is being planned to bring back the samples from that planet. Now, in this day and age, the understanding of science and technology helps us not only to explore the universe but also in everyday life. We have the internet. To take the example of the pandemic, an understanding of science will encourage people to take up vaccination, for example, rather than trying to stick to some conspiracy theory. Also, just being a consumer is not good enough nowadays. Knowledge is important and also requires a generation of teachers who are capable of not just passing on knowledge but also inspiring the students to follow the path of their dreams and to successfully contribute to the society that we are living in. Now, I have to also mention something, otherwise people will say that I am biased about science and mathematics— Mr Ondarchie: Yes, you are. Dr KIEU: Yes, but nevertheless, thank you. I will say that to me science and mathematics are actually only a kind of language. To me there are three kinds of languages that are so important in one’s education and also for our society. Obviously in order to communicate between people and people, between each other, we need the language of everyday life. In this instance, for example, English. In some other countries, some other languages. That is the language of human interaction. And then we have been able to explore machines. In order to instruct and get results from machines and computers and all the machinery in the modern day we need to have a knowledge and perhaps a mastery of another type of language, the programming language. And lastly, in order to understand nature and to exploit it, for lack of a better term, we need to understand mathematics, because nature can only speak in the mathematical language. I just want to round up in that sense. Science is important but only one aspect of the languages that we need in our society and our generation in order to be able to communicate in several ways. And so the importance of teachers in passing on the language and inspiring the students cannot be overstated. This bill is to amend the Education and Training Reform Act 2006. This bill aims to clarify and enhance the existing powers of the VIT, namely, the Victorian Institute of Teaching, with respect to the approval of initial teacher education; to grant new powers to the VIT with respect to the approval of programs that are marketed as offering a pathway which is not a regulated pathway for teacher training; to improve the efficiency of the VIT operating processes and procedures with respect to teacher registration processes and the investigation processes of VIT; and also to improve the ability to delegate power for the VIT. BILLS 608 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

At the moment the VIT is the statutory authority that regulates the Victorian teaching profession. This is very important, as I have tried to highlight and illustrate just now. The Victorian selection framework, the VSF, has the authority to set out the requirements for selection to initial teacher education programs. That was introduced in 2017 by agreement. For example, the VSF will set a minimum ATAR for entry to the teacher training program. However, currently there is a lack of clarity about the VIT’s role and the extent of its power. That is why we need this bill before the house. In addition, in practice the initial teacher education program has admission of undergraduate candidates into the ITE, initial teacher education, directly from several pathways. Those need to be clarified as well. That is the gist of this bill. It is very, very technical, but nevertheless it is important, because we need the framework, we need the clarity, we need the granting of new powers and we also need to improve the efficiencies of the VIT in doing so. Also the bill has a section on information-sharing powers of VIT. Those are very important nowadays with how data are collected and how they are stored, but more importantly how they are shared and utilised with appropriate protection for privacy and against misuse. So the bill before the house is a very technical one. Ms Terpstra: It is indeed. Dr KIEU: It is, but it is necessary to make a range of technical amendments to improve the institute’s efficiency and service provision to teachers, including streamlining aspects of the institute’s current function and processes, and also to clarify and remove the ambiguities from the Education and Training Reform Act 2006. On that note I would like to commend the bill to the house. I need to stop there; otherwise I will go back to my personal story, and that will take forever. Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (17:36): I rise to make a contribution on this bill, the Education and Training Reform Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2020. Just before I begin my contribution in regard to the content of this bill, I want to acknowledge Dr Kieu’s contribution on this bill and recognise his incredible contribution to Australia after coming here as a refugee. The Australian education system has really benefited from having Dr Kieu here—and the Parliament as well. So we are incredibly fortunate, and it just goes to show what a fantastic education system we actually have. I think it is a real credit to you, Dr Kieu, the achievements that you have made, and I know that you are a very strident and strong advocate for STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths. I know you are a great ambassador for that program and you will do amazing work on behalf of this government in that field. So I thank you for that. I also just want to say that I know, Dr Kieu, it is about STEM, but let us put in the A for the arts. We need to make sure we put the arts into STEM because that is important as well. But anyway, back to the bill; I digress. This bill, as I said earlier, is an amendment bill. Dr Kieu was quite right in his contribution when he said that it is a technical amendment type bill. There are a number of technical amendments that we need to make to actually address some of the issues that have been highlighted with the operation of this bill. One of the stated purposes of this bill is to clarify and enhance the existing powers of the VIT, otherwise known as the Victorian Institute of Teaching, with respect to the approval of initial teacher education programs that lead to qualifications for entry to teaching in schools, because as we know it is critically important that teachers are able to attain accreditation and have the right teaching skills and qualifications so we know that those teachers are delivering quality education programs to our children. Another stated objective of this technical amendment bill is that it will grant new powers to the Victorian Institute of Teaching with respect to the approval of programs that are marketed as offering to provide a pathway to entry into an initial teacher education program and the endorsement of continuing education and professional learning programs for teachers and early childhood teachers. So again it is about making sure that the Victorian Institute of Teaching has the appropriate approval powers to recognise alternative pathways into teaching. We need to get that right, of course. It goes without saying. BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 609

Another objective of the bill is to introduce information-sharing powers for the VIT and also to improve the efficiency of the VIT’s operating processes and procedures with respect to teacher registration processes, the VIT’s investigation processes and the VIT’s ability to delegate power. So again it is a rather dry type of bill. It is a very technical, amendmenty kind of bill that is going to change a bunch of laws to sort of harmonise and provide a better framework. I just might comment for a moment that our teachers do an amazing job. We have seen how fantastic they are and how well they adjusted to the challenges that were thrown up to all of us with the COVID- 19 pandemic and the need for teaching and learning to be done from home. I note that our teachers showed great resilience with that—adaptability and resilience. So we really need to pay respect to our great teachers on the fantastic work they do. I might note that in Dr Kieu’s contribution he commented on the profound impact that a teacher had on his life and how that led him on to a pathway of study in science, technology, engineering and maths. When a teacher makes an impact on a child’s life you can see that it can have a profound effect and it can really ignite a passion for learning. It can switch on the light-bulb moment so they say, ‘I’m really engaged in this subject. I want to learn and I’m hungry for knowledge’. It is a great teacher that does that, and teachers can impact a child’s life on many levels, and that is just one of them. We know that an efficient and robust framework for accreditation of teachers is something that we need to make sure that we continue to work on and get right. In terms of the context of this bill, I might just give a little bit of background for those who are playing along at home who may not know much about the VIT. It is interesting—the public service use a lot of acronyms. I personally do not like the use of acronyms. We should say these things in full, and I am sure every speaker in this chamber from time to time has gone, ‘What is that?’. But I am able to say that the Victorian Institute of Teaching—VIT; that is what it stands for—is the statutory authority that regulates the Victorian teaching profession and it is a very important statutory authority and it carries out a very important statutory function. The Victorian selection framework—again, I am not going to read out that acronym; no, we are just not going there—which sets out the requirements for selection into teacher education programs, was introduced in 2017 by agreement. The requirements of the Victorian selection framework include—I have to say this one—a minimum ATAR for entry into these training education programs for school leavers. We know that it is important to have a minimum ATAR for school leavers so that if they decide to choose a teaching career they can meet a minimum education requirement to make entry into teacher education programs. There is currently a lack of clarity around the Victorian Institute of Teaching’s role and the extent of its powers with respect to the regulation of teacher education programs and whether the standards for these programs can include entry requirements for teacher education programs. It is quite a dry topic but quite an important topic and something that we need to make sure that we have regulated in this bill. As I said, there is currently a lack of clarity around this, so it is best to bring these matters forward and to have them regulated in order that there can be clarity, because we do not want any confusion around this; we want to make sure that it is clear for everybody. In addition, in practice teacher education providers allow admission of undergraduate candidates into teacher education directly from unregulated pathways. Unregulated pathway programs currently subvert the requirements of the Victorian selection framework. Often what you see where you have a robust framework, when there are new initiatives that come into that—I do not want to say ‘marketplace’ because that is not the correct thing to say; it is not really a market—area of regulation, we need to tweak legislation or the framework to ensure that our framework for accreditation keeps up and captures any new initiatives that might allow other pathways into teaching, for example. So it is only appropriate really that this legislation allows for graduates to be recognised and come into these pathways but applies an appropriate standard and requirements for such regulation. I think everybody in this chamber and those who are playing along at home—all three of you—might also agree that it is important. We want to have confidence in our teacher regulation system. It is critically important. I am a parent myself, and I know a number of us in this chamber have young children or have older children. We want to make sure that we can have confidence in our teacher regulation system. BILLS 610 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

Just two more points and I might conclude very shortly. The proposed amendments to part 2.6 of the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 aim to resolve these issues. They are critically important. Several areas of VIT operations regarding registration and discipline processes and its powers to delegate can be improved, enabling the VIT to deliver a more efficient and cost-effective service to teachers—all very good, all excellent. We need to make sure that we have a robust framework that manages all of these issues. This is what this bill does. I know it is very technical and dry, but it does give confidence to the teacher registration system, and I would commend this bill to the house. Motion agreed to. Read second time. Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (17:46): I move:

That the committee of the whole on the bill be moved to another day. Motion agreed to. CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT (FRACKING BAN) BILL 2020 Introduction and first reading The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman) (17:47): I have a message from the Assembly:

The Legislative Assembly presents for the agreement of the Legislative Council ‘A Bill for an Act to amend the Constitution Act 1975 to constrain the power of the Parliament to make laws repealing, altering or varying certain provisions that prohibit hydraulic fracturing and coal seam gas exploration and mining and for other purposes’. Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (17:47): I move:

That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Read first time. Ms SYMES: I move, by leave:

That the second reading be taken forthwith. Motion agreed to. Statement of compatibility Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (17:48): I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:

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 Constitution Amendment (Fracking Ban) Bill 2020. In my opinion, the Constitution Amendment (Fracking Ban) Bill 2020 (Bill), as introduced to the Legislative Council, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement. Overview The purpose of the Bill is to insert into the Constitution Act 1975 (Constitution Act) provisions that entrench existing legislated bans on hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and the exploration and mining of coal seam gas (coal seam gas activities). Those bans comprise: (i) a ban on fracking in s 8AD of the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 (MRSDA) and s 16A of the Petroleum Act 1998 (Petroleum Act); and (ii) a ban on coal seam gas activities in s 8AC of the MRSDA. The Bill amends s 18(2) of the Constitution Act to require that any Bill that purports to remove or amend the legislated bans be passed by a special BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 611

majority, being three-fifths of both Houses. This means that a special majority, rather than a simple majority, will be required to repeal, alter or vary the Bill. To the extent that this special majority requirement may engage or limit Charter rights, any limit is considered to be reasonable, on grounds that no less restrictive means is available to achieve the purpose that the limitation seeks to achieve: s 7(2)(e) - Being, constitutional entrenchment of the legislated bans. For the reasons below, it is considered that the Bill does not limit any Charter rights. By entrenching existing provisions in the MRSDA and the Petroleum Act, the Bill only engages the Charter rights that are already engaged by those provisions. Human Rights Issues Privacy and reputation (section 13) and freedom of expression (section 15) Section 13(1) of the Charter provides that a person has a right not to have his or her privacy, family or home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. Section 15(2) of the Charter relevantly provides that every person has the right to freedom of expression which includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, whether within or outside Victoria and regardless of the form of communication. Clause 4 of the Bill inserts a new s 74D into the Constitution Act which prevents Parliament from repealing, altering or varying ss 8AD and 8AC of the MRSDA. Section 8AD prohibits fracking on any land. Section 8AC(1) makes it an offence for a person to explore for, or to mine, coal seam gas on any land. However, the s 8AC(1) offence will not apply if a person who holds a licence, and while exploring for a mineral in accordance with the terms of that licence, incidentally discovers or mines coal seam gas and reports that discovery in accordance with certain conditions set out in s 113A: s 8AC(2), MRSDA. To utilise the s 8AC(2) exception, a person may be required to disclose personal information relating to the discovery. This may engage the Charter right to privacy. However, it is considered that the Charter privacy right is not limited. Section 113A of the MRSDA clearly sets out the circumstances in which personal information could be required to be disclosed in relation to s 8AC(2). Any disclosure would therefore not be “unlawful or arbitrary” within the meaning of s 13(1) of the Charter. By requiring a person to disclose their personal information, s 8AC(2) of the MRSDA may also engage the Charter right to freedom of expression. However, the right is not limited. The requirement that persons disclose incidental discoveries of coal seam gas is a lawful one, being necessary to provide the State with information regarding coal seam gas resources and enforce s 8AC(2) of the MRSDA. Furthermore, the requirement only operates in limited circumstances– discoveries of coal seam gas. Property rights (section 20) Section 20 of the Charter provides that a person must not be deprived of his or her property other than in accordance with law. The Bill, which inserts provisions entrenching the existing legislated bans on fracking and coal seam gas activities into the Constitution Act, may engage the Charter right to not be deprived of property. Participants in the resource industry or who carry out petroleum operations, for the purposes of the MRSDA and the Petroleum Act, may be natural persons. However, participants in the resource industry are most likely to be corporations, and therefore do not possess human rights under the Charter in accordance with s 6(1). For this reason, there is a low risk that s 20 of the Charter would be engaged. If the participant is an individual, the relevant clauses of the Bill would not unlawfully limit the individual’s property rights, as any deprivation of property would be in accordance with law, in this instance, the licensing scheme that regulates the industry in the MRSDA and the Petroleum Act. Rights in criminal proceedings (section 25) 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. Ordinarily, the presumption of innocence requires that the prosecution prove all matters beyond reasonable doubt. Section 25(1) of the Charter may be 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 he or she is not guilty of an offence. The Bill entrenches in the Constitution Act strict liability offences in the MRSDA and Petroleum Acts that prohibit fracking or coal seam gas activities. The offence in s 8AC of the MRSDA contains an exception which places the evidential burden of proof on the accused. BILLS 612 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

The Bill may engage the Charter right to be presumed innocent, by including strict liability offences with a low standard of proof, to which the only exception reverses the burden of proof. However, the Bill is not considered to limit the right. As above, persons engaging in resource exploration and extraction for the purposes of the MRSDA and the Petroleum Act would likely be corporations and therefore not have any Charter rights: s 6(1). Alternately, if the accused party were an individual, any limitation on the right is considered reasonable and justifiable as they would be a resource industry participant for whom compliance with the provisions would not be difficult. Resource industry participants must maintain significant expertise in industry regulation, including the restrictions on fracking and coal seam gas activity. Furthermore, the penalty imposed (200 units) is lower than the penalties that would normally apply where a higher burden of proof is required. For example, under s 217 of the Petroleum Act, a failure to comply with a prohibition notice imposes a penalty of 600 units. Finally, the evidential burden imposed by the exception in s 8AC(2) of the MRSDA is not considered to limit the right to be presumed innocent. The accused has only to prove that their discovery of coal seam gas was incidental, then the evidential burden will shift back to the prosecution. Right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 26) Section 26 of the Charter provides that a person must not be tried or punished more than once for an offence in respect of which he or she has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with law. The offence provisions entrenched in the Constitution Act by clause 4 of the Bill (ss 8AC and 8AD of the MRSDA, s 16A of the Petroleum Act) are default penalty provisions. If a person (as distinct from a corporation) is convicted of one of these offences, they will be guilty of a further offence for each day the impugned conduct continues. The Bill may be seen to engage the Charter right to not be punished more than once. However, the default penalty does not apply to an offence for which a person has already been convicted, but rather continued conduct. Therefore, the Charter right in s 26 is not engaged. Jaclyn Symes MP Minister for Resources Second reading Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (17:48): I move:

That the second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard. Motion agreed to. Ms SYMES: I move:

That the bill be now read a second time. Incorporated speech as follows: I am introducing the Bill to the House on behalf of the Premier, who is the Minister responsible for the Constitution Act 1975 (Constitution Act). The purpose of this Bill is to insert the existing legislated bans on fracking and coal seam gas activities in the Constitution Act. The Bill fulfils the Government’s 2018 election commitment to “enshrine our legislated ban on fracking in the Constitution of Victoria”. This will protect Victoria’s prime agricultural land and the farmers and communities that rely on it. The success of this industry depends on Victoria’s reputation for producing some of the cleanest and greenest food and fibre in the world. The existing legislated bans comprise two distinct prohibitions. The first is a ban on the carrying out of hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Fracking is a process to extract oil or gas by injecting fluids, including chemicals, down a well at high pressure to fracture the rock formation and help the oil or gas to flow out of the rock and into the well. Some chemicals used in fracking have been associated with environmental and health impacts and have been a significant driver of community concern. The fracking ban is set out in s 8AD of the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 (MRSDA) and s 16A of the Petroleum Act 1998 (Petroleum Act). The second is a ban on the exploration for and mining of coal seam gas. Coal seam gas is a type of unconventional gas that occurs naturally in coal seams and is trapped underground by water pressure. Extraction of coal seam gas requires the dewatering of coal seams to release the gas and sometimes incorporates fracking to make the extraction more economic. Coal seam gas extraction presents significant BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 613

environmental challenges associated with waste water disposal, ground water contamination, and ground subsidence. Coal seam gas exploration and mining is banned by s 8AC of the MRSDA. The bans were introduced into the MRSDA and the Petroleum Act by the Resources Legislation Amendment (Fracking Ban) Act 2017. The purpose of the bans is to prohibit onshore unconventional gas activity in Victoria. The Bill will amend the Constitution Act by introducing a new Part, making it more difficult for a future Parliament to repeal, alter, or vary the existing legislated bans (clause 4). The Bill proposes to entrench the existing legislated bans by amending the Constitution Act to provide that the new Part may only be repealed, altered or varied if the third reading of a repealing Act is passed by a special majority of all members of the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council. A special majority is three-fifths of each House of Parliament. The Bill will also make it more difficult for a future Parliament to repeal, alter or vary the existing legislative bans, including attempts to: reduce the current penalty for breaching the bans; narrow the class of persons liable to a penalty for breaching the bans; or reduce the geographical area to which the bans apply. I commend the Bill to the house. Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (17:48): I move, on behalf of my colleague Mr Rich- Phillips:

That the debate on this matter be adjourned for one week. Motion agreed to and debate adjourned for one week. PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELLBEING AMENDMENT (STATE OF EMERGENCY EXTENSION) BILL 2021 Introduction and first reading The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman) (17:49): I have a message from the Assembly:

The Legislative Assembly presents for the agreement of the Legislative Council ‘A Bill for an Act to amend the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 in relation to state of emergency declarations in respect of the COVID-19 pandemic and for other purposes’. Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (17:49): I move:

That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Read first time. Ms SYMES: I move, by leave:

That the second reading be taken forthwith. Motion agreed to. Statement of compatibility Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (17:50): I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:

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 Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (State of Emergency Extension) Bill 2021 (the Bill). In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Council, is compatible with human rights protected by the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement. Overview The Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (State of Emergency Extension and Other Matters) Bill 2020 previously amended section 198(7)(c) of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (the Act) to extend the BILLS 614 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

total period for which a declaration of the State of Emergency in respect of the COVID-19 pandemic may continue in force from 6 months to 12 months. This Bill amends section 198(7)(c) of the Act to further extend the total period the State of Emergency declaration made in respect of the COVID-19 pandemic may continue in force from 12 months to 21 months. This Bill also extends the operation of the temporary COVID-19 measures in Part 13 of the Act that were inserted by the COVID-19 Omnibus (Emergency Measures) and Other Acts Amendment Act 2020. The temporary measures modify the operation of the Act to allow for the Secretary to the Department of Health to appoint certain persons such as WorkSafe Inspectors, police officers, and health service providers to be authorised officers for the purposes of the Act and for the Chief Health Officer to authorise such persons to exercise a specified suite of the public health risk powers under section 190 of the Act. Human Rights Issues The decision to make or extend a declaration of a State of Emergency does not, in itself, limit the Charter rights of any person. Nonetheless, the existence of a State of Emergency means that the Chief Health Officer and authorised officers may be authorised to exercise extensive emergency powers under section 200 of the Act in ways that may limit various Charter rights. Given what we know about how the section 200 emergency powers have operated during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is clear that the Bill will have the effect of allowing restrictions to be put in place (in accordance with comprehensive public health advice), and that those restrictions will have an impact on the human rights of Victorians. For this reason, it is my view that those rights that will be indirectly affected by this Bill should be canvassed in this Statement of Compatibility. Since the initial State of Emergency was declared on 16 March 2020 arising out of the ongoing serious risk to public health in Victoria from the COVID-19 pandemic, the section 200 emergency powers have been exercised in a significant number of ways that have made substantial changes to the ways in which Victorians have lived, moved and worked. The powers have been used to, for example: • require Victorians to stay at home unless they have a permitted reason for leaving their home; • impose time and distance limits on Victorians leaving their homes, and require the wearing of face coverings; • prevent gatherings or limit the number of people who can gather, either indoors or outdoors; • prevent people from participating in certain recreational, religious and cultural activities or using certain public facilities and services, including childcare and schooling; • close certain businesses and prevent other businesses from operating, other than in strictly prescribed ways; • require people returning from overseas to be temporarily detained in a quarantine facility; • require people who have been diagnosed with COVID-19, or come into close contact with such a person to self-isolate or self-quarantine for certain periods; • require people in high risk work premises to be temporarily detained in those premises or at a quarantine facility; • place restrictions on the circumstances in which people can visit hospitals and other types of care facilities; • impose strict requirements and obligations on workplaces, including additional requirements on workplaces in higher risk industries; and • impose strict limitations on travel into Victoria, first from South Australia, then from New South Wales, and more recently from Queensland. The full scope of the rights that will be engaged by the exercise of the powers can only be determined when it is known exactly how the powers will be used and implemented (at which time the decision makers will be able to, and must, give proper consideration to relevant rights in light of the precise ways in which they are limited). However, the use of the powers, to date, have engaged the following rights: • equality (section 8); • right to life (section 9); • protection from medical treatment without full, free and informed consent (section 10); • freedom of movement (section 12); • rights to privacy, family and home (section 13); • freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief (section 14); • freedom of expression (section 15); BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 615

• peaceful assembly and freedom of association (section 16); • protection of families and children (section 17); • cultural rights (section 19); • property rights (section 20); • right to liberty and security of person (section 21); • right to humane treatment when deprived of liberty (section 22). The nature and scope of each of those rights is considered below, along with examples of how the use of the powers could engage those rights. Right to equality Section 8(3) of the Charter relevantly provides that every person is entitled to equal protection of the law without discrimination and has the right to equal and effective protection against discrimination. The purpose of this component of the right to equality is to ensure that all laws and policies are applied equally, and do not have a discriminatory effect. ‘Discrimination’ under the Charter is defined by reference to the definition in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (EO Act). Discrimination is prohibited by the EO Act if it occurs on the basis of an attribute in section 6 of that Act, which includes age, race, sex, disability and parental status amongst many others. Section 7(1)(a) of the EO Act defines discrimination to mean direct or indirect discrimination on the basis of an attribute. The use of the powers may potentially amount to either direct or indirect discrimination under the EO Act because of the differential effect that their use may have on certain groups. Indirect discrimination occurs where there is a requirement, condition or practice imposed that is the same for everyone but disadvantages a person, or is likely to disadvantage a person, because they have one or more of the protected attributes, and the requirement, condition or practice is not reasonable. Direct discrimination occurs where a person treats a person with an attribute unfavourably because of that attribute. Any use of exercise of powers that may give rise to direct or indirect discrimination will need to be reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances in order to be compatible with the right to equality. Rights to life and health Firstly, it is important to recognise that the declaration of a State of Emergency and the powers they enable will promote the right to life by enabling positive steps to protect the public health of Victorians. Section 9 of the Charter provides that every person has the right to life and the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life. Because COVID-19 is life-threatening, the Bill furthers that right, particularly in relation to vulnerable members of society who are at particular risk from a broad and unrestricted spread of COVID-19, by empowering the Chief Health Officer to use the emergency powers to respond to, limit the spread of, and act to contain the virus. A State of Emergency was first declared in Victoria on 16 March 2020 in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. Under the current amendments, the total period of the current State of Emergency cannot be extended beyond 15 March 2021. Although there is currently a low rate of community transmission of COVID-19 in Victoria and there have been periods of no community transmission, the virus continues to present internationally and in other parts of Australia and the re-opening of Victoria to international arrivals poses a continued risk of future outbreaks of the virus. The recent emergence of more virulent strains from overseas, and their appearance in returned travellers to Australia, is clear justification for Victoria taking decisive steps to manage and control the pandemic. Without the power to declare a State of Emergency, those steps cannot be taken. Accordingly, the amendments are considered necessary. Protection from medical treatment without consent Section 10(c) of the Charter provides that a person must not be subjected to medical treatment without consent. The Charter does not define ‘medical treatment’; however, it may encompass medical testing. The emergency powers enlivened under a state of emergency declaration could be used to require people to undergo medical testing for an infectious disease, including COVID-19, if powers in addition to the examination and testing order powers in section 113 of the Act are required. The Act clearly envisages that there will be circumstances in which it will be reasonably necessary to require a person to undergo medical testing in order to ascertain whether a person has an infectious disease. However, a person cannot be forced to take the test, but is able to be detained for 72 hours should they refuse. Provided such testing is reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances, it will be compatible with the right to protection against medical treatment without consent. BILLS 616 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

Freedom of movement The right to freedom of movement is contained in section 12 of the Charter. The right comprises the right to move freely within Victoria, the right to enter and leave Victoria and the right to choose where to live. The right has been described as providing protection from unnecessary restrictions upon a person’s freedom of movement. It extends, generally, to movement without impediment throughout the State and a right of access to places and services used by members of the public, subject to compliance with regulations legitimately made in the public interest. Relevantly, the right to freedom of movement will be engaged where a person is required to move to, or from, a particular place or is prevented from doing so; prevented from crossing a State border to enter Victoria (or subject to strict requirements in order to do so); subjected to strict surveillance or reporting obligations relating to moving; or directed or ordered where to live. Many of the ways that the powers have been and are likely to be used will limit people’s freedom to move about, both indoors and outdoors. Any such limits will need to be reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances in order to be compatible with the right to freedom of movement. Rights to privacy, family and home Section 13(a) of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their privacy, family or home unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. Section 13(a) contains internal qualifications; namely, interferences with privacy only limit the right if they are unlawful or arbitrary. An interference with the right 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 to be achieved by the limitation. ‘Privacy’ in section 13(a) is a very broad right. The right to privacy reflects and protects fundamental values essential to a person’s physical and psychological integrity, individual and social identity and autonomy and inherent dignity. It protects the individual’s interest in the freedom of their personal and social sphere. Relevantly, this encompasses their right to establish and develop meaningful social relations. The right to privacy may also potentially incorporate a right to work, of some kind and in some circumstances. The Charter does not define the term ‘family’; however, extrinsic materials and judicial consideration confirm that it is to be given a broad interpretation and “a meaning which recognises the diversity of families that live in Victoria, all of whom are worthy of protection”. It at least includes ties between near relatives, with other indicia of familial relationships including cohabitation, economic ties, and a regular and intense relationship. Cultural traditions may be relevant when considering whether a group of persons constitute a ‘family’ in a given case. In this respect, the cultural right in section 19(2)(c) of the Charter, which states that Aboriginal people must not be denied the right to maintain their kinship ties, is also relevant. The ‘family’ aspect of the right in section 13(a) is related to section 17(1) of the Charter, which states that families are entitled to protection by society and the State. However, whilst the two rights overlap, they are not co-extensive. Section 13(a) is a negative obligation that prohibits unlawful or arbitrary interferences with family; whereas section 17(1) is a positive obligation on society and the State to take steps to protect families. The ‘home’ aspect of section 13(a) refers to a person’s place of residence, regardless of whether they have a legal interest in that residence. What constitutes an interference with this aspect of the right to privacy has been approached in a practical manner and may cover actions that prevent a person from continuing to live in their home, as well interferences with the home and home life itself. All three aspects of this right may potentially be limited by the directions that could be made in reliance on the emergency powers following the making of a declaration of a state of emergency, which could affect personal autonomy and private relationships, require the disclosure of private information (including medical information), affect the ability of families to gather with members, to gather in groups, and to see those, who are quarantined, live interstate, or who live outside their relevant areas during lockdown, as occurred as a result of the 5km rule, the 25km rule and the travel restrictions between metropolitan and regional Melbourne. The ability of people to reside in their own homes may also be affected if they are quarantined at another location. Any such limits will need to be reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances in order to be compatible with the rights to privacy, family and home. Freedom of religion Section 14 of the Charter provides that every person has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, including the freedom to demonstrate one’s religion or belief individually or as part of a community, whether in public or private, through worship, observance, practice and teaching. A person must not be restrained or coerced in a way that limits their freedom to have a belief. The freedom to hold a belief is absolute, however the other aspects of the right are not. BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 617

The powers could be used to continue to limit the size of gatherings and the use of places of worship, in addition to social distancing requirements, which place limits on the freedom to demonstrate one’s religion or belief as part of a community. Any such restrictions will need to be reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances in order to be compatible with the right to freedom of religion. Freedom of expression The right to freedom of expression in section 15(2) of the Charter extends to the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, including orally, in writing, in print, by way of art or in another medium. The right contains an internal limitation in section 15(3)(b), which permits lawful restrictions on the right that are reasonably necessary, for, among other aims, the protection of public health. This would include limitations to deal with a serious threat to the health of the population or to prevent widespread disease. The internal limitation may limit the scope of the right or it may indicate the kinds of limits that will be considered reasonable under section 7(2). In the present environment, the right might be engaged by limiting the size of gatherings in which freedom of expression occurs, such as political or artistic expression. The right could also be engaged by requiring people to provide information, such as disclosing a COVID-19 diagnosis. Any such restrictions will need to be reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances in order to be compatible with the right to freedom of expression. Freedom of peaceful assembly and association Section 16(1) of the Charter provides that every person has the right to peaceful assembly. This provision reflects the right of persons to gather as a means of participating in public affairs and to pursue common interests or further common purposes. Similarly, section 16(2) of the Charter provides that every person has the right to freedom of association with others. This right is concerned with allowing people to pursue common interests in formal groups, such as political parties, professional or sporting clubs, non-governmental organisations, trade unions, and corporations. This right may be limited by prohibitions on large gatherings or directions that place limits on who a person can have contact with. Any such restrictions will need to be reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances in order to be compatible with the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. Protection of children and families Section 17(1) of the Charter recognises that families are the fundamental group unit of society and entitles families to protection by the society and the State. Section 17(1) is related to the section 13(a) privacy right and an act or decision that unlawfully or arbitrarily interferes with a family is also likely to limit that family’s entitlement to protection under section 17(1). 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. It recognises the special vulnerability of children, defined in the Charter as persons under 18 years of age. ‘Best interests’ is considered to be a complex concept which must be determined on a case-by-case basis. However, the following elements may be taken into account when assessing the child’s best interests: the child’s views; the child’s identity; preservation of the family environment and maintaining relationships; care, protection and safety of the child; situation of vulnerability; the child’s right to health; and the child’s right to education. These rights could be limited where families are prevented from having contact with each other, for example, as a result of stay at home directions or limitations on visiting care homes, or where children are detained under quarantine restrictions or prevented from attending school when self-isolating because of their own diagnosis or close contact with a diagnosed case. Any such measures will need to be reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances in order to be compatible with the right to protection to families and children. Cultural rights Section 19 of the Charter protects the right of all persons with a particular cultural, religious, racial or linguistic background to enjoy their culture, to declare and practise their religion, and to use their language, in community with other persons of that background. In particular, section 19(2)(c) of the Charter provides that Aboriginal people must not be denied the right to maintain their kinship ties. Limits on large gatherings and social distancing may limit the right to enjoy one’s culture in community with other persons. Any such restrictions will need to be reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances in order to be compatible with cultural rights. BILLS 618 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

Right to property Section 20 of the Charter provides that a person must not be deprived of their property other than in accordance with law. There are three elements to this right: (a) the interest interfered with must be ‘property’, which includes all real and personal property interests recognised under the general law; (b) the interference must amount to a ‘deprivation’ of property, that is, any ‘de facto expropriation’ by means of a substantial restriction in fact on a person’s use or enjoyment of their property; and (c) the deprivation must not be ‘in accordance with law’ in that the law must be adequately accessible and formulated with sufficient precision to enable the person to regulate their conduct. It is possible that directions made under emergency powers that prevent certain types of business from operating could restrict the use or enjoyment of property that is used to conduct those businesses. Any such limits will need to be reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances in order to be compatible with property rights under the Charter. Right to liberty Section 21 of the Charter protects the right to liberty. The liberty rights in section 21 reflect aspects of the common law right to personal liberty, which has been described as ‘the most elementary and important of all common law rights’. In particular, section 21(2) prohibits a person from being subjected to arbitrary detention, whilst section 21(3) prohibits a person from being deprived of their liberty except on grounds, and in accordance with procedures, established by law. Together, the effect of sections 21(2) and (3) is that the right to liberty may legitimately be constrained only in circumstances where the deprivation of liberty by detention is both lawful, in that it is specifically authorised by law, and not arbitrary, in that it is reasonable or proportionate in all the circumstances. The scope of the right in section 21 extends beyond detention as part of the criminal justice system to protective or preventative forms of detention, including to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. Whether a particular restriction amounts to a ‘deprivation of liberty’ for the purpose of the right in section 21 is a question of degree or intensity. Detention or deprivation of liberty does not necessarily require physical restraint; however, the right to liberty is concerned with the physical detention of the individual, and not mere restrictions on freedom of movement. Exercising powers under the Act to detain people, such as those detained in Hotel Quarantine, or require people to self-isolate and self-quarantine, may amount to a deprivation of the right to liberty. Any such measures will need to be reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances. Humane treatment when deprived of liberty Section 22 of the Charter requires that all persons deprived of liberty must be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. The right to humane treatment while deprived of liberty recognises the vulnerability of all persons deprived of their liberty and acknowledges that people who are detained should not be subject to hardship or restraint other than the hardship or restraint that is made necessary by the deprivation of liberty itself. This right requires that public authorities take positive measures to ensure that detained persons are treated with dignity and humanity. The use of powers under the Act may involve deprivations of liberty. Where the powers are used in this way, the agency responsible for that deprivation must ensure that the needs of those deprived of liberty are provided for so that any such deprivation is humane. Jaclyn Symes MP Minister for Resources Attorney General Second reading Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (17:50): I move:

That the second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard. Motion agreed to. Ms SYMES: I move:

That the bill be now read a second time. BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 619

Incorporated speech as follows: In September of last year, we met in this place to debate how long a State of Emergency could be declared in Victoria. Since that time, the strict restrictions imposed by the stage 3 and stage 4 restrictions have been lifted as Victoria moved in to ‘COVID Safe summer’. While the case numbers have remained low over the past few months, risks have emerged with the return of international travel into Victoria. In particular, a new, more infectious strain of the virus has been detected in returning travellers in Australia’s hotel quarantine program. In Victoria some of the key public health measures required to manage COVID-19 are only available when a ‘State of Emergency’ has been declared under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008. A State of Emergency across Victoria in response to COVID-19 was first declared on 16 March 2020 for a period of four weeks and has now been extended a number of times. In September, amendments were made to the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 to allow for a State of Emergency to be declared, in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic, for a total period of 12 months. In recognition of the extraordinary nature of the State of Emergency, the extension period was time-limited and would sunset after 12 months. This means that the current State of Emergency in response to COVID-19 cannot be extended beyond 11:59 pm on 15 March 2021. The ability to extend the State of Emergency beyond the initial six-month period has been critical in protecting Victorians during these unprecedented times and to make sure that public services and the public health response continue its essential role in effectively managing the pandemic. These public health directions have been a vital part of the State’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic and underpinned the State’s successful response to the COVID-19 outbreaks throughout 2020 and in the first weeks of 2021. Unfortunately, the pandemic is not yet behind us. Victoria and the world continue to grapple with the challenges of the pandemic. The extension to the maximum period of a State of Emergency declaration introduced by the Bill continues to be necessary to rapidly respond to the risks posed by COVID-19. In light of the ongoing challenges, this Bill lengthens the Minister’s ability to declare a State of Emergency, in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic, for a further nine months. Extending maximum period of a state-of-emergency declaration Unless there are new significant developments that alter the risk profile of COVID-19 to the Victorian community, it is expected that public health measures will continue to be required to mitigate the serious public health risk of COVID-19 well beyond 16 March 2021. To ensure appropriate public health measures can continue to be implemented in Victoria, the Bill will amend the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 to allow a State of Emergency declaration in response to a serious risk to public health to continue in force in respect of the COVID-19 pandemic for up to a total of 21 months (an additional 9 months longer than is currently allowed). Even when an effective vaccine has been widely distributed, the risk of COVID-19 may persist for years to come. That is why the Victorian Government is exploring options to ensure the government has the right tools to respond to prolonged health emergencies such as COVID-19. The nine-month extension sought in this Bill ensuring that the ongoing public health risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic can be managed, including the vaccination roll-out. This time period extension also gives certainty to the public and industry and helps to set expectations around the fact that a range of public health actions and measures are likely to be in place throughout 2021. The extension of the maximum period will not change the current accountability and reporting requirements in place when a State of Emergency is extended. The power to issue directions restricting or prohibiting specified activities by the Chief Health Officer or authorised officers must still be proportionate to the public health risk posed at the time and will still be subject to timely and expert public health advice on reducing the public health risk of COVID-19. Compliance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 and public accountability to Parliament will remain unchanged. Extending operation of temporary COVID-19 measures in Part 13 This Bill also extends the operation of the temporary COVID-19 measures in Part 13 of the Act that were inserted by the COVID-19 Omnibus (Emergency Measures) and Other Acts Amendment Act 2020. These temporary measures will only be extended for another nine-month period, with the provision self-repealing on 16 December 2021. The temporary measures allow for the Secretary to the Department of Health to appoint certain persons such as WorkSafe Inspectors, police officers, and health service providers to be authorised officers for the purposes of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 and for the Chief Health Officer to authorise such persons to exercise a specified suite of the public health risk powers under section 190 of the Public Health and BILLS 620 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

Wellbeing Act 2008. These measures also form an important part of Victoria’s COVID-19 public health response and allow for compliance with public health directions to be monitored and enforced. I commend the Bill to the house. Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (17:50): I move:

That the debate be adjourned until the bill has been considered by the Legal and Social Issues Committee, and the committee has held a hearing or hearings, taken evidence and reported by Tuesday, 2 March 2021, on the suitability of repeated long-term extensions to the state of emergency and whether directions made under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 that relate to hotel quarantine, or other COVID-19-specific public health measures, might more suitably be supported by legislation specifically relating to hotel quarantine or those measures. In bringing this motion, I think this is a very moderate motion that would bring forward the opportunity for a public debate on this bill—a bigger, wider public debate—at the Legal and Social Issues Committee. It would have the capacity to hold hearings into this bill. It would not delay the bill one iota, because the 2nd is the same date that we would consider this bill—or perhaps the Thursday of that week—in any event. So the opportunity is there to allow the many people across the Victorian community who are very concerned about this bill to have their say formally at a hearing, to have their say through material presented to the committee. It would be a short, sharp inquiry, and I understand the difficulties that that might pose. But at the same time it is quite important that for this bill—this extraordinary extension of power, this decision by Daniel Andrews to grab massive power, to take nine months of additional unbridled power and to do that without proper scrutiny, without proper checks, without proper balances—the opportunity would be there for the committee to examine all of these aspects closely. Now, some will say that the committee is very busy, and I accept that; it has got significant work. But this is not beyond the capacity of this committee. The committee can over just less than two weeks actually hold a short, sharp inquiry. Legislation inquiries have been held in shorter periods in the past, and it can be done. The old Legislation Committee of this Parliament on occasion held inquiries that went for 48 or 96 hours and held hearings, dragged forward evidence and enabled people who were relevant to these matters to actually provide the way forward. One matter that is particularly pertinent is whether the hotel quarantine arrangements ought to be in the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (State of Emergency Extension) Bill 2021 in a form that is linked with the state of emergency. There are other alternatives. We know New South Wales has another alternative. Those matters could be closely investigated, and the committee would be in a position to actually put forward ways forward. So this is a perfectly reasonable way forward. Those who want to see democracy advance, who actually want to see a proper arrangement in place, a proper arrangement that is actually thoroughly scrutinised, would vote for this simple way forward. With 2 March there would be no delay and there would be an opportunity to publicly ventilate and discuss many of the aspects that are so important to people. I stand with those who say we want proper democracy. I stand with those who say we want proper transparency. We have seen in the lower house the government guillotine the bill through as they routinely do in the lower house. Our opportunity here in this house, as a house of review, is to ensure that there is proper scrutiny, to ensure that there is a proper review of this legislation. This is another grab for power in a series of grabs for power by Daniel Andrews, another nine-month grab for power, and here is the chance to examine this openly and fairly with a standing committee of this chamber. Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (17:54): I would acknowledge that there was certainly no prior discussion of this motion. It was perfectly drafted and delivered to our inboxes upon the guillotine in the lower house, which has given us very limited time to consider the proposal. BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 621

I would take issue with Mr Davis’s description of the Legislative Assembly’s attempt to ‘ram through’ legislation. In fact the opposition in the lower house asked for two days debate on the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (State of Emergency Extension) Bill 2021, which they were provided with, and they ran out of speakers. We had to go back to the Constitution Amendment (Fracking Ban) Bill 2020 and the Spent Convictions Bill 2020 because they had exhausted their speakers, even though they had asked for two full days to enable everyone to speak. The description of the government seeking to extend or seeking the ability to extend the state of emergency cannot be described as a grab for power or extraordinary powers. As Mr Davis has actually indicated, other states already have this power. This has been politicised unnecessarily. The state-of- emergency power extensions are required for the protection of the health and safety of Victorians. I would also take issue with Mr Davis’s convenient description of what the alternatives could be in relation to other COVID-specific or hotel-specific arrangements. Of course that is possible, but it is not possible to draft a bill before the state of emergency expires. Mr Davis has been a minister. He knows the legal directions that are required to present to the drafters to draft a bill. He knows how long it takes to draft a bill, particularly one of this complexity. If you were to come up with a suitable— Mr Davis: A small number of days. Ms SYMES: A couple of days? This is why we have had to correct so many pieces of the legislation that the opposition brought into law when they were in government. You get it wrong if you rush it. This would be very sensitive legislation if it were able to be drafted appropriately. The government has not ruled out specific legislation in the long term, and I know that because Minister Foley has made himself available to meet with crossbenchers to discuss this very issue. I know Mr Hayes in particular has raised this as an issue and a possible way forward, and the government has not ruled that out, but the state-of-emergency expiry is before any such alternative legislation could be drafted. Given that is the purpose of Mr Davis’s referral, that is absurd. It would not be able to be enacted anyway. I was not given the courtesy of much time to prepare for this contribution, but they are the government’s points of view at this time. We will not be supporting this amendment. In fact I would propose my own amendment. I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and ‘debate on this bill be adjourned for one week’ inserted in their place. House divided on amendment:

Ayes, 19 Elasmar, Mr Meddick, Mr Tarlamis, Mr Erdogan, Mr Melhem, Mr Taylor, Ms Garrett, Ms Patten, Ms Terpstra, Ms Grimley, Mr Ratnam, Dr Tierney, Ms Kieu, Dr Stitt, Ms Vaghela, Ms Leane, Mr Symes, Ms Watt, Ms Maxwell, Ms Noes, 14 Atkinson, Mr Cumming, Dr Lovell, Ms Bach, Dr Davis, Mr Ondarchie, Mr Barton, Mr Finn, Mr Quilty, Mr Bath, Ms Hayes, Mr Rich-Phillips, Mr Bourman, Mr Limbrick, Mr Amendment agreed to. Amended motion agreed to and debate adjourned for one week. BILLS 622 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

SPENT CONVICTIONS BILL 2020 Introduction and first reading The PRESIDENT (18:06): I have a further message from the Assembly:

The Legislative Assembly presents for the agreement of the Legislative Council ‘A Bill for an Act to establish a scheme for certain convictions to become spent in Victoria and non-disclosable on a person’s criminal record unless in specific circumstances, to consequentially amend the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 and for other purposes’. Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (18:07): I move:

That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Read first time. Ms SYMES: I move, by leave:

That the second reading be taken forthwith. Motion agreed to. Statement of compatibility Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (18:07): I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:

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 Spent Convictions Bill 2020 (the Bill). In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Council, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement. Overview of the Bill This Bill provides for a new spent convictions scheme that: • automatically limits the disclosure of a person’s conviction for certain offences, either immediately or once the person has completed a period of crime-free behaviour; • allows a person who is ineligible to have their conviction automatically spent to apply to the Magistrate’s Court of Victoria, in certain circumstances, to limit the disclosure of a conviction; • provides for limited disclosure of a spent conviction of a person for the purposes of administration of justice or performance of statutory functions; and • creates offences for unlawfully obtaining or unlawfully disclosing information about a spent conviction. The Bill also provides for amendments to the Equal Opportunity Act 2010, to make a spent conviction an attribute on the basis of which discrimination is prohibited. Human Rights Issues Human rights protected by the Charter that are relevant to this Bill are: • the right to equality (section 8); • the right to privacy and reputation (section 13); • the right to freedom of expression (section 15); • protection of families and children (section 17); • taking part in public life (section 18); • cultural rights including Aboriginal cultural rights (section 19); • children’s rights in the criminal process (section 23); BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 623

• the right to a fair hearing (section 24) For the reasons set out below, I am satisfied that the Bill is compatible with the Charter and, if any rights are limited, those limitations are reasonable and justified. Disclosure of convictions for certain offences and sentences are limited under the Bill The Bill provides for a Spent Convictions Scheme (the Scheme) that will limit the disclosure of a person’s conviction for certain offences and sentences through specific mechanisms of disclosure. Generally speaking, convictions can be spent automatically or immediately under the Bill, or by succeeding in an application made to the Magistrates’ Court. Once this occurs, the conviction is no longer disclosed on a Police Record Check (or any other document by a law enforcement agency that outlines a person’s convictions). It also allows the person to lawfully and honestly answer in the negative when asked if they have a conviction. These provisions are strengthened by making clear in the Bill that a person must not ask another person to disclose a spent conviction. Further, once spent, a conviction cannot be ‘revived’, even by further offending. Disclosure of a person’s criminal record, for example through a Police Record Check, engages the rights to equality under the law and protection against discrimination (section 8) and the right to privacy and reputation (section 13). To the extent that Aboriginal people are overrepresented in the criminal justice system, it also engages the protection of Aboriginal cultural rights (section 19(2)) given the impact that disclosure can have on enjoyment of those rights. The restrictions on disclosure of a person’s spent convictions uphold those rights by minimising the negative effects associated with having a criminal record, including discrimination. Where the Bill provides for exemptions and circumstances where disclosure of spent conviction information on a person’s criminal record is permitted, for the following reasons I consider that they are reasonable and proportionate limitations on those rights. Such disclosures include by law enforcement agencies for a law enforcement purpose or to agencies to fulfil a statutory function and prescribed purpose, and disclosure between law enforcement agencies and courts and tribunals. Limiting disclosure of certain ‘spent’ convictions upholds the right to equality and non-discrimination under section 8 Criminal records can limit people’s ability to access education, employment and housing, and therefore limit people’s ability to effectively rehabilitate and reintegrate with the community. Individuals often carry the stigma of a conviction for their whole life despite how minor the offence was, how far in the past it occurred or the degree to which they are rehabilitated. Disclosure of convictions on a criminal record therefore limits the right to equality before the law (section 8) to the extent that the document is frequently requested by employers, real estate agents, volunteer organisations, education providers and others which can result in loss of opportunity and discrimination on the basis of a person’s criminal history. In general, people in contact with the justice system are more likely to have worse outcomes over a range of metrics, including access to housing, employment, education, health and connection to community. A criminal record can also compound existing challenges and result in entrenchment of poverty and disadvantage. These issues also disproportionately impact some groups, in particular Aboriginal people, women and other cohorts such as people with an intellectual disability or who experience homelessness, which represents a further, albeit indirect, limitation on a person’s right to equality and non-discrimination on the basis of Aboriginality, gender and disability (section 8). By limiting the disclosure of a person’s spent convictions the Bill removes barriers to accessing opportunities that are crucial for effective rehabilitation and reintegration with the community. In doing so it significantly reduces the possibility of discrimination occurring on the basis of an irrelevant spent conviction and provides more effective protection of the right to equality before the law and effective protection from discrimination, whether on the basis of that record or, indirectly, on the grounds of Aboriginality and/or disability. Limiting disclosure also upholds the right to privacy and reputation under section 13 Disclosure of a person’s criminal record also engages a person’s right not to have their privacy unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with, and not to have their reputation unlawfully attacked (Section 13). Protecting the privacy and reputation of people who have a historic conviction in areas such employment, housing and education is one of the key purposes of the Bill. A criminal record can have a significant and ongoing impact on a person’s reputation. It can affect a person’s reputation socially within the community, as well as professionally. A criminal record will considerably limit a person’s access to employment as most employers want to hire people with unblemished backgrounds, to reduce risk and protect the integrity of their business. Similarly, a criminal record is likely to be a deciding factor for landlords when making a choice between rental applicants, thus substantially limiting housing BILLS 624 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

options. These barriers exist regardless of the degree of seriousness of the offence or whether it is relevant to an application or assessing a person’s character. By enabling certain convictions to be spent and placing limits on their disclosure, the Bill allows people to lawfully keep a conviction private. To the extent the Bill places limits on such disclosure, the Bill strengthens the rights in section 13, thereby enabling a person to more effectively reintegrate with the community. Limiting disclosure also strengthens Aboriginal cultural rights Criminal history information has a disproportionate impact on Aboriginal people who are over-represented in the criminal justice system. A past conviction, regardless of its seriousness, creates an extra barrier for Aboriginal people seeking employment or education, or to provide kinship care or be involved in organisations and structures to exercise Aboriginal self-determination. Introduction of the scheme under the Bill therefore removes a barrier to exercise and enjoyment of distinct Aboriginal cultural rights under section 19(2) of the Charter, including maintaining kinship ties and connection to land, identity and culture. As outlined in detail below, the Bill also mandates consideration of the unique cultural circumstances for an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander applicant for a spent conviction order by a court, consistent with this right. Limiting disclosure is a lawful exception to freedom of expression To the extent that the prohibitions on collection, use and disclosure of spent conviction also engage and limit the right to freedom of expression (section 15) including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information, I do not consider that it amounts to a limitation of the right per se, since subsection (3) recognises that the right may be subject to lawful restrictions. I consider such prohibitions and the prescribed exceptions for use, disclosure and collection (discussed further below) are indeed lawful restrictions which are reasonably necessary to respect the rights and reputation of the person with the spent conviction. Convictions automatically spent under the Act The Bill makes a distinction between two categories of convictions that are automatically spent by operation of the Act—those which become immediately spent, and those which become spent after a defined period of crime-free behaviour. The Bill enables any findings or orders imposed by courts that do not result in a conviction being recorded by the court to be immediately spent and protected from disclosure, subject to the completion of any conditions that may be attached to the penalty imposed. Shorter conviction periods (crime-free periods) for children and young people are consistent with Charter rights under sections 17 and 23 For certain other categories of convictions, the Bill provides that, after a period of crime-free behaviour (referred to as conviction period in the Bill), they will automatically become ‘spent.’ This applies to convictions with sentencing outcomes of 30 months or less imprisonment or detention and to convictions which result in non-custodial sentences, such as an adjournment with undertaking, community corrections order or a fine. The conviction period for a person who was a child or young offender (under 21 years of age at the time they were sentenced) is 5 years from the date the conviction is entered into judgment by the court and, for any other person, 10 years from that date. A shorter conviction period for children and young offenders is consistent with the increased likelihood of rehabilitation for young offenders, and therefore earlier access to the protection of one’s privacy and from discrimination upon a conviction being spent is consistent with the right to protection of the best interests of a child, without discrimination (section 17(2)) and with the right to age-appropriate treatment under section 23(3). Recommencement of conviction periods when a person commits a subsequent serious offence is a reasonable limitation on the rights under section 8 and section 13 Subsequent offending will not restart the conviction period under the Bill if the conviction involves minor offending, being a fine of equal or less than 10 penalty units (or the equivalent value if imposed outside of Victoria), or where no penalty is imposed (or the only penalty is an amount in restitution or compensation) or the conviction is not recorded by the court. By restarting the conviction period and effectively delaying access to the protections from disclosure of certain convictions in other cases, including where a term of imprisonment is imposed, the Bill sets a reasonable and justifiable limit on the rights to equality and non- discrimination (section 8) and prescribes lawful exceptions to rights to privacy and reputation (section 13), consistent with community safety. The exclusion of sexual offences and serious violent offences from being automatically protected from disclosure is a reasonable and justified restriction on section 8 and section 13 rights Under the Bill, sexual offences and serious violence offences are not able to be automatically spent (other than for a person who was 15 years or younger at the time of offending). This represents a limitation to the BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 625

rights to non-discrimination based on the person’s age at the time of offending (section 8), and a limit to the right to privacy and reputation of individuals (section 13) to the extent these convictions do not attract the same automatic protections from disclosure. It would undermine community perception of risk and punishment and the ability to appropriately consider risk if sexual offences and serious violent offences were automatically capable of being kept private. This limitation is therefore a reasonable and justified restriction in the interests of public safety. Convictions spent by order of the Magistrates’ Court The Bill provides for other serious convictions (which cannot be automatically spent), to be spent by application to and determination by the Magistrates’ Court. Unless the person was under 15 years at the time of offending (in which case their convictions are immediately spent), a person may apply for the conviction to be spent by order of the court, where they can demonstrate rehabilitation. Making a distinction in the Bill for some convictions to be spent in this way, rather than automatically, is for the purpose of promoting and maintaining community safety in respect of more serious offending and acknowledges the long-lasting harm caused to victims of these offences. The Bill also distinguishes between children and young offenders, and adults 21 years of age or older at the time of sentencing, whereby more serious offending is excluded from the application process in the case of older offenders. For those older offenders, an application can be made for a serious violence offence or sexual offence, provided no term of imprisonment was imposed, and for any other convictions, where the term of imprisonment imposed was no more than 5 years. Narrow circumstances in which sexual offences and serious violent offences can be spent is a proportionate limitation on section 8 and section 13, having regard to public safety and community expectations Serious violence offence is defined in the Bill by reference to the definition in schedule 2 of the Serious Offenders Act 2018 and includes manslaughter. The definition of ‘sexual offence’ in the Bill adopts that of section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 and includes offences which involve child abuse material. Prescribing only very narrow circumstances in which such convictions are eligible to be spent for a person who was 21 years or older at the time of sentencing limits the rights to equality and non-discrimination (section 8) in a way which is proportionate having regard to the need to maintain public safety in the case of more serious offending. For children and young offenders (people under 21 at the time of offending) this means in effect there are no restrictions on convictions eligible to be spent under the Bill (even for serious violence offences or sexual offences). This is in recognition of the more substantial impact that a conviction has on a young person’s ability to rehabilitate, including obtaining employment and their social and community participation. Articulating the limits to eligible convictions for older offenders by reference to the sentence imposed including the length of the term of imprisonment, rather than the offence itself, reflects the court’s holistic assessment of risk in sentencing and is therefore proportionate to the public safety purpose of the restriction. In so doing, the Bill also prescribes a lawful, rather than arbitrary restriction on the right to privacy and reputation (section 13). I am satisfied that the limitations are reasonable and proportionate having regard to the overarching public safety purpose of the restrictions. Features of the application and determination process are consistent with Charter rights or, where restricted, involve reasonable limitations The application process under Division 2 of Part 2 of the Bill is tightly construed in order to limit impost on court resources, including supporting documentation requirements and appropriate costs for applications. This is reflected in the process under the Bill for making an application, for submissions to be made, the factors to be considered and principles to be applied by the Court in deciding the application and the Court’s ability to refuse an application in certain circumstances, which, to some extent all engage the right to a fair hearing under section 24(1) of the Charter. The Bill provides that an application can be made for an order that more than one conviction be spent, however the relevant conviction period for each conviction in the application must have already expired or will expire on the day the application is made. To the extent this limits access to determination by a court in timely way— a component of the right to a fair hearing (section 24)—it is justified having regard to the public safety considerations underlying the tiered nature of the spent convictions scheme. Where a person is unable to apply to the Magistrates’ Court because of their disability, then the Bill ensures a guardian under the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 can make that application on their behalf. This provides explicit protection from discrimination and ensures equality before the law by removing a barrier for persons with disabilities, consistent with section 8 of the Charter. The Bill also enables the court to refuse to accept an application where it is vexatious, misconceived or does not comply with the prescribed form and contents under the Bill including the applicant’s full name, the BILLS 626 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

conviction for which an order is sought and information in support of the applicant’s rehabilitation, or if the prescribed fee is not paid. These provisions limit the right of timely access to a court for the matter to be determined—a key aspect of the right to a fair hearing (section 24(1)). Having regard to the imperative of an efficient and effective administration of the application scheme in the context of the impact on resourcing for the Magistrates’ Court more broadly, I consider this to be a reasonable limitation which does not unfairly prevent access to justice. Where a person’s application has been refused or not been accepted by the court, under the Bill they are prohibited from reapplying for another 2 years unless they provide new information in support of their application. The fact a person can still make an application within the 2-year exclusion period if they have new information means the exclusion period under the Bill is a reasonable and proportionate limitation on the right to timely access to a fair hearing and procedural fairness (section 24(1)). Submissions by the Attorney-General and the Chief Commissioner of Police and guiding principles at a hearing are consistent with rights to a fair hearing under section 24 The Bill provides the Attorney-General and the Chief Commissioner of Police with the opportunity to make submissions to the Court should they wish to do so. In that case, the decision must be determined at a hearing although, in other cases, where the court determines it to be appropriate, the Bill provides for a determination to be made without a hearing and on the basis of written material alone. Requiring a hearing in the case of submissions from either the Attorney-General or the Chief Commissioner of Police enables the applicant the opportunity to respond to adverse material put by those agencies. Although this has the potential to limit the right to a fair hearing (section 24(1)) if the court decides to determine the matter without a hearing, I consider the Bill strikes the appropriate balance by providing the Magistrates’ Court with the flexibility it needs to efficiently manage applications, with appropriate safeguards for procedural fairness. The Bill also provides that, where a hearing is conducted, the Court is not bound by rules of evidence and may inform itself in any way it sees fit. It must also act with regard to the substance of the application, irrespective of technicalities or forms outside those in the Bill. These provisions enable the court to determine the most efficient means to administer applications. Although the Bill does not provide an explicit reference to procedural fairness, in deciding certain cases courts must nonetheless act in accordance with procedural fairness, a key component of the right to fair hearing (section 24 of the Charter) by virtue of section 6(2)(b) of the Charter. This will ensure that the rights of individuals to a fair hearing under sections 24 of the Charter are not unreasonably limited. Factors the court must consider help to strengthen Aboriginal cultural rights under section 19(2) The Bill provides a mechanism for the Magistrates Court to order an eligible conviction be spent after considering a range of (mandatory) factors including the nature, circumstances and seriousness of the offence, the applicant’s personal circumstances, their age and maturity when the offence was committed and any demonstrated rehabilitation, the impact on any victim and any risk to public safety in making an order for the conviction to be spent. In addition, in recognition of the disproportionate impact of incarceration discrimination and other adverse effects related to disclosure of a criminal record on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the Magistrate’s Court must have regard to the unique background in the case of an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander applicant, which strengthens the Aboriginal cultural rights under section 19(2) of the Charter. Presumption of closed hearings is consistent with the right to a fair hearing at section 24 and upholds other Charter rights The Bill provides that a hearing to determine a spent conviction application must be closed to the public, unless the Court considers that the circumstances of the case justify the hearing being open. The very purpose of applying for a conviction to be spent is to limit its disclosure and protect a person’s privacy, subject to lawful exceptions articulated in the Bill, consistent with section 13 of the Charter. As such, requiring a public hearing by default would undermine this right. Specifying the presumption of a closed hearing in the Bill is also therefore consistent with the fair hearing right under section 24 of the Charter and specifically subsection (2), which provides that a court may exclude members of media organisations or other persons or the general public from all or part of a hearing if permitted to do by law. Furthermore, people may be deterred from making an application to have their conviction spent if the matter is heard in a public setting. This would limit the effectiveness of the Bill in achieving its objectives, even if the court ultimately decided to make the spent conviction order. To the extent that hearings are closed by default and are only held in public by way of exception, this strengthens the rights to equality before the law (section 8) and protection against arbitrary interference with a person’s privacy and reputation (section 13). BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 627

Children and young people An important objective of the Bill is to protect young people, who are particularly vulnerable to discrimination and disadvantage on the basis of historic convictions. Children and young people are susceptible to offending due to their ongoing brain development and lack of full maturity in their ability to exercise judgement and decision making. Most children who come into contact with the justice system have experienced childhood trauma and have complex and intersecting issues such as socioeconomic disadvantage, disrupted education and unstable housing. A criminal record can further inhibit a young person’s ability to access education, employment and housing, all of which are extremely important for reducing the risk of recidivism. Even a minor offence committed as a child can prevent a positive trajectory towards adulthood and lead to cycle of disadvantage and entrenchment in the justice system. The Bill allows a young offender who has grown out of offending behaviour to put their criminal record behind them. This is in their best interests, as it enables them to engage with education and employment opportunities that will support their development and connection to community, and reduce their likelihood of reoffending. The Bill provides discrete provisions and considerations for children in terms of those convictions which can be immediately spent, and the prescribed conviction period after which other offences become automatically spent. Protection of families and children (section 17) and children’s rights in the criminal process (section 23) are upheld by the Bill Section 17 of the Charter provides that every child has the right, without discrimination, to such protection as is in his or her best interests and is needed by him or her by reason of being a child. In addition, section 23 provides that a child who has been convicted of an offence must be treated in a way that is appropriate for his or her age. The Bill enables offences committed by a person under the age of 15 years to be automatically spent. This recognises the considerably young age of children under 15, and their inability to fully understand the consequences of their actions. Convictions are also automatically spent when the only penalty imposed is a fine by the Children’s Court. This is in recognition that a fine is a low-level response by the court that should not carry the ongoing consequence of a criminal record. In addition, the Bill contains differentiated conviction periods (crime-free periods) before a conviction can be spent. The conviction period for a person who was a child or young offender (under 21 years of age at the time they were sentenced) is five years, whereas for all other offenders it is ten years. This reflects the disparity in cognitive development between younger and older people, and the particularly damaging impact a criminal record can have on a young person as they move into adulthood. It also acknowledges the capacity for children to rehabilitate more quickly due to their still-developing brains. Research demonstrates that longer conviction periods can have a significant impact on future education and/or employment opportunities. A shorter conviction period also recognises that young people and Aboriginal people are particularly vulnerable to stigma and discrimination in employment settings. The Bill has taken into account the nature of youth offending and the increased adverse impact that barriers to opportunity have in younger people, and in doing so I am satisfied that it upholds the rights contained in section 17 of the Charter. Additionally, I am satisfied that the Bill treats children who have been convicted of an offence in a way that is appropriate for their age, as is required by section 23 of the Charter. I am therefore satisfied that the Bill upholds the rights of children that are contained in the Charter. Mutual Recognition of interstate Spent Convictions Schemes The Bill provides for automatic recognition of a conviction which is spent by virtue of another state or territory’s scheme, to be deemed as spent in Victoria. This enables an efficient administration of the Scheme, rather than requiring law enforcement agencies like Victoria Police to expend the time, effort and resources to re-assess an interstate conviction under the Victorian scheme, including obtaining offending information to which they do not necessarily have ready access. The Bill in this way limits the right to equality and non-discrimination (section 8) since interstate offences may be dealt with slightly differently than in Victoria. To the extent this may result in an unfair outcome for interstate convictions compared with Victoria, there is likely to be only minimal impact since, despite the variations, the framework for spent convictions in each state and territory is largely consistent. For this reason, the mutual recognition provisions are a justified restriction on equality before the law (section 8) given the need for an efficient administration of justice in Victoria. BILLS 628 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

Permitted disclosures of spent conviction information Disclosure, use and collection of spent conviction information by courts and tribunals The Bill contains exceptions for the disclosure, use and collection of spent conviction information by courts and tribunals in legal proceedings and in the making and publishing of decisions. These exceptions will allow courts and tribunals to receive spent conviction information as part of the giving of evidence and to use spent conviction information for the purposes of sentencing. Additionally, these exemptions will allow courts and tribunals to continue to publish decisions (which may contain spent conviction information) consistent with the principles of open justice. I am satisfied that this aspect of the exemption is consistent with Section 24 of the Charter, specifically subsection (2) which provides that all judgments or decisions made by a court or tribunal in a criminal or civil proceeding must be made public unless the best interests of a child otherwise requires, or a law other than this Charter otherwise permits. Disclosure of spent conviction information by law enforcement agencies for law enforcement or corrections functions Spent conviction information is also available to state and federal law enforcement agencies, as this is necessary to protect community safety and to allow efficient and effective administration of the justice system. This exemption provides law enforcement agencies like Victoria Police, and the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission with the ability to disclose spent conviction information to other law enforcement agencies, courts and tribunals for the performance of statutory powers or functions. Additionally, these agencies can disclose spent conviction information to other non-law enforcement agencies providing it is for a law enforcement function. The Bill also allows Corrections Victoria to use, collect and disclose spent convictions information for the purposes of performing a function or exercising a power under, Corrections legislation or Corrections-related legislation. Corrections Victoria will therefore be able to use and disclose spent conviction in order to, among other things, manage, assess, treat, and rehabilitate prisoners (and ex-prisoners) and to reduce safety risks in correctional facilities. Disclosure of spent conviction information to government agencies and bodies In addition, full criminal records can be released to certain government agencies and bodies for the purpose of exercising their prescribed functions as well as maintaining public safety. This is where the disclosure is required to make a holistic assessment of risk and determine a person’s suitability for employment, licencing or to hold a position such as a marriage celebrant or honorary justice. This is referred to as the ‘public safety’ exemption. The Bill also provides a regulation-making power for additional agencies to be granted such an exception for a prescribed function under a prescribed statute, in recognition that such an exception may be required for limited additional circumstances where disclosure is necessary for other agencies with the appropriate risk assessment expertise. Exemptions to disclosure are reasonable and justified imitations on section 8 and section 13 rights, having regard to the need for the efficient administration of justice and protection of public safety Disclosure of a full criminal record is clearly required in certain circumstances for the management of risk, administration of justice and protection of community safety. Similarly, use of a person’s full criminal record, including spent conviction information, by the receiving agency or body, may also be necessary. The Bill provides the above exemptions to allow police, courts and corrections to continue to use spent conviction information to carry out their existing functions. Discrimination on the basis of a disclosed spent conviction will still prohibited, and the vast majority of employers will not be subject to an exemption. Thus there will still be adequate opportunities for gaining employment and reintegrating with the community which minimises the impact such disclosure and use will have on rights under the Charter. Where prescribed entities and agencies have received spent conviction information, the Bill provides that its use by that agency will be lawful provided that it is for the stated prescribed statutory purpose. Having regard to the purposes of the limitation on a person’s right to privacy, reputation and non- discrimination—whether to fulfil law enforcement functions, administration of justice or for holistic risk assessment by prescribed agencies under prescribed laws, I consider these exemptions to be reasonable and proportionate limitations on the rights under section 8 of the Charter. Likewise, prescribing lawful exemptions for disclosure supports a person’s right not to have their privacy or reputation unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with, consistent with section 13 of the Charter. Given this protection I consider that the Bill strikes an appropriate balance between the need to support the rehabilitation of individuals and public safety and the administration of justice, and remains compatible with sections 8 and 13 of the Charter. BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 629

Offences for unlawful disclosure of spent conviction information The Bill creates an offence for disclosing information about a person’s conviction in circumstances where the person knows, or ought reasonably know it relates to a spent conviction without lawful authority or written consent by the convicted person. The penalty for such disclosure is 40 penalty units. Where the Bill authorises disclosure, for example by law enforcement agencies, courts, tribunals or to other prescribed agencies in limited circumstances, this operates as an exception to the offence provision. A defence to such disclosure is also articulated in the Bill, which places the obligation on the person accused of that offence to prove that they took all reasonable steps to avoid the unlawful disclosure. The defence provides an explicit legal onus on the accused person in that instance. In addition, the Bill makes it an offence to fraudulently or dishonestly obtain information relating to a spent conviction, the penalty for which is 20 penalty units. Any limitations on Charter rights imposed by the offence provisions are reasonable and justified The offence provisions in the Bill are consistent with schemes in other states and territories, most of which establish offences for both unlawful disclosure and obtaining by fraud or dishonesty. The penalty provisions in the Bill reflect the significant impact that disclosure of a person’s criminal record has on their rehabilitation and community and economic participation and the public interest in protecting dishonest or fraudulent conduct. In this way, the Bill strengthens the rights to both non-discrimination on the basis of an irrelevant criminal record (section 8), and the right not to have their privacy unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with (section 13). The reverse onus for the defence to unlawful disclosure is reasonable and justified having regard to the need to maintain integrity in the operation of the scheme. To the extent that the offence provisions also engage and limit the right to freedom of expression (section 15) including the freedom to impart information by, for example reporting by the media a person’s spent conviction, I do not consider that it amount to a limitation of the right per se, since subsection (3) recognises that the right may be subject to lawful restrictions. I consider the offence provisions are indeed lawful restrictions which are reasonably necessary to respect the rights and reputation of other persons, having regard to the integrity and purpose of the scheme established by the Bill. Amendment to the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 In addition to the provisions which limit disclosure of a person’s spent convictions as outlined above, the Bill goes one step further by making it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of a spent conviction. It does this in Part 6 by providing for amendments to the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) to include a spent conviction as a protected attribute, on the basis of which discrimination is prohibited. This amendment strengthens the rights to equality before the law and privacy and reputation under sections 8 and 13 (respectively) of the Charter by providing further protection for people who have convictions that are spent. Eligibility for election to the Victorian Parliament The Bill makes an amendment to section 44(3) of the Constitution Act 1975 to clarify a person’s electoral eligibility to the Victorian Parliament. Division 7 of the Constitution Act 1975 contains provisions applicable to both the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly within Victorian Parliament. Section 44 deals with membership of the Council and the Assembly. Currently under section 44(3), ‘an elector who has been convicted or found guilty of an indictable offence which by virtue of any enactment is punishable upon first conviction by imprisonment for life or for a term of five years or more … shall not be qualified to be elected a member of the Council or the Assembly’. Under the Bill, convictions that become spent will not be capable of triggering the section 44(3) disqualification provision. Whilst the Bill in this respect engages section 18 (participation in public life), I consider that it does not limit this right but rather strengthens this right by reducing barriers to public office for a person whose conviction is spent under the scheme, who would previously have been ineligible. In doing so, the Bill is consistent with the right and opportunity for a person to have access to public office without discrimination, consistent with section 18(2)(b) of the Charter. Hon Jaclyn Symes MP Attorney-General BILLS 630 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

Second reading Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (18:07): I move:

That the second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard. Motion agreed to. Ms SYMES: I move:

That the bill be now read a second time. Incorporated speech as follows: The Spent Convictions Bill 2020 embodies a simple idea: people who have worked hard to turn their lives around deserve the opportunity to move on from minor historical offending. Having a criminal record can affect a person’s life in many ways. It is a barrier to gaining and seeking employment. It rules out many professions and industries which impose a test of “good character”. It can exclude a person from university or TAFE, or from accessing practical training essential to those qualifications. It is a black mark on an application for housing. More fundamentally, it can mean a lack of hope, a lack of belonging and a feeling of being marked as an outsider. While for a period of time, and for serious offending, those effects are justified and a part of the punishment imposed, there are circumstances where an enduring criminal record imposes a penalty out of all proportion to the original crime. For example, if the offence was minor and the offender has not offended for a lengthy period of time, the lasting effects of a criminal record are difficult to justify. Indeed, to exclude such a person from fully participating in society, despite having demonstrably turned their life around, actively discourages rehabilitation. It can trap people in a cycle of offending, closing the door to them building an education, a career and a home. Without some scheme to allow old, minor convictions to be protected, people who have offended can never move on from their crimes. No matter how much time has elapsed and how much the person has turned their life around, they are still marked as an offender. For the foolish mistake, the impulsive decision, lifelong they must answer in the affirmative to the question “have you ever been found guilty of an offence”. Without laws to address this, no amount of rehabilitation can take that shame away. In light of this, the Spent Convictions Bill 2020 will establish a scheme for eligible convictions to become protected from disclosure on a person’s criminal record after a period without re-offending. This Bill will correct the fact that Victoria is the only jurisdiction in Australia without a legislated spent convictions scheme. A person’s interaction with the criminal justice system appears on their criminal record, usually in the form of a conviction. Where criminal record information is protected from disclosure, it is referred to as ‘spent’. In the absence of a legislated scheme in Victoria, Victoria Police currently discloses criminal history information in accordance with an Information Release Policy. This non-legislative approach, while allowing for a degree of flexibility, creates inconsistency and uncertainty for people who consent to their records being released. A legislated spent convictions scheme will provide a clear and consistent framework for the disclosure of a person’s criminal record information to employers and other relevant agencies. In May 2019, the Government asked the Legal and Social Issues Committee of the Legislative Council to report on the need for a legislated spent convictions scheme in Victoria. The Committee tabled its report of their Inquiry into a Legislated Spent Convictions Scheme in August 2019 and made 10 recommendations, including an overarching recommendation that the Government should introduce a legislated spent convictions scheme. I would like to thank Ms Fiona Patten MLC for her courageous advocacy and thoughtful stewardship of the Committee’s work. The Committee’s report and its thorough, compassionate approach to consultation laid an invaluable foundation for the design of the Bill. In February 2020, the Government responded to the Committee’s report, supporting all its recommendations in full or in principle. This Bill will give effect to the Government response and bring this scheme into existence. I acknowledge that in doing so, the Bill realises the efforts and aspirations of many advocates, including the Woor-Dungin Criminal Record Discrimination Project, Victoria’s Aboriginal Justice Caucus, the Law Institute of Victoria, Victorian community legal centres and Liberty Victoria’s Rights Advocacy Project. Introducing this Bill recognises that historical convictions for eligible crimes should not stop people from accessing jobs, training and housing. In too many instances, the stigma of a minor historic conviction has had unjustifiably significant and ongoing impacts, sometimes lasting a lifetime. This stigma is often carried regardless of how minor the offence was or how long ago it occurred. Such impacts of a historical conviction BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 631

can be out of proportion to what society would consider justified. They can result in a cycle of disadvantage and entrenchment in the justice system and even encourage further reoffending. This Bill will help people with criminal records to rehabilitate, make a new start and fully contribute to society, once they have completed a period of crime-free behaviour. The protections against discrimination created by the Bill will allow more people to seek and maintain better employment opportunities, in turn contributing to reduced recidivism and improved community safety. These measures are even more important at a time when many Victorians have lost employment due to the global COVID-19 pandemic. Aboriginal people are more likely to be impacted by criminal records than non-Aboriginal Victorians for a range of reasons, including increased contact with the criminal justice system. This Bill will help reduce the over-representation of Aboriginal people in the criminal justice system by removing barriers to self- determination, removing stigma associated with criminal records and increasing employment and educational opportunities. Children and young people will also benefit from these reforms. The Bill will ensure that convictions that adults may have received as young people will not impact their ability to rehabilitate and re-integrate into society as an adult. Barriers created by minor convictions have a greater impact on young people, because education, employment and housing are crucial for their development. Being excluded from accessing opportunities as a young person due to a minor offence committed as a child can place them on an irreversible offending trajectory into adulthood. The Bill will, at the same time, recognise that disclosure of historic convictions is an important practice to manage risk. It will ensure that children and other vulnerable persons remain protected from harm by codifying public safety exemptions, so that for trusted professions decisions can be made based on a complete picture of a person’s history. This proposal will also address issues of disadvantage linked with gender-based trauma such as domestic and family violence. The Bill will remedy disadvantage suffered by women, particularly Aboriginal women, statistically over-represented in the justice system, for whom barriers to accessing employment and housing are exacerbated by having a criminal record. Bill details Turning to its structure: • Part 1 of the Bill sets out its purposes and definitions. • Part 2 provides for convictions that are spent immediately, convictions that are spent on completion of a conviction period (often referred to as a crime-free period), and convictions that can be spent only by court order. • Part 3 provides for the effect of a conviction becoming spent. It also creates an exemption for law enforcement agencies in the administration of justice and for certain employers to make informed risk assessments on the basis of public safety. • Part 4 creates offences for unlawfully obtaining or unlawfully disclosing information about a spent conviction. • Part 5 sets out the power to make Regulations, particularly with respect to applications for a court order. • Part 6 amends the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to include a spent conviction as an attribute on the basis of which discrimination is prohibited under that Act. Legislative framework The disclosure of convictions will be governed by an automatic stream and an application process. Under the automatic stream, the majority of eligible convictions will be spent at the completion of a period of no serious re-offending, (referred to as a conviction period in the Bill), while those convictions which require decision making or risk assessment in order to become spent may be considered through an application process. Convictions with sentencing outcomes of 30 months imprisonment or less will be eligible to become spent after the completion of the conviction period Convictions for most offences for which a term of imprisonment or detention of less than 30 months has been imposed will be eligible to become spent automatically after the completion of the relevant conviction period. This sentencing threshold matches that applied in the current administrative policy used by Victoria Police and recommendations from key stakeholders during consultation, such as the Aboriginal Justice Caucus and the Law Institute of Victoria. It also aligns with spent convictions laws in Queensland and the Commonwealth. BILLS 632 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

Sexual offences and serious violent offences cannot be automatically spent Convictions which are defined as ‘serious convictions’ will not be eligible to be automatically spent under the Bill. This policy recognises the need for the spent convictions scheme to balance the need for rehabilitation of offenders with the inherent risk to the community posed by serious sexual offences and serious violent offences, and an acknowledgement of the severe and lasting harm caused to victims of these offences. Under the Bill, serious convictions will be defined as: • ‘sexual offences’ using the definition from the Criminal Procedure Act 2009; • ‘serious violence offences’ using the definition from the Serious Offenders Act 2018, a definition which includes offences such as murder, manslaughter, serious injury offences and kidnapping; and • convictions for any other type of offence, for which a term of imprisonment or detention of more than 30 months has been imposed. Using existing definitions in legislation provides certainty about the offences excluded from the automatic stream. The conviction period is ten years for adults, and five years for children and young offenders Under the Bill, in order for convictions to become eligible to be spent automatically, a specified timeframe with no serious re-offending must be completed by the individual. This period will be 10 years for adults, and 5 years for children and young offenders, including those sentenced in adult courts under the dual track provisions within the Sentencing Act 1991. The chosen thresholds are consistent with the current Victoria Police Information Release Policy and with the overwhelming majority of spent convictions schemes in other Australian jurisdictions. In doing so Victoria will match all other jurisdictions by specifying a shorter waiting period for children and young offenders. Research tells us that young people are particularly vulnerable to discrimination and stigma on the basis of historic offending, which may affect their ability to seek employment or education opportunities, known to reduce recidivism rates. The Government recognises that many submissions to the Committee’s Inquiry advocated for shorter waiting periods to apply to both children and adults. The Committee itself concluded that the waiting periods should be set from within a recommended range. The Government has given the matter careful consideration and the Bill proposes a cautious approach, with waiting periods set at the outer point of the range recommended by the Committee but in line with waiting periods applying in almost all other Australian jurisdictions. Reflecting the approach in most Australian jurisdictions, the Bill provides that convictions for anything more than minor offending during the conviction period will re-commence the conviction period. Minor offending is defined in the Bill as a conviction where the penalty imposed is a fine not exceeding 10 penalty units, or for which no conviction is recorded by a court. Sentencing outcomes of terms of imprisonment, drug treatment orders and Community Correction Orders would however re-commence the conviction period if a conviction was recorded. A definition of minor re-offending based on the court outcome is preferred to a definition based on whether the offence was summary or indictable. This distinction is not as strong a basis for assessing risk or seriousness, noting that some low-risk and low-harm offending is classified as indictable while summary offences can capture offending which may be considered relatively serious. In addition, offences where the conviction is discharged without penalty, convictions that are quashed or where the person is pardoned will not re-commence the conviction period. This policy is consistent with the view that the threshold of disclosure of criminal wrongdoing should be that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the offender. These conviction periods will commence from the date that an individual is convicted. This reflects the fact that an individual can begin to demonstrate rehabilitation from the time they are sentenced. Non-conviction outcomes, and convictions recorded against children under 15 years old, will be spent immediately The Bill provides for certain convictions to be spent immediately. Under the Sentencing Act 1991, a sentencing court can choose not to record a conviction when sentencing an offender for a minor offence. In doing so, the court must take into account the impact recording a conviction will have on the offender’s economic or social wellbeing, and their employment prospects. Where the court decides not to record a conviction, the Sentencing Act states that the finding of guilt must not be taken to be a conviction for any purpose. In line with the policy embedded in that discretion, the Bill provides that any findings or orders imposed by courts without conviction are immediately spent, subject to completion of any conditions that may be attached to the penalty attached (for example, completion of a good behaviour bond). BILLS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 633

This removes the current inconsistency that arises where a person is told by the sentencing judge that they will “not record a conviction”, only to find the outcome nonetheless appears on their criminal record. Additionally, a conviction for an offence committed when a person is under the age of 15, and any fines issued with conviction by the Children’s Court, regardless of the child’s age, will be spent immediately. These provisions help mitigate the stigmatising impact of recording convictions against very young children. They also recognise that a fine is a low-level response by the court, that should not carry the ongoing consequence of a criminal record where the offender is a child. Infringement convictions, which relate to certain specific offences for drivers of cars and marine vessels, are also able to be spent immediately. Going forward, current investigations and pending charges will no longer be disclosed on a police record check. This aligns with the presumption of innocence, a fundamental principle of Victoria’s legal system. It will not, however, prevent the disclosure of pending charges where this is otherwise required, for example in connection with a Working With Children Check. Some individuals who do not meet the eligibility criteria to have their conviction automatically spent will be able to apply to the Magistrates’ Court for a spent conviction order In limited circumstances, where an offender with a conviction ineligible to be automatically spent has completed the relevant conviction period without re-offending and is able to demonstrate their rehabilitation, the offender will be able to apply to the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria for a spent convictions order. Under the Bill, the individuals able to apply for a spent conviction order are those who were sentenced as a child or young offender, and adult offenders who committed a serious violence offence or sexual offence where no term of imprisonment was imposed for the conviction, or other types of convictions where the term of imprisonment imposed was less than 5 years. Other strict eligibility criteria will also need to be followed before a court will consider an application. The circumstances where an application is allowed will be deliberately limited to ensure the court is not overburdened with applications, and to reflect community expectations about the types of offences that should continue to be disclosed on criminal records. In evaluating an application, the court will need to consider a number of criteria to determine whether a spent conviction order should be granted. Primarily, the court will consider the personal circumstances of the person, including any demonstrated rehabilitation, against any risk to public safety, which warrant the conviction being ordered spent or continuing to be disclosable. The court must also act with regard to the substance of the application under without regard to technicalities or legal forms that are not set out under the Bill. In relation to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander applicants, the court must consider the unique systemic and background factors affecting people from those communities. This acknowledges the over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people within the criminal justice system. Additionally, to reflect the current scientific understanding of behaviours of children and young people, the court can also consider the age and maturity of the person when the offence was committed. The court will be able to make their decision either on the papers, which it is anticipated will be sufficient in most cases, or by holding a hearing in open court. A hearing for a spent convictions order must be held in private, given the highly sensitive and personal nature of the information disclosed, unless the court considers the circumstances of the case require that the hearing should be in public. In acknowledgement of the long- lasting effect that offending has on victims, the court has discretion to invite a victim to attend the hearing and must take into account any views expressed by victims. Spent convictions legislation in other Australian jurisdictions is to be applied to interstate criminal record history The Bill provides that where a conviction occurred in another Australian jurisdiction, the legislation for that jurisdiction will be applied. Consequently, interstate criminal record history will be either disclosable or not disclosable in accordance with the spent convictions legislation of the respective interstate jurisdiction. This process, referred to as mutual recognition, will allow the Bill and its framework to be efficiently and effectively administered. Overseas convictions that correspond to Victorian convictions are to be spent in accordance with the parameters of the Bill, save for the application process The Bill proposes that overseas convictions are to be spent immediately or automatically if the overseas offence corresponds to an offence against the laws of Victoria, which itself would be spent immediately or automatically under the Bill. This is in line with spent convictions laws in all other Australian jurisdictions, except the Northern Territory. However, due to the complexity of determining whether an overseas offence has an equivalent in Victorian law, a person cannot apply to have an overseas conviction spent, where the offence cannot be spent immediately or automatically. BILLS 634 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

Incorporating overseas convictions into the Bill will further the objectives of a spent convictions scheme and provide certainty for persons who may have committed offences overseas, particularly recent and long-term migrants to Victoria. Once a conviction becomes spent, a person will not be required to disclose it to any person for any purpose Once a conviction becomes spent, it will no longer form part of the person’s criminal record and the individual will not be required to disclose the conviction for any purpose. Furthermore, once a conviction is eligible for controlled disclosure under the Bill (that is, it becomes spent), it cannot be revived later if the person receives another conviction. The Bill also provides that convictions which become spent will not be capable of triggering the disqualification provision within the Constitution Act 1975. Currently, under section 44(3) of the Constitution Act 1975, ‘an elector who has been convicted or found guilty of an indictable offence which by virtue of any enactment is punishable upon first conviction by imprisonment for life or for a term of five years or more…shall not be qualified to be elected a member of the Council or the Assembly’. Under the Bill, convictions that become spent will not be capable of triggering the section 44(3) disqualification provision. A person who has their conviction spent, and would ordinarily have been ineligible, will therefore be eligible for election as a member of the Legislative Council or the Legislative Assembly. To ensure the disclosure of spent convictions is prohibited effectively, the Bill also proposes offences for unlawful disclosure of spent conviction information, and for obtaining spent conviction information by fraud or dishonesty. There will be no constraint on the use of criminal record information by courts and agencies with corrections or law enforcement functions, or government agencies for the purpose of exercising existing functions Under the Bill, spent conviction information can be disclosed where necessary to allow efficient and effective administration of the justice system and protect community safety. For example, it is proposed that courts and agencies with corrections or law enforcement functions will be able to share criminal history records. Additionally, exemptions from the scheme are provided for certain agencies with specific functions to have access to complete criminal record history, to make well-informed risk assessments. This includes licensing for trusted professions, checks for working with children, and employment in sensitive government roles. These exemptions acknowledge that there will be circumstances that require the disclosure of a person’s full criminal record to make a holistic assessment of risk. However, employers or agencies who are under the list of exemptions will still need to consider how a spent conviction is relevant to the given situation or requirement of a position. Circumstances in which an exemption is provided under the Bill include the following: • law enforcement agencies, such as Victoria Police, the Independent Broad-Based Anti-corruption Commission and the Adult Parole Board • courts and tribunals • Corrections Victoria • Working With Children Checks • accreditation of transport workers, such as taxi drivers and bus drivers • occupational licensing, such as for health professionals, teachers and lawyers • licences for business activities, such as gambling operations and licensed premises • employment or contracting of persons to provide care to children or people with a disability • employment in government, such as in prisons and courts • family violence and child safety information-sharing programs, and • immigration decision making. This is a non-exhaustive list, with the full set of exemptions set out in the Bill. The agencies provided with an exemption have been carefully assessed based on their need to protect vulnerable persons from harm, perform sensitive public functions or maintain the integrity of government programs and licensing frameworks. Where relevant, authorities in other states and territories or the Commonwealth are provided with corresponding exemptions. The Equal Opportunity Act 2010 will be amended to prohibit discrimination based on a spent conviction The Bill will amend the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to include a spent conviction as a protected attribute, to prevent discrimination based on a spent conviction. This will enable people who have experienced ADJOURNMENT Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 635

discrimination to file a complaint with the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission and seek redress. This amendment is an important measure to ensure that the protections against disclosure in this Bill are given meaningful effect. The Government will undertake further detailed consultation, particularly with employer groups and unions, to consider whether discrimination on the basis of an irrelevant criminal record should also be prohibited, given that many stakeholders advocated for this change during consultations. This change, if pursued, would affect a larger group of stakeholders than is affected by the Bill, and requires further consideration. Statutory review of the Scheme will occur after 12 months The Bill proposes for a statutory review of the Scheme after 12 months, in order to consider the administration and operation of the Scheme and any continuing funding or resourcing implications. This timeframe will allow all major stakeholders to be in a position to better understand these implications, following commencement. It also provides an opportunity to assess the benefit of the scheme to persons with a criminal record. Conclusion Introducing this Bill recognises that historical convictions for eligible crimes should not exclude people from accessing jobs, training and housing for their whole lives. Having a pathway to a conviction becoming spent can help break the cycle of recidivism, thereby enhancing community safety. The fair and sensible scheme contained in this Bill will protect public safety while enhancing the ability of this oft-overlooked cohort of Victorians to lead a positive, productive life. I commend the Bill to the house. Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (18:08): I move, on behalf of my colleague Mr O’Donohue:

That debate on this matter be adjourned for one week. Motion agreed to and debate adjourned for one week. Adjournment Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (18:08): I move:

That the house do now adjourn. WOMEN & GIRLS IN STEM MAP Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (18:08): My adjournment matter is directed to the Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, and Minister for Small Business, the Honourable Jaala Pulford. This adjournment matter relates to the portfolio responsibilities of innovation, medical research and the digital economy. Victorian girls are reducing the gender imbalance in study numbers and career opportunities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, also known as STEM. The differences in interest and confidence in STEM tend to appear at an early age. This is a huge concern for innovation and diverse thinking in STEM professions and research. While more and more Victorian girls are pursuing STEM education, only 28 per cent of tertiary students enrolled to study in STEM fields are women. Being a scientist myself, I feel disheartened looking at these numbers. To help improve the participation of girls and women in STEM, the Andrews Labor government is backing multiple STEM-based programs, initiatives and events, working closely with industry and STEM organisations to support girls and women in school, university and the workforce. Under-representation of women and girls in STEM is a major impediment to our scientific potential. The Andrews Labor government has developed a STEM map to improve the visibility of STEM activities. There are over 175 programs in total. The action I seek from the minister is to direct her department to provide me with an update on what it is doing to promote the Women & Girls in STEM Map to girls and women in my electorate of Western Metropolitan Region. ADJOURNMENT 636 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

COVID-19 Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (18:10): My adjournment matter is for the Premier, and it concerns the unfair crowd restrictions placed on grassroots sporting events throughout regional Victoria because of COVID-19. The action that I seek from the Premier is to remove the 1000-person crowd limit at regional sporting events, in particular at local football and netball fixtures which are held outdoors without any concerns regarding breaches of social-distancing requirements. Sport is such an important part of life here in Victoria, and this is nowhere more so than in regional Victoria, where local sporting clubs are often the heart of regional communities. Much has been said this week of the unnecessary pain that has been inflicted on regional Victoria by Daniel Andrews’s snap lockdown caused by more failures in the hotel quarantine program. Of course the number of COVID- positive cases in regional Victoria is extremely low compared to metropolitan Melbourne, and there are some areas that have not recorded a single positive case throughout the pandemic. Despite this, Daniel Andrews’s disproportionate lockdowns are imposed on all Victorians, no matter the postcode in which they live. Regional sporting clubs have now been inflicted with a 1000-person crowd limit at their events, in line with government restrictions. Football and netball clubs, commonly the lifeblood of rural communities, are now burdened with these limits, which restrict revenue and put pressure on club volunteers to police. Games are played outside at venues where social-distancing rules could easily be maintained with crowds exceeding the current 1000-person limit. Of course numbers inside clubrooms would still be restricted by density caps, but outside there is plenty of room to accommodate crowds in excess of 1000 while still maintaining social-distancing rules. Rural communities that have had few or no cases of COVID-19 should not be lumped in with metropolitan Melbourne with restrictions that cause even more distress. The 1000-people crowd rule will also put Victorian clubs at a disadvantage compared to New South Wales clubs in leagues that contain clubs from both sides of the border, as clubs in New South Wales will be able to have larger crowds and Victorian clubs will be disadvantaged when it comes to home crowd support as well as gate takings and fundraising opportunities. The Andrews Labor government need to reconsider their crowd capacity limits at regional sporting venues to allow local clubs to collect revenue whilst providing much-needed enjoyment for local communities. EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGETS Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (18:12): My adjournment matter this evening is for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change in the other place. The action I seek is for her to publish interim emissions reduction targets to drive the state’s transition to zero emissions by 2050. While the government has been working hard to keep Victorians safe from the latest animal-derived disease outbreak, further global challenges are developing. Not every public servant in Victoria can spend their time dealing with the pandemic. In particular, despite being ignored, the climate emergency has not gone away or become any less pressing as a growing threat to planetary health and our civilisation. The Climate Change Act 2017 requires the government to announce interim emissions reduction targets in order to drive the state’s transition to zero emissions by 2050. In July 2020 the government announced that the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the target-setting process and that a decision had been deferred. However, I believe the government should be and is capable of dealing with more than one issue at a time. Early action to address emissions is cheaper and better than later action. I urge the government to target the bringing forward of reductions and drive our state towards sustainable energy generation, sustainable transport and sustainable land use and agriculture. As target setting is the cornerstone of our state’s response to the climate crisis and an issue of importance for community members across the state, I hope the minister can provide a transparent time line for the decision and when the targets will be tabled in Parliament. ADJOURNMENT Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 637

BELL STREET, COBURG AND PRESTON, ROAD SAFETY Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (18:14): My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Roads and Road Safety. Bell Street in Coburg and Preston is in a bad way and is only made worse by the extra traffic as many people in Melbourne’s north are choosing to use their cars rather than public transport post the COVID hassles. Bell Street was listed by the AAMI crash index as one of the worst locations for car crashes in Australia. As the population grows, the traffic is getting more and more difficult to navigate. In order to accommodate our increasing population and the subsequent increased volume of traffic, a review of Bell Street is urgently needed because the present situation is intolerable. The action I seek from the minister is to direct the Department of Transport, the bit formerly known as VicRoads, to investigate the light sequencing and the safety of intersections along the Preston and Coburg parts of Bell Street so my residents can get home to their families safely. EDUCATION FIRST YOUTH FOYER PROGRAM Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (18:15): My matter is for the Minister for Housing. It is chiefly about homelessness, but it does potentially overlap with other portfolios, so I would both understand and appreciate it if he chose to redirect some of it to another minister on my behalf. Homelessness is a pernicious, ever-increasing challenge in many parts of my electorate of Northern Victoria. Unfortunately I do not have nearly enough time available to me tonight to talk about all of its direct impacts across each of those areas, nor other often related social problems like youth disengagement, social isolation, mental health issues, family violence and other crime. Instead for now I will touch on how these problems, especially for young people, affect two of our largest cities. In Wodonga there is an unprecedented need for accommodation and education solutions for young people amid the devastating ongoing impacts locally over the past year of bushfires, the COVID pandemic and border closures. Youth unemployment numbers and calls for assistance to homelessness service providers in particular have spiked substantially in the Albury-Wodonga region since the advent of COVID in Victoria. Likewise in Wangaratta the incidence of family violence, child protection investigations and rates of registered mental health clients are all now among the highest in Victoria, with depression, anxiety and stress commonly reported and observed among local students. Family violence is very consistently a catalyst for young people there to contact specialist homelessness services for assistance. In both cities the need to tackle these issues earnestly, including through improving engagement with education and employment opportunities, is becoming ever more apparent. More happily amid all of this bad news, I have been delighted by the recent emergence of two important proposals in these two cities aimed at fulfilling these very objectives. Both backed by detailed business cases, Wodonga TAFE and GOTAFE in Wangaratta are seeking to build Education First Youth Foyers at their respective campuses, complementing the similar foyers already operating in Shepparton and at the Holmesglen and Kangan institutes. A recent five-year longitudinal study has clearly demonstrated these foyers’ success in supplying vitally needed accommodation and supportive integrated learning for people aged from 16 to 24 at risk of and/or experiencing homelessness. The action I therefore seek from the minister is an indication of whether he would join me in an online meeting with the projects’ proponents, including potentially key consortium members from the Brotherhood of St Laurence, TAFEs, local housing groups and local councils, to discuss the prospect of state governments supporting these two incredibly worthwhile initiatives in my electorate. LICENSED HOSPITALITY VENUE FUND Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (18:18): My adjournment this evening is for the Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, the Honourable Melissa Horne, in the other house, and it relates to the Licensed Hospitality Venue Fund for COVID-19. Now open for lunch from Wednesday through to Sunday, the Duck Inn at Willow Grove has an incredible menu with indoor and outdoor dining and takeaway options, and it is set in the most beautiful location. Scott Bradley has only been the proprietor for 12 months. He bought it just before COVID reared its head last year. In ADJOURNMENT 638 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021 fact he signed the deeds only a couple of months before, and in his own words, ‘It was not great timing’. It is certainly a great place for locals. The population around Willow Grove is about 1000 people, but other people come from Gippsland to visit and enjoy the food at the establishment. They have had significant curtailment of their income, as you can only imagine, significant loss and significant instability. They have pivoted and they have tried to keep their customers going in a variety of ways. Scott chose not to actually go with JobKeeper, and he also worked with his staff to keep them on at his own cost. In October last year, through the help of his accountant, he applied for a Licensed Hospitality Venue Fund grant. This was put up by the Andrews government to support businesses through the impacts of COVID restrictions and to keep jobs in Victoria. It sounds all good in the fine print, but he actually applied for it, and the department website says the department will endeavour to notify all applicants of their outcomes within 10 business days. It has been 63 days since this gentleman applied for his business, the Duck Inn—63 days. Scott has made 22 phone calls to the Business Victoria hotline, and he is still waiting for the outcome of his request for funding. During one of the telephone calls he was told by the department ‘It’s with the program owner’. This response seems to be a repetitive phrase and is not helping businesses like the Duck Inn at Willow Grove to receive financial assistance and it is not really supporting these people, as the fund is designed to do. Now, 63 days later a stressed businessman who is under financial pressure—and then to have another closure only last week—is absolutely at breaking point. I ask the minister to respond to Mr Bradley in earnest and expedite his application for the Licensed Hospitality Venue Fund grant. Also I would like the minister to provide an apology to this gentleman, who has had to wait an enormous amount of time, so that he can at least feel like someone cares. FOOTSCRAY TRANSPORT INTERCHANGE Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (18:21): My adjournment matter is to the Minister for Public Transport. The action that I seek is a formal commitment from the state government of approximately $1 million for a detailed design and reorganisation of bus routes as well as construction works as part of the implementation of a centralised transport interchange on Irving Street, Footscray. Footscray is a major transport hub for Melbourne’s west, providing train, tram and bus access. It is Melbourne’s busiest suburban train station and the second busiest for bus movements. Access to and between transport modes in central Footscray is substandard, with the bus stops located almost 350 metres from the train station along Paisley Street. Consolidation and relocation of bus services from Paisley Street to Irving Street will deliver a genuine multimodal transport hub, with train, tram and bus services all within 100 metres walking distance. By relieving central Paisley Street of the 12 bus routes, the development of the interchange will create an opportunity for large-scale public rail upgrades, in turn improving the city’s image, creating safer streets and increasing retail and hospitality trade, which is crucial to post-pandemic recovery. Implementation of the Irving Street transport interchange is urgently needed to cater for the rapid growth in Footscray, including the significant investment by the state in the new hospital, the Footscray priority business precinct and the learning precinct. In addition, the airport rail link and other major rail projects will bring many more trains into Footscray station. Planning for a centralised transport hub dates back several years with council and the state government through the Maribyrnong Integrated Transport Strategy of 2012 and the Footscray Structure Plan of 2014 strategic work. Community consultation has shown strong support for the creation of a centralised, integrated transport interchange at Footscray. Council has committed $3 million in its current budget for Paisley Street improvements to provide cycling infrastructure, traffic-calming measures, street tree planting and enhanced pedestrian amenity. These works will be compromised should the centralised transport interchange not be implemented by the state government. ADJOURNMENT Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 639

NORTHERN AQUATIC AND COMMUNITY HUB Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (18:24): My adjournment matter is for the attention of the Treasurer. It relates to the need for funding for the Northern Aquatic and Community Hub—members may remember this project as Northern ARC—which will be based in Geelong’s somewhat disadvantaged northern suburbs. It will feature a 25-metre pool, hydrotherapy and learn-to-swim pools, a water slide, a water play area, a spa, a sauna, a steam room, a cafe, a gym and group exercise area—sounds like fun—a multipurpose community hall, consulting rooms for maternal and child health, early childhood care and rehabilitation services. It is estimated that this facility will attract around 600 000 visits per year, delivering around $111 million in preventative health benefits during its first decade in operation. The City of Greater Geelong have committed a huge $20.6 million for the northern hub, one of their largest contributions to any social infrastructure project, and they are hoping that the state and federal governments will jump on board and match their contribution to ensure that the $61.6 million project is properly funded. To date the city has made $2.2 million in contributions to the project for planning and design. This includes a council resolution in September to spend $800 000 on the final detailed designs, which will make the entire project shovel ready in the hope of improving its chances of receiving state and federal contributions and getting the project off the ground. Unfortunately if the Northern Aquatic and Community Hub is not funded in this year’s state and federal budgets, the project’s future does look bleak and the millions of dollars spent on its planning will be a complete waste. As a supporter of the support for the north campaign I can confidently say that we need to make urgent investment in the health and wellbeing of those in the northern suburbs if we want to see their true potential. Therefore the action that I seek is for the Treasurer to work with the City of Greater Geelong to ensure that the state government fund their portion of the Northern Aquatic and Community Hub in this upcoming state budget. DUCK HUNTING Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (18:26): My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Agriculture. In Victoria we are stuck with a severely limited duck-hunting season. It lasts three weeks instead of 12 and has a bag limit of two instead of 10. The minister’s office and the Game Management Authority claim that the season is restricted because waterfowl numbers are low. North of the border, the New South Wales government has been doing the opposite. They have raised their duck cull quota because their research shows that waterfowl numbers are exploding. Let us put this in perspective. If you stand in Echuca in Victoria, on the border, ducks are under threat and strict hunting limits are required to protect them. If you stand a few metres north, ducks are now so plentiful that cull quotas are being increased to keep the numbers down. Either ducks have begun to map the state borders or someone in government is not being transparent or truthful. Let us compare. The New South Wales survey report is public and it counts ducks in dams and channels all over the state. The Victorian survey cost $200 000 and the results have been kept secret. Critics have speculated that the survey has ignored private dams and has left the Gippsland Lakes and South Gippsland out of its survey area despite those areas being some of the best duck habitat in the state. Which should we trust—the open report with well-supported methods or the secret report with questionable methods? Releasing a report that requires an increased duck cull provides no political advantage, while releasing a report that backs a key political issue for vocal MPs in the Labor Party and on the crossbench is clearly politically advantageous. I ask again: which report should we trust? Hunters are not a blight or a pest. Field & Game have worked for 60 years to preserve and rehabilitate wetlands and to maintain game reserves. They have raised the funds to buy and rehabilitate Gippsland’s Heart Morass wetlands and Connewarre system and are undertaking construction of a QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 640 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

1.5-kilometre observation trail through the Connewarre wetland. Hunters are not interested in wiping out ducks; they are interested in the long-term sustainability of their sport. They are the group of people most likely to make sure that populations are maintained. The wetlands would have been drained. The duck hunters saved them. Opposition to duck hunting has nothing to do with protecting the environment. It is not about conservation and it is not about duck populations. It is based on the belief that any person who chooses to kill an animal, even for meat, is morally unacceptable and in need of mental health services. Those are not my words; they are straight from the horse’s mouth. It is about a moral rejection of meat. Despite most of humanity eating meat for all of human history and despite the prevailing view that free-range meat is the most ethical source, duck hunting is first on the chopping block. It is a world view that calls the cultural traditions of hunting for food primitive. I call on the minister to make the Game Management Authority’s full survey results and methods public and to support a full season with full bag limits. RESPONSES Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (18:29): There were nine adjournment matters raised this evening, ranging from women in STEM to COVID rules to the duck season and interim emission targets, just to name a few. Those matters will be referred to the relevant ministers. I have one response to an adjournment matter: Ms Lovell’s on 4 February. Mr Ondarchie: On a point of order, President, it is normally at this time of the week that I stand to ask the minister at the table where my outstanding issues are relating to adjournment matters. I am pleased to report I am completely up to date, and I thank the minister for her work. Questions without notice and ministers statements WRITTEN RESPONSES The PRESIDENT (18:29): Earlier this afternoon Mr O’Donohue raised a point of order on his question and the supplementary to Minister Stitt. After reviewing the Hansard I ask Minister Stitt only to respond to the supplementary, and I give two days. The house stands adjourned. House adjourned 6.30 pm until Tuesday, 2 March. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 641

Written adjournment responses Responses have been incorporated in the form supplied by the departments on behalf of the appropriate ministers. Friday, 19 February 2021

SHEPPARTON EDUCATION PLAN In reply to Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (4 February 2021) Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health):

The Shepparton Education Plan articulates a long-term vision to transform education and learning from birth to post-secondary pathways in Greater Shepparton. It is delivering unprecedented investment to improve the educational outcomes, wellbeing and life opportunities for the young people of Shepparton and Mooroopna. The plan combines teaching and learning, professional leadership and community engagement with capital projects to address challenges and improve student achievement. It is wholistic and transformational, with four stages. These are Early Years, Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Education. Extensive stakeholder consultation has informed the development of all four stages. The Secondary plan was completed in 2018 and we expect the Early Years and Primary plans to be released by the end of March, 2021 and the Tertiary stage plan by the end of May. Consultations were clearly impacted and slowed by the lockdowns that occurred during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in 2020. During this time, it was imperative that priority be given to supporting early childhood services and schools to provide effective remote learning. Despite the challenges of the pandemic, the capital projects associated with the Early Years and Secondary stages of the Shepparton Education Plan are well advanced and impressive for all to see in Shepparton and Mooroopna. To open in coming weeks is an Integrated Early Learning Centre now undergoing final fit-out within the grounds of Mooroopna Primary School. From this innovative centre, families will be able to access high- quality early learning, including kindergarten, long day care, maternal health care and related services in safe and inclusive spaces. In Shepparton, we are building the new world-class Greater Shepparton Secondary College. Established in 2020 following the merger of Greater Shepparton’s existing secondary schools, the College is already offering students broader subject choices, new learning and pathway opportunities, and better education and wellbeing support than ever before. Construction is well advanced and in 2022, the new College will open to the city’s public secondary students. It is an exciting, state-of-the-art development that will deliver contemporary classrooms and specialist learning spaces not seen in Greater Shepparton for decades. Consultation on the Shepparton Education Plan commenced in 2017, with the Secondary stage a priority and its engagement also informing Early Years, Primary and Tertiary stages. In June 2017, the Victorian School Building Authority (VSBA) asked the community to identify the key challenges facing young people in the area and contributing to declining secondary school enrolments and consistently low NAPLAN results in literacy and numeracy. This consultation phase saw nine workshops involving more than 200 teachers, students and community members, 185 online surveys completed and more than 4,750 individual comments. Varied and complex problems were identified and in late 2017 the VSBA put four options to the community followed by pop-up information sessions, community workshops and an online survey. More than 300 community members had their say and more than 2000 comments were analysed. In 2018 engagement focused on Early Years and Primary stakeholders, including individuals, government organisations, specialist agencies and the wider community. Primary and kindergarten parent and teacher surveys were undertaken, workshops and pop-up information sessions held, online engagement analysed and meetings organised with inter-agency involvement. Engagement and consultation on the Early and Primary Stages included 225 face-to-face conversations, 34 online discussions, more than 780 online surveys and engagements and more than 17,700 people reached through social media. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES 642 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

Our Tertiary stage engagement and consultation continued through 2020. A series of workshops has included the involvement of 19 local industry, business and employment agencies, 16 education providers and 18 community support organisations in Greater Shepparton. Further consultation has included one-on-one interviews with students and families of Greater Shepparton Secondary College, an industry roundtable with business leaders and senior Department representatives and a survey of more than 100 VETDSS students at GOTAFE. At no time has Greater Shepparton had such investment, expertise, community engagement and Government commitment devoted to improving the educational outcomes, wellbeing and life opportunities of the city’s young people than now, with the development of the Shepparton Education Plan. ANSWERS TO CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 643

Answers to constituency questions Responses have been incorporated in the form provided to Hansard and received in the period shown. 5 to 19 February 2021

WESTERN METROPOLITAN REGION In reply to Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (4 August 2020) Mr WYNNE (Richmond—Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing):

The West Gate Tunnel Project is a state significant infrastructure project, and the disposal of spoil from the project must be managed appropriately. I acknowledge the concerns you have raised about the possible use of the Hi-Quality site for this purpose and I appreciate that there are environmental, social and economic issues that require careful consideration. I have been requested to intervene in the approvals process for the Hi-Quality site, and other sites, using section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) Victoria is required to protect human health and the environment. The EPA is assessing applications under the Environment Protection Act 1970 and regulations from multiple applicants including Hi-Quality to receive spoil from the West Gate Tunnel Project. On 29 July 2020, under delegation, DELWP Planning commenced consultation with Hume City Council on the use of section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act and on the form and content of the planning scheme amendment to facilitate the use of the Hi-Quality site to receive spoil. A series of technical documents have been provided to the council to assist its consideration. The council has been given until 9 September 2020 to provide its comments. The council’s views, and those of any resident and stakeholder, will be taken into account in deciding whether to amend the planning scheme to enable the use of the site for the disposal of West Gate Tunnel spoil. NORTHERN METROPOLITAN REGION In reply to Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (15 October 2020) Mr CARROLL (Niddrie—Minister for Public Transport, Minister for Roads and Road Safety):

I thank the member for his question. Station upgrades are planned to be undertaken as part of the Victorian Government’s stimulus works package at 11 stations, including South Kensington Station. The Department of Transport is working with Metro Trains Melbourne to finalise the details for the upgrades. All works across the program are expected to be complete by December 2021. Works at South Kensington Station will include amenity, safety and accessibility upgrades, such as platform resurfacing, installing tactile ground surface indicators (tactiles) and fencing. Upon completion of the Metro Tunnel, passengers using South Kensington station will also benefit from improved capacity and more frequent services on the Werribee and Williamstown lines. WESTERN METROPOLITAN REGION In reply to Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (16 October 2020) Mr WYNNE (Richmond—Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing):

The West Gate Tunnel Project is a state significant infrastructure project, and the disposal of spoil from the project must be managed appropriately. I acknowledge the concerns you have raised about the possible use of the Hi-Quality Landfill site for this purpose and appreciate that there are environmental, social and economic issues that require careful consideration. I have been requested to intervene in the approvals process for the Hi-Quality site under section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. In considering this request, I will carefully consider all the relevant environmental, social and economic issues, including the matters that you have raised, and I will take your comments into account in deciding whether to amend the planning scheme. ANSWERS TO CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS 644 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

I have consulted with Hume City Council under section 20(5) of the Act on the use of section 20(4) and on the form and content of the amendment. All of the technical reports accompanying the planning scheme amendment request were provided to the council to facilitate my consultation with the council. The council’s views, including the feedback already provided by the council, as well as the comments from the community and stakeholders will be considered in my determination of this matter. EASTERN VICTORIA REGION In reply to Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (27 October 2020) Mr CARROLL (Niddrie—Minister for Public Transport, Minister for Roads and Road Safety):

The Department of Transport (DoT) is responsible for managing 22,000 kilometres of roads across Victoria, including 3,500 kilometres of roads in the Gippsland region. DoT undertakes maintenance activities in accordance with its Road Management Plan to ensure Victorians can travel safely across the state. DoT works closely throughout the year with the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP), emergency services, local authorities and other relevant agencies to prepare for bushfire season through local Fire Management Plans. DoT’s annual roadside grass mowing program conducts regular inspections to identify and treat hazards and prioritise works. Roadside mowing, slashing, weed spraying and tree trimming works are undertaken to reduce fire risk and to maintain visibility of signs, guideposts and intersections. DoT completed its fire mowing program at the end of December 2020, in line with Country Fire Authority requirements. Higher than average spring rainfall resulted in increased growth heading into the 2020-21 summer, and it is important that grass fully dries, or ‘cures’ prior to being cut to prevent further rapid growth. Although these conditions affected the timing of DoT’s seasonal mowing program, hazards such as vegetation impeding visibility were identified and swiftly rectified separately to the mowing program. DoT will continue to monitor its road network, plan maintenance works and respond to hazards as required, to ensure the safe operation of all arterial roads. Members of the public are encouraged to report any issues relating to maintenance on arterial roads directly to DoT on 13 11 70. NORTHERN VICTORIA REGION In reply to Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (10 November 2020) Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Equality):

There are no restrictions relating to the presence of religious practitioners at religious gatherings under the current Directions. WESTERN METROPOLITAN REGION In reply to Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (26 November 2020) Mr WYNNE (Richmond—Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing):

I have not yet determined the request made by Hi-Quality Group to amend the Hume Planning Scheme. I will carefully consider the matters that you have raised and I will take your comments along with the comments of council, key stakeholders and the community into account in deciding whether to amend the planning scheme to enable the use of the site for the requested use. WESTERN VICTORIA REGION In reply to Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (8 December 2020) Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop):

I thank the Member for the Western Victoria Region for her question. The Andrews Labor Government is spending more than any other Government on regional rail, roads and freight initiatives. ANSWERS TO CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 645

The approach of the Government stands in contrast to former Liberal Governments who privatised regional rail freight and closed down regional rail lines. The Government has invested over $2.8 Billion over the last five years to support regional road and rail freight. The 2020–21 State Budget is also putting people and jobs first, investing over $8 billion to help regional communities. The Government is supporting farmers to get their products to market faster, cheaper and safer by providing $300 million for a road maintenance blitz across regional Victoria for works such as routine maintenance, road surface replacement, bridge strengthening and replacing intelligent transport systems like traffic signals and electronic speed signs and $4 million for safety improvements on the Henty Highway between Horsham and Lascelles. To help stimulate regional economies, $83 million in funding has also been invested in a freight improvement package along 400 kilometres of freight rail lines. The Victorian and Commonwealth Governments also agreed on a $244 million package of works which will reduce cycle times and increase network reliability, capacity and resilience to the Murray Basin Rail network. EASTERN METROPOLITAN REGION In reply to Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (8 December 2020) Mr CARROLL (Niddrie—Minister for Public Transport, Minister for Roads and Road Safety):

The Department of Transport (DoT) manages more than 22,000 kilometres of arterial roads throughout Victoria. To do this effectively, comprehensive procedures are in place to ensure that regular inspections are undertaken of the arterial road network to identify defects, treat any hazards and maintain these roads in a safe condition. Whitehorse Road is inspected twice weekly to identify and swiftly react to any potential issues. Annual resurfacing or repairing strategies are retrieved from the data collected and programmed accordingly. From the data collected and follow up visual assessments by DoT representatives, it was established that the eastbound lane of Whitehorse Road, which includes the Station Street intersection, requires resurfacing. This work is scheduled to be completed within this financial year. EASTERN VICTORIA REGION In reply to Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (8 December 2020) Mr WYNNE (Richmond—Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing):

I thank the Member for Eastern Victoria for the question. I acknowledge Ms Holland’s circumstances and confirm her application for a transfer is approved under the priority category of Manifestly Unsuitable Housing, with an effective date of 26 October 2020. Ms Holland is approved for an offer of housing in her preferred areas of Ocean Grove, Barwon Heads or Geelong North when a suitable property becomes available for her. I am advised that the Department of Health and Human Services conducted a full assessment of Ms Holland’s current public housing property in January and found no evidence of mould or damp. The Victorian Government recognises the need for additional social housing for vulnerable Victorians and recently announced a historic $5.3 billion Big Housing Build to construct more than 12,000 new homes throughout metro and regional Victoria, boosting our state’s social housing supply by 10 per cent in just four years. Of these new homes, 2,000 will be for Victorians living with mental illness, reflecting our commitment to mental health and a further 2,900 new affordable and low-cost homes will be built to help low-to-moderate income earners live closer to where they work and provide options for private rental. The program will deliver secure, modern, and affordable homes throughout Victoria—with 25 per cent of funding to be allocated to regional Victoria. The new homes will meet 7-star energy efficiency standards, making them more comfortable during summer and winter, and saving tenants on their power bills. ANSWERS TO CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS 646 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

EASTERN METROPOLITAN REGION In reply to Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (10 December 2020) Mr CARROLL (Niddrie—Minister for Public Transport, Minister for Roads and Road Safety):

The Victorian Government is committed to addressing touting at Melbourne Airport. That is why the Government supported the introduction of new offences in December 2019 aimed at curbing the activity. Since the change in law, the industry regulator, Commercial Passenger Vehicles Victoria (CPVV), has been actively enforcing the offences, working in collaboration with Melbourne Airport and the Australian Federal Police. While CPVV has observed some known touters within the airport terminal during the operations, none have committed offences when CPVV officers have attended (instead leaving the terminal without a passenger). Accordingly, no infringements have been issued. COVID-19 dramatically impacted the volume of activity at Melbourne Airport, with the temporary cessation of international flights and a significant reduction in domestic flights to Victoria. During this time, Melbourne Airport did not raise any concerns about touting with CPVV. With the easing of restrictions and increased air travel, touters have unfortunately returned to Melbourne Airport. CPVV has met with Melbourne Airport to discuss touting issues and the parties have again commenced collaboration on compliance activity and a communications campaign, to ensure both members of the commercial passenger vehicle industry and the public are aware that touting is illegal. I have confidence that CPVV, in collaboration with Melbourne Airport and other partners, are taking necessary steps to respond to touting. NORTHERN METROPOLITAN REGION In reply to Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (10 December 2020) Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier):

Responsibility for Australia’s immigration system rests with the Commonwealth Government. The Victoria Government has and will continue to advocate to the Commonwealth Government for fairer treatment of asylum seekers. Victoria advocates through ministerial channels and through the Senior Officials Settlement Outcomes Group (SOSOG). SOSOG is convened by the Commonwealth for settlement officials across all states and territories. The Victorian Government also continues to provide a range of supports to asylum seekers. Most recently, our Government has provided: • $2.2 million to provide basic needs assistance to thousands of asylum seekers during the coronavirus pandemic • access to a $800 Extreme Hardship Payment for people with limited or no income, including temporary and provisional visa holders and undocumented migrants living in Victoria, with the option of an additional $800 if eligible • $3 million for mental health support for vulnerable multicultural communities (including asylum seekers This support builds on other initiatives in the 2020–21 State Budget that benefit refugees and asylum seekers, such as: • $3.9 million to support the health needs of people seeking asylum, including mental health and trauma counselling, material aid, health assistance, and subsidised medications, housing assistance, and case coordination • $2.4 million over four years to the Women in Transport program, which will support 40 female refugee and asylum seeker engineers to access employment opportunities through the Engineering Pathways Industry Cadetship • $2.2 million to support improved settlement outcomes, including extending legal support for asylum seekers and temporary visa holders At this time, more than ever, it is important that people receive support based on their needs rather than their visa status. ANSWERS TO CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 647

NORTHERN VICTORIA REGION In reply to Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (10 December 2020) Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Equality):

Waiting for emergency services to attend the scene of an incident can be a difficult and stressful situation. Following an investigation, Ambulance Victoria has advised they received a call to attend an elderly woman at a GP clinic in Tallangatta, and that paramedics arrived on scene 11 minutes after the call was received by the 000 call-taker. Further the patient was, fortunately, not in cardiac arrest. Paramedics provided timely and exceptional care and within the target time for emergency Code 1 incidents. Ambulance Victoria has also followed up this incident with the family, who reported they were happy with the care provided. WESTERN METROPOLITAN REGION In reply to Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (2 February 2021) Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes):

The Victorian Government took the decision to defer commencement of the new environment protection legislation in recognition of the extraordinary impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our economy, business and the community. This action was taken in response to feedback from Victorian businesses, many of whom are facing unprecedented circumstances as a result of COVID-19. The delay also affords duty holders more time to understand their new rights and responsibilities. The Government intends for the new Environment Protection Amendment Act 2018 to commence 1 July 2021. My department has already initiated the process to formalise this date. The Government provided new funding for the EPA of $71.4 million to address waste crime including the establishment of a new Waste Crime Inspectorate within EPA and improved intelligence sharing across regulatory government agencies. This is in addition to an investment over $200 million to ramp up EPA’s intelligence and compliance operations including stronger powers and modern legislation. EPA has also introduced a Waste Crime Intelligence Committee with co-regulators and emergency service agencies, and an electronic waste tracking system, to boost its ability to detect, prevent and respond to illegal activities and waste crime. EPA is undertaking an inspection blitz on high risk waste and recycling facilities–cracking down on unsafe stockpiles and taking a zero tolerance approach to non-compliance. EPA inspectors are visiting multiple locations per day with a very clear message: if you are doing the wrong thing, you will be caught and penalised. EPA has completed a record 2,782 inspections—519 more than the previous year. WESTERN METROPOLITAN REGION In reply to Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (3 February 2021) Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes):

While Victorians are committed recyclers, we need to think beyond what we put in our bins and start to focus on how we can make a difference in our communities by focusing on what we buy, reuse or repair. Every purchase we make affects our environment, and so every Victorian can help to make the shift to a circular economy. A circular economy continually seeks to reduce the environmental impacts of production and consumption, it allows us to avoid waste with good design and effective recovery of materials that can be reused. Community-based organisations will play an important role in leading the change to a circular economy. They are well placed to identify and develop local circular economy projects that enable communities to share, repair, loan and buy second-hand goods. They can help communities to choose waste-free products, reuse materials, and maintain and repair the goods that we have. They can support people to buy products that are durable, repairable, recyclable or made from recycled materials. All of these practices will help Victorians to save money and unlock value for our broader economy. ANSWERS TO CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS 648 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

The Recycling Victoria Communities Fund supports community-based projects that empower the community to reduce waste. Grants of up to $250,000 are available to community groups, social enterprises, not-for-profit organisations and charities for projects that reduce waste generation, reduce waste to landfill, or that reduce sources of plastic pollution, litter and illegal dumping. Projects could include initiatives like repair cafes, local tool sharing schemes or workshops to teach people mending skills. The grants are currently open on the Sustainability Victoria website at https://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/ Grants-and-funding/Recycling-Victoria-Communities-Fund. The first round of grants closes on 12 March 2021. I would encourage any interested parties from the Western Metropolitan Region and all across Victoria to visit the website for more information on the funding and eligibility, and to access the grant application guidelines and online application form. The Victorian Government is delivering the biggest transformation and reform of Victoria’s waste and recycling system in our states history. Our record investment of $515 million will create thousands of jobs, reduce waste to landfill and deliver a waste and recycling system that Victorians can rely on. EASTERN VICTORIA REGION In reply to Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (3 February 2021) Ms THOMAS (Macedon—Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional Development):

Trespassing on farms or other agricultural businesses is illegal and unacceptable. The Victorian Government is implementing 13 recommendations from the Inquiry into the impact of animal rights activism on Victorian agriculture. Despite the challenges of the coronavirus pandemic, a number of recommendations have progressed since we tabled our response to the Inquiry in June last year, and further engagement across government and industry will take place this year. Work is underway to implement a new biosecurity offence relating to trespass on agricultural land which incorporates on-the-spot fines for biosecurity breaches. The Government has committed to legislation that includes fines for this behaviour to be among the heaviest in Australia. In September 2019, the Victorian Government announced a new specialised Farm Crime Coordination Unit. The Farm Crime Coordination Unit focuses on farm-related crime, including farm trespass and theft of livestock and farm equipment. Current penalties associated with trespass include provision for fines of over $4,000 or imprisonment for six months under the Summary Offences Act 1966. Farmers and agricultural businesses should be free to do their work without fear of being targeted by trespassers, who put hard working farming families, biosecurity and animals at risk. NORTHERN VICTORIA REGION In reply to Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (3 February 2021) Mr WYNNE (Richmond—Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing):

The irrigation network was designed and constructed for the purpose of water delivery to farmers; it is not a natural waterway. During the winter irrigation shutdown Goulburn Murray Water (GMW) removes weeds from the irrigation network. GMW has been working collaboratively with Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning over a number of years, researching alternative treatment methods for the weed species that are present in the channels. Trials have been completed to demonstrate the chemical efficacy and other management practices that can help reduce the wide range of weed populations throughout the Goulburn Murray Irrigation District. These initiatives aim to find a replacement for acrolein injection in the future. Weed build up in the channels has led to partial blocking of the water supply infrastructure which affects the delivery of water to agricultural customers. GMW has tried various, non-chemical solutions including using excavators, boat-based removal and raking by staff before turning to a chemical solution. These alternative solutions were not effective in removing enough weed growth to ensure the channel system ran efficiently and agricultural businesses were able to access their water. Favourable environmental conditions have meant the weeds have continued to grow and block delivery infrastructure. GMW acknowledges the risks associated with the use of herbicides, including the risk of fish deaths. Acrolein is used because it is effective against weeds such as hornwort, has a very short lifespan once applied and does not leave residues that can contaminate the wider environment. The treatment is applied into the irrigation channel system and does not enter natural waterways. ANSWERS TO CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 649

GMW does everything it can in preparation for treatments such as these to minimise impacts on aquatic life including electrofishing where possible to remove native species to other nearby natural waterways. This was done for part of the area in January before the treatment was applied. GMW also removes any dead fish in the channels after treatment. Wildlife outside of the channel system is not affected by the treatment. NORTHERN METROPOLITAN REGION In reply to Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (4 February 2021) Mr PEARSON (Essendon—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Regulatory Reform, Minister for Government Services, Minister for Creative Industries):

Thank you for raising this issue on behalf of The Butterfly Club. The creative industries are integral to Victoria’s economy and a key part of the State’s recovery. The coronavirus pandemic has meant much of our creative industries are operating at reduced capacities. These are necessary public health measures and the Government is making all of its decisions based on public health advice to protect the safety of all— performers, patrons and venue operators. Any changes to public health directions will be determined by the Chief Health Officer. The Victorian Government has worked closely with the sector and has provided more than $220m in the 2020–21 State Budget to support our creative industries. We will continue to work alongside the sector to tackle the ongoing challenges posed by the pandemic and support them so that Victorians can return to the live performances they love. EASTERN METROPOLITAN REGION In reply to Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (4 February 2021) Mr WYNNE (Richmond—Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing):

The government remains committed to providing safe and stable accommodation for people experiencing homelessness. As a response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the Victorian Government provided over $65 million in additional funding to homelessness agencies to purchase emergency accommodation for people experiencing homelessness. In late July 2020, the Government announced the $150 million From Homelessness to a Home initiative for people experiencing homelessness who have been placed into emergency accommodation (such as hotels) as a public health response to COVID-19. This package will support these households to remain in emergency accommodation, and work with support services to secure longer term housing in homes headleased in the private rental market, or purchased by Homes Victoria through our $5.3 billion Big Housing Build. Funding for emergency accommodation has now in fact been extended beyond April 2021 to June 2021 and is based on close monitoring of changing demand for emergency accommodation. The Victorian Budget 2020–21 has delivered the $5.3 billion Big Housing Build to construct more than 12,000 new homes throughout metro and regional Victoria per year over the next four years, to supercharge Victoria’s economic recovery through the pandemic and beyond. As part of the Big Housing Build, 9,300 homes will be new social housing properties for Victorians in greatest need, including the renewal of 1,100 outdated dwellings. Leveraging access to social housing aligns with the government’s commitment to provide housing exits for people in emergency accommodation, but most importantly it prevents people from returning to homelessness. This package will boost our state’s social housing supply by 10 per cent in just four years—providing a stable foundation for thousands of Victorians to build their lives. NORTHERN VICTORIA REGION In reply to Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (4 February 2021) Mr WYNNE (Richmond—Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing):

The Victorian Government is upgrading 35,000 social housing properties at a cost of $112 million to improve energy efficiency, provide energy cost savings, improve comfort for tenants and deliver environmental benefits. The most common upgrades are likely to be replacement of major appliances with efficient heating or hot water systems, and the installation of insulation and draught proofing. ANSWERS TO CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS 650 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

As you note, the department’s first commitment under this project is for the installation of air conditioning in climate zone 4, which is the state’s hottest. This covers nine Local Government Areas in the north and north west of the state, including Buloke, Campaspe, Gannawarra, Greater Shepparton, Hindmarsh, Mildura, Moira, Swann Hill and Yarriambiack. Work to install air conditioners in up to 2,000 properties in this region has already commenced. A total of 54 installations had been completed by 8 February 2021, including 14 in Swan Hill and 40 in Mildura. All public housing properties in climate zone 4, which do not have an air conditioner and whose tenants who permit access for an installation, will receive an air conditioner during the course of this program. The final number of installations by local government area will not be known until the conclusion of the program, as in some cases air conditioners have already been installed or tenants may decline the installation of the air conditioner. The Social Housing Energy Efficiency Program is part of the $797 million Household Energy Savings Package, which is the biggest household energy efficiency package of any Australian State. Announced as part of the 2020–21 budget, the package will support around 4,000 jobs, lower energy bills by a combined $5.1 billion over 10 years, increase Victoria’s renewable energy supply and improve the living standards of vulnerable households—ensuring that no Victorians are left behind in the state’s energy transition. This is on top of the government’s announcement in May 2020, of $4 million to improve the energy efficiency of high rise public housing to replace bulk hot water systems and improve the energy efficiency of lights in common areas. These energy efficiency initiatives come on top of commitments to the $5.3 billion Big Housing Build, which will deliver more than 12,000 new homes; the Building Works initiative, which will spend $498 million on refurbishment and maintenance of existing public housing dwellings; the $185 million Public Housing Renewal Program; the $209 million project to build 1,000 new public housing dwellings and the $150 million Homelessness to Home package. Homes Victoria, a new agency formed from the Housing Division within the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing will lead the delivery of this significant pipeline of works. EASTERN METROPOLITAN REGION In reply to Mr ATKINSON (Eastern Metropolitan) (4 February 2021) Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop):

I thank the Member for Eastern Metropolitan Region for his continued interest in the Andrews Labor Government’s Hurstbridge Line Duplication project. The people of Victoria—and those living and working along the Hurstbridge Line—sent a loud and clear message when they endorsed the Andrews Labor Government’s transport plans for the area at the 2018 State Election. In our first term, the first stage of the Hurstbridge Line Upgrade was delivered—six months early and on budget. It included the new Rosanna Station, duplicated track between Heidelberg and Rosanna, and the removal of the dangerous level crossings at Alphington and Rosanna, resulting in much needed additional services and improved reliability. Commuters on the Hurstbridge Line will have more trains, more seats and fewer delays as the re-elected Andrews Labor Government will continue our massive upgrade along the corridor. The $530 million Hurstbridge Line Duplication project includes a brand-new train station at Greensborough, a major upgrade at Montmorency and the duplication of more than 4.5 km of track to allow more train services during the morning peak. This will allow trains to run every seven minutes at Greensborough, every 10 minutes at Eltham and Montmorency, and every 20 minutes at Hurstbridge, Diamond Creek and Wattle Glen—as well as two extra Hurstbridge express services. Our Government has consulted extensively regarding the project and it is overwhelmingly supported by the community. The project will create more than 950 jobs, with works underway scheduled to finish by 2022. Victorians along the Hurstbridge Line knew that only Labor delivered Stage 1 of the Hurstbridge Line Upgrade and, at the last election, endorsed our plan to deliver the next stage of these important works. WRITTEN RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 651

Written responses to questions without notice Responses have been incorporated in the form provided to Hansard and received in the period shown. 5 to 19 February 2021

CHILD PROTECTION In reply to Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (11 November 2020) Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood):

Young people in the child protection and care systems have often experienced significant trauma, resulting in several challenges requiring support. For example, young people with substance abuse issues are identified and overseen by multidisciplinary high-risk panels that meet monthly to support robust case planning, decision making, and focused work with young people. Funding is also provided to build the capacity of Out of Home Care (OoHC) providers to better support young people experiencing problematic substance abuse. To date, the initiative has successfully engaged and supported significant numbers of OoHC carers and workers, as well as youth Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) workers and other providers of services to vulnerable young people. Alcohol and Drug Youth Consultant positions are funded across Victoria to provide secondary consultation, support and advice to Child Protection clients and staff in out-of-home care residential facilities, adolescent community placement and secure welfare services. The Victorian Government has also funded the ongoing employment of eight sexual exploitation practice leaders to work collaboratively with child protection practitioners and Victoria Police to identify, monitor and respond to young people at risk of sexual exploitation. The 2020–21 State Budget saw an unprecedented investment of $1 billion over four years in new supports to deliver better outcomes for children and families and the transformation of the child and family system. This includes: • 365.4 million over 4 years to maintain and build the capacity of Child Protection services, programs, and agencies to support vulnerable children and families • $75.0 million over 4 years for Better Futures—Home Stretch to provide all Victorian care leavers with support as they transition to adulthood • $322.7 million over 4 years in output funding and $40.9 million in asset investment to reform care services - with a focus on residential care homes and target care packages to provide tailored supports for children with complex needs • More than $335.4 million over 4 years to continue to transform the child and family system to focus on early intervention and prevention, including funding for family preservation and restoration programs. This investment includes an expansion of the Keep Embracing Your Success Residential Care Model (KEYS). KEYS utilises a trauma-informed treatment and care approach that provides opportunities for young people to better understand and address their mental health and build emotional resilience. Successes include gaining employment; reductions in absconding, criminal activity and sexual exploitation and increased engagement with family, education and improved independent living skills. FIREARMS LICENSING In reply to Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (3 February 2021) Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans):

Thank you for your question Mr Quilty. I have provided your question to the Hon. Lily D’Ambrosio MP. Minister for Energy, Environment & Climate Change & Minister for Solar Homes. Please find below the Minister’s response. The Conservation Regulator’s review into the Authority to Control Wildlife (ATCW) system has been considering public feedback and will be released shortly. WRITTEN RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 652 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

The review is working to improve the ATCW system to minimise red tape, while ensuring the requirements of the Wildlife Act 1975 are properly applied. The consultation for the Authority to Control Wildlife review was conducted through the www.engage.vic.gov.au website, allowing all members of the Victorian community to have their say on this important issue. COVID-19 In reply to Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (4 February 2021) Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources):

Criminal jury trials resumed in the County Court in Melbourne on 16 November 2020 and at the Supreme Court in Melbourne on 18 November 2020. I commend the courts for the significant work they have done throughout the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure that critical matters continue. The courts have completely transformed the way they operate and have rapidly expanded the use of technology. The courts have followed the expert advice to ensure that criminal jury trials can be conducted in a COVID- Safe way to keep court staff and members of the community safe. This includes changes to the process for summonsing people for jury service, whereby a ‘virtual’ jury pool is created. Only those people who are required to form a jury panel are required to physically attend court and only one panel is being brought in at a time. The courts have also made changes to the empanelment process once people are physically at court to use large spaces, split the panel (if required) and minimise movement. Courts have been modified to allow for physical distancing, and each jury trial is using two courtrooms rather than one to provide a large space for jurors to use as a jury room. Once a person has been selected to serve on a jury, there are more changes to protect their safety. The courts have changed procedures so that jurors do not need to physically touch papers and items that are in evidence. Jurors now have their private travel costs reimbursed, to avoid juror use of public transport, and are given clear instructions about maintaining distancing, mask wearing and hygiene, and instructed not to attend if they are symptomatic or are a close contact. The Government has backed the justice system’s efforts to address the impacts of COVID-19 with a significant investment of $80,978 million in 2019–20. In particular, the State Budget included $12.236 million to support the courts to implement social distancing and run jury trials that meet COVID-19 requirements, for example, modifications to courtrooms to allow for social distancing and reimbursing jurors’ costs to ensure they can travel to court in a socially distanced way. MONT ALBERT TRAIN STATION In reply to Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (4 February 2021) Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business):

I thank the Member for Eastern Metropolitan Region for his question. The level crossings at Union Road, Surrey Hills and Mont Albert Road, Mont Albert have been fast-tracked for removal, with major construction starting in 2022 and the level crossings removed in 2023. These level crossings are two of Melbourne’s worst: the level crossing at Union Road was the site of a tragic incident in 2016 that resulted in two fatalities, and there have been at least eight near misses at these crossings since 2005. The boom gates at these sites can be down for up to 40 per cent of the morning peak, when up to 61 trains run through the crossings. This creates congestion in residential streets and in shopping precincts. The crossings will be removed by lowering the rail line into a trench beneath the roads, with a new premium station to be built between Surrey Hills and Mont Albert. Building a single premium station means more trains will stop there, increasing services for Surrey Hills and Mont Albert residents. It also avoids the compulsory acquisition of homes and businesses. The new station’s Mont Albert entrance will be approximately 400 metres from the current Mont Albert station entrance. WRITTEN RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 653

We have commenced consultation on concept designs and already residents, community groups and businesses have provided us with invaluable insights to inform updated designs set to be released by mid- 2021. The Level Crossing Removal Project will work closely with trader groups and businesses to co-develop tailored support strategies to ensure the long-term benefits of removing these dangerous and congested level crossings will be fully realised for traders in the area. COVID-19 In reply to Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (4 February 2021) Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources):

Response to substantive question: Unpaid fines, including fines for breaches of the Chief Health Officer’s directions, become registered for enforcement with Fines Victoria upon expiry of the time available to pay. Fines Victoria may then apply a range of sanctions to the recipient if the fine remains unpaid. Fines Victoria cannot convert infringement fines to criminal charges. It is worth noting that any person who receives an infringement fine can elect to have their matter heard in the Magistrates’ Court. I am advised that as at 1 February 2021, 2,516 fines issued for a breach of the directions made by the Chief Health Officer have been the subject of a request to have the matter determined in court. Response to supplementary question: The Government is providing all Victorians, including young people, with more flexible options to deal with their fines as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. A person under the age of 18 who receives a fine may elect to have their matter determined in the Children’s Court—a specialist court dealing with children and young people which takes into account their developmental needs in its decision-making. If a person under the age of 18 years does not deal with their fine by the due date, the enforcement agency can register the fine with the Children’s Court under the Children and Young Persons Infringement Notice System. There are other options to help disadvantaged people, including children, manage their fines include payment arrangements to provide more time to pay or allow payment by instalments, and social justice initiatives such as the Work and Development Permit Scheme. This scheme enables people to work off their fines by undertaking approved activities like counselling. The Director, Fines Victoria is working with Victoria Police following the Community Legal Centres formal request to exercise his formal review oversight powers in relation to Victoria Police’s internal review of COVID-19-related infringements. Inquiries are ongoing. COVID-19 In reply to Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (16 February 2021) Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources):

The Victorian pathology testing system has been performing well with an average of 21,887 test results reported per day for the last seven days to Tuesday 16 February 2021. Over this period, 85.8% of test results have been returned within 24 hours of a person’s test, and 97.5% of results have been returned within one day of a person’s test. This increases to 99.6% for results returned to people within 48 hours. In almost all cases where possible, pathology laboratories text negative test results to patients. Where negative test results have not been provided, it is often the case that inaccurate phone number details have been recorded. To enable anyone who has waited for more than 48 hours to access a test result, the department has established a Results Hotline which can be contacted on 1800 573 222. WRITTEN RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 654 Legislative Council Friday, 19 February 2021

COMMERCIAL PASSENGER VEHICLES VICTORIA In reply to Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (16 February 2021) Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business):

As a condition of registration, records must be kept by booking service providers. The records that booking service providers must keep are set out in the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Regulations 2018. Trip data from booking service providers is used for fare monitoring and is also critical to enhancing industry safety, which is why booking service providers have a legislative requirement to collect trip records and provide them to CPVV upon request under the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017. When CPVV requests data, it tells the booking service provider what it will use it for. Trip data allows CPVV to better understand the CPV industry and to design regulatory responses that deliver the best safety outcomes for the whole industry. For example, CPVV can use data to understand the patterns that drivers choose to work across different booking service providers and determine if there is a risk of driver fatigue. During the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, trip data has been crucial in informing the Government of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the CPV industry and designing both the financial support package and COVID-19 related safety initiatives. The Legislative Council Economy and Infrastructure Committee’s report on its Inquiry into the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017 reforms noted that “collecting trip data would allow the Government to make informed decisions about potential congestion issues arising from commercial passenger vehicles”. The Committee therefore recommended that “the Victorian Government require Booking Service providers to disclose their trip data and provide live data on the number of vehicles logged into their system.” As with all Victorian Government departments and agencies, CPVV adheres to all obligations required under the privacy legislation and its data systems and processes are designed, developed, and maintained in line with the Victoria Protective Data Security Standards (VPDSS). CPVV does not ask for or accept personally identifiable information in its trip data requests. The requirement to provide trip information is not new. Prior to the 2017 commercial passenger vehicle industry reforms, service providers were also required to provide trip information to the (then) Taxi Service Commission to support its key functions. To enable the analysis of data for over approx. 60 million trips, CPVV requires this data be provided in an electronic format. In general, the low cost of readily available technology makes electronic reporting simple. However, CPVV recognises that for some booking service providers that complete only a few trips per year, the economic impact of reporting records, outweighs the safety benefit of collecting these records in some circumstances. For this reason, CPVV will consider any request to be discharged from the requirement to provide records in the prescribed electronic format against the: • value of the booking service provider’s records for enhancing industry safety; • safety risk profile of the booking service provider; and • reasons the booking service provider may not be able to provide records to CPVV in the prescribed electronic format. Should a booking service provider be discharged from the reporting requirement, it will still be required to keep all required records and to submit records on the total number of trips provided, the vehicle(s) used to deliver these trips and the driver(s) details. During the 2019–2020 financial year, CPVV has made substantial progress in collecting trip data and has consulted extensively with the industry to provide support to enhance the quality of booked trip data. This has included attending multiple meetings with members of the Victorian Taxi Association. CPVV provides information to all booking service providers about their data collection and reporting requirements, including information about the penalties that may apply if they do not meet these requirements. This is necessary, so that all industry participants are provided every opportunity to comply with their legal obligations and properly understand the potential consequences if they choose not to comply. If the regulator did not provide this information to booking service providers, it could be criticised by the Courts if a prosecution was challenged. CPVV stands ready to assist with any enquires it receives from the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner (OVIC). WRITTEN RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Friday, 19 February 2021 Legislative Council 655

STALKING In reply to Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (16 February 2021) Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources):

I thank the member for her question. As the member has stated, in response to the tragic murder of Ms Manno and the brave advocacy of her family, the former Attorney-General, the Hon Jill Hennessy MP, asked the Victorian Law Reform Commission (VLRC) to urgently review Victoria’s responses to stalking, harassment and similar conduct, with a focus on victim safety, including consideration of the adequacy of the legal framework and barriers to effective enforcement. Since the announcement of the review late last year, the VLRC has been undertaking recruitment and other preparatory work for this important project. Formal terms of reference for the review have been developed in consultation with the VLRC and will be publicly released shortly. The VLRC has been asked to provide an interim report by the end of this year, and a final report by the middle of 2022. Engagement with and contributions from the Victorian community are an incredibly important and valuable part of the VLRC’s work. The Commission will provide an opportunity for members of the community to contribute to this review by sharing their personal experiences and valuable insights. Information about the project, including the process and timelines for community consultation, will be accessible through the VLRC website in the near future. SMALL BUSINESS SUPPORT In reply to Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (16 February 2021) Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business):

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has been an unprecedented event requiring a dynamic response by the Victorian Public Sector. Victorian Public Sector employers and employees are excluded from eligibility for the Commonwealth Government’s JobKeeper scheme. Accordingly, the Victorian Government has implemented a range of supports, including leave for employees who are required to self-isolate due to COVID-19. Support through both the Victorian and Federal Governments is available for employees who cannot work and receive an income due to having to self-isolate due to COVID-19. Full details including eligibility requirements and how to apply can be found at coronavirus.vic.gov.au/financial-and-other-support- coronavirus-covid-19#worker-support-payment.