PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

(HANSARD)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

FIFTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT

FIRST SESSION

WEDNESDAY, 19 JUNE 2019

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

By authority of the Victorian Government Printer

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

The ministry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaker The Hon. CW BROOKS Deputy Speaker Ms JM EDWARDS

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leader of the House Ms JM ALLAN

Manager of Opposition Business Mr KA WELLS

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

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

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

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

Legislative Assembly committees

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

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

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

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

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

Joint committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS

BILLS Local Government (South Gippsland Shire Council) Bill 2019 ...... 2239 Introduction and first reading ...... 2239 Statement of compatibility ...... 2239 Second reading ...... 2241 Environment Protection Amendment Bill 2019 ...... 2242 Introduction and first reading ...... 2242 PETITIONS Toorak Road, Kooyong, level crossing ...... 2243 DOCUMENTS South Gippsland Shire Council ...... 2243 Report of the Commission of Inquiry into South Gippsland Shire Council ...... 2243 Municipal Monitor Report for South Gippsland Shire Council ...... 2243 Documents ...... 2243 BILLS Disability (National Disability Insurance Scheme Transition) Amendment Bill 2019 ...... 2243 Council’s agreement ...... 2243 COMMITTEES Public Accounts and Estimates Committee ...... 2243 Membership ...... 2243 MEMBERS STATEMENTS Bendigo Flexible Learning Options...... 2248 North East Link Project...... 2248 Doncaster Road bus and bike lanes ...... 2248 Russian National Day ...... 2249 You Yangs Regional Park ...... 2249 Geelong community hubs ...... 2249 Baimbridge College...... 2249 Kangaroo pet food trial ...... 2249 Rupanyup Rural Migration Initiative ...... 2250 Turkish Electro Technology ...... 2250 3ZZZ ...... 2250 Voluntary assisted dying ...... 2250 Lauraine Diggins, OAM ...... 2251 Chris Smale ...... 2251 St Columba’s Primary School ...... 2251 Brighton Hebrew Congregation ...... 2251 1st/14th Brighton Sea Scouts...... 2251 Grenville Street, Hampton, pedestrian crossing ...... 2252 Creative Geelong ...... 2252 Kew High School ...... 2252 North East Link ...... 2252 Carrum Primary School ...... 2252 Melbourne Amma Centre ...... 2253 Fingerboards mineral sands mine ...... 2253 Hands on Learning ...... 2253 Frankston Dolphins ...... 2253 Frankston station ...... 2254 Jubilee Park, Frankston, redevelopment...... 2254 International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance ...... 2254 Victorian Parliamentary Israel Friendship Group ...... 2254 Newhaven Primary School ...... 2254 Lakeside College ...... 2254 Refugee Week ...... 2255 United Cultural Support ...... 2255 Blackburn Football Club ...... 2255 Box Hill Senior Secondary College ...... 2256 Refugee Week ...... 2256 Victoria State Emergency Service Knox unit ...... 2256 Danielle Gower and Fin Sinclair ...... 2257 STATEMENTS ON PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS Public Accounts and Estimates Committee ...... 2257

Report on the Appointment of a Person to Conduct the Financial Audit of the Victorian Auditor- General’s Office...... 2257 Public Accounts and Estimates Committee ...... 2258 Report on the Appointment of a Person to Conduct the Financial Audit of the Victorian Auditor- General’s Office...... 2258 Public Accounts and Estimates Committee ...... 2259 Report on the Appointment of a Person to Conduct the Financial Audit of the Victorian Auditor- General’s Office...... 2259 Public Accounts and Estimates Committee ...... 2260 Report on the Appointment of a Person to Conduct the Financial Audit of the Victorian Auditor- General’s Office...... 2260 Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee ...... 2261 Report on the Statute Law Revision Bill 2018 ...... 2261 BILLS Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment Bill 2019 ...... 2262 Statement of compatibility ...... 2262 Second reading ...... 2265 Flora and Fauna Guarantee Amendment Bill 2019 ...... 2267 Statement of compatibility ...... 2267 Second reading ...... 2272 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Fines Victoria ...... 2277 Ministers statements: plastic bag ban ...... 2278 Fines Victoria ...... 2278 Ministers statements: victims of crime commissioner ...... 2279 Timber industry ...... 2279 Ministers statements: literacy and numeracy resources ...... 2280 Latrobe Valley employment ...... 2280 Ministers statements: North East Link ...... 2282 Transport infrastructure ...... 2282 Ministers statements: national disability insurance scheme ...... 2284 CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Brighton electorate ...... 2284 St Albans electorate ...... 2285 Gippsland South electorate ...... 2285 Macedon electorate...... 2285 South-West Coast electorate...... 2285 Wendouree electorate ...... 2286 Prahran electorate ...... 2286 Ivanhoe electorate ...... 2286 Sandringham electorate ...... 2286 Pascoe Vale electorate ...... 2287 BILLS Local Government (South Gippsland Shire Council) Bill 2019 ...... 2287 Second reading ...... 2287 Third reading ...... 2291 Assisted Reproductive Treatment Amendment (Consent) Bill 2019 ...... 2291 Second reading ...... 2291 GRIEVANCE DEBATE John Setka ...... 2303 Liberal-National parties ...... 2306 John Setka ...... 2309 Liberal-Nationals policy ...... 2313 John Setka ...... 2315 Federal government performance ...... 2318 John Setka ...... 2320 Liberal Party ...... 2323 BILLS Assisted Reproductive Treatment Amendment (Consent) Bill 2019 ...... 2326 Second reading ...... 2326 Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 ...... 2341 Second reading ...... 2341 MOTIONS Budget papers 2019–20 ...... 2354 ADJOURNMENT Koonung Creek Reserve ...... 2362

CONTENTS

Beveridge Primary School ...... 2362 Moyhu Recreation Reserve ...... 2362 Oakleigh electorate primary schools ...... 2363 Four-wheel drive track signage ...... 2363 Mickleham Primary School ...... 2364 Mildura older irrigation area ...... 2364 Darebin-Yarra Trail link ...... 2365 Black Spur, Maroondah Highway ...... 2366 Mornington Peninsula bus services ...... 2366 Responses ...... 2367

BILLS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2239

Wednesday, 19 June 2019

The SPEAKER (Hon. Colin Brooks) took the chair at 9.34 am and read the prayer. Bills LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SOUTH GIPPSLAND SHIRE COUNCIL) BILL 2019 Introduction and first reading Ms KAIROUZ (Kororoit—Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Suburban Development) (09:35): I move: That I have leave to bring in a bill for an act to dismiss the South Gippsland Shire Council and provide for a general election for that council and for other purposes. Mr T SMITH (Kew) (09:36): Can I have a brief explanation of the bill? Ms KAIROUZ: Sure. The bill seeks to address the serious governance failures highlighted in the report of the commission of inquiry into the South Gippsland Shire Council released in June 2019. The report raises clear evidence of deep-seated, pervasive and continuing governance failures at the council. The opposition and all members of the crossbench have been advised and briefed. Motion agreed to. Read first time. Ms KAIROUZ: I move:

That this bill be read a second time immediately under standing order 61(2). I can advise the house that the other parties and Independent members have been provided with a copy of the bill and a briefing in accordance with the standing order. Motion agreed to. Statement of compatibility Ms KAIROUZ (Kororoit—Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Suburban Development) (09:39): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the Local Government (South Gippsland Shire Council) Bill 2019. In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, (the Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Local Government (South Gippsland Shire Council) Bill 2019. In my opinion, the Local Government (South Gippsland Shire Council) Bill 2019 as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement. Overview The Local Government (South Gippsland Shire Council) Bill 2019 (Bill) proposes to dismiss the South Gippsland Shire Council (Council) and provide for the appointment of administrators for the Council. This follows the report of the Commission of Inquiry into South Gippsland Shire Council which recommended the dismissal of the Council until October 2021. The Commission provided the Minister for Local Government with its report on Thursday, 13 June 2019. The report describes high levels of tension, conflict and discord between councillors and identifies the detrimental impacts that this has had upon the Council. The report also notes that the resignations of 6 of the councillors within 8 months and the resulting countback elections have weakened the Council’s legitimacy as a truly representative body.

BILLS 2240 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019

As such, the Minister seeks the dismissal of elected Councillors at the Council for at least 2 years to enable the disruption of patterns of councillor conflict, re-establishment of trust with council staff and the repairing of damage to the Council’s community standing. The proposed Bill dismisses the Council until October 2021. Human Rights Issues Human rights protected by the Charter that are relevant to the Bill Taking part in public life Section 18 of the Charter establishes a right for an individual to, without discrimination, participate in the conduct of public affairs, to vote and be elected at State and municipal elections, and to have access to the Victorian public service and public office. Clause 5 of the Bill clearly engages and purports to restrict the right under section 18 of the Charter. The limitation appears to be reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under section 7(2) of the Charter. The right to participate in the conduct of public affairs broadly relates to the exercise of governmental power by all levels of government, including local government. The right to be elected ensures that eligible voters have a free choice of candidates in an election and, much like the right to vote, is not conferred on all Victorians, but is limited to eligible persons who meet certain criteria. The processes for the appointment, promotion, suspension and dismissal of candidates and councillors are objective, reasonable and non- discriminatory. In this case, the purpose of the limitation is to enable the restoration of good government at the Council. In June 2018, Mr Peter Stephenson was appointed as a municipal monitor to the Council to review and oversee governance processes and practices on the basis of concerns that had been raised by the Chief Municipal Inspector. In his final report of 21 March 2019, Mr Stephenson identified serious failures by the Council to provide good government, noting that the responsibility for the failures rested with the councillors, the issues appeared to be deep seated and councillors had been resistant to change. This report recommended that the council be suspended. On 2 April 2019, this report was provided to the Council and councillors for a response, including what steps the Council had taken to remedy the difficulties underlying its failures. During this time there appeared to be further deterioration in good governance at the council, including rushing to appoint an acting chief executive officer. As a result, a Commission of Inquiry comprised of the Hon Frank Vincent AO QC (Chair), Ms Julie Eisenbise and Mr John Watson was appointed on 21 May 2019, to conduct an inquiry into the Council and the Commission provided its final report on 13 June 2019. In summary, the report found that: • A high level of conflict between councillors had negatively impacted on the Council’s performance of its legislated role, councillor decision making and the opportunity for Council staff to provide appropriate professional advice. • 6 councillor resignations within 8 months have weakened the current Council’s legitimacy as a truly representative body. • There needs to be a break in democratic representation for at least 2 years to address the issues identified. The Commission recommended the Council be dismissed until October 2021. This can only be achieved through legislation. The serious nature of the Commission’s findings justifies the dismissal of the elected councillors. In addition, the Commission notes that the significant number of resignations has weakened the Council’s legitimacy as a truly representative body as the Council as presently constituted, does not reflect a high level of community support when considering the votes cast in the 2016 election which mitigates the impact of the limitation. This action therefore ensures and recognises the right of electors to be represented with probity, integrity and accountability, and in the interests of the community. Removal of an elected council is always a matter of last resort and undertaken only in the most serious of circumstances. While it is regrettable that this is necessary, the Government has a responsibility to protect communities from governance failings by their local representatives.

BILLS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2241

The Local Government Act provides a less restrictive and more immediate measure, namely suspension pursuant to section 219(1). However, section 219 is not appropriate in this case because it provides for suspension for a maximum period of 12 months, indicating the provision is intended for circumstances in which a short interruption to elected representation will be sufficient to overcome the failures identified. However, as the Commission’s report demonstrates, the circumstances require the removal of democratic representatives for at least 2 years in order to disrupt the patterns of conflict between councillors, re-establish trust with council staff, establish proper governance processes and repair damage to the Council’s standing in the community. Privacy and Reputation Section 13 of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have his or her privacy, unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with, and not to have his or her reputation unlawfully attacked. Clause 5 of the Bill provides for the dismissal of the elected councillors, and therefore purports to restrict the right under section 13 of the Charter. Any interference with a person’s privacy and reputation is lawful and not arbitrary in this case. The decision to remove the councillors from office follows investigations by the Chief Municipal Inspector and the appointment of a municipal monitor and is pursuant to the recommendations of a Commission of Inquiry. The serious nature of the issues identified at the Council by the Commission, as identified above, clearly warrant the immediate removal of the councillors. MARLENE KAIROUZ MP Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation Minister for Suburban Development Second reading Ms KAIROUZ (Kororoit—Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Suburban Development) (09:39): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time. I ask that my second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard. Incorporated speech as follows: This Bill will dismiss the South Gippsland Shire Council and provide for the appointment of an administrator or panel of administrators in response to the recommendations of the report from the independent commission of inquiry into South Gippsland Shire Council. A municipal monitor, Peter Stephenson, was appointed in June 2018 under section 223CA of the Local Government Act 1989 to review and oversee the governance processes and practices of the council. This appointment followed a recommendation from the Chief Municipal Inspector who had raised concerns about the integrity of the council, including its meeting procedures, and policies and processes to manage conflicts of interest and confidential information. The municipal monitor in his final report of 21 March 2019, identified serious failures by the council to provide good government, observing that the failures rested with the councillors rather than the council administration, and that the issues appear to be deep seated and that councillors have been resistant to change. Following receipt of the monitor’s final report, I provided the report to the council on 2 April 2019 seeking submissions from the council and councillors about any matters in the report, including what steps the council had taken to remedy the difficulties underlying the failure to provide good government. During the “show cause” process, there appeared to be further deterioration in good governance at the council, including rushing the appointment of an acting chief executive officer at the council. In response to this, I appointed an independent commission of inquiry under section 209 of the Local Government Act to conduct an inquiry into the affairs of the South Gippsland Shire Council, commencing 21 May 2019. The terms of reference saw the commissioners focus on the behaviours of individual councillors, the process of hiring the acting chief executive officer, and the efficiency and effectiveness of governance arrangements at the council. The commissioners were required to report back to me by 13 June 2019 and did so. I have tabled the commissioners’ report, together with the monitor’s final report, to ensure full transparency of the findings and process.

BILLS 2242 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019

The commissioners’ report concludes that there has been a high level of tension, discord and conflict between the councillors elected in 2016. According to the report, the conflict between the councillors has impacted negatively on the council’s performance of its legislated role; it has had a detrimental impact on decision-making by councillors; impaired the opportunity for council staff to provide appropriate professional advice; damaged the council’s reputation; and seriously affected relationships between councillors and staff at all levels of the organisation. In addition to these issues, the commissioners’ report recognises that the six councillor resignations within eight months, has weakened the council’s legitimacy as a truly representative body. The issues identified in the report, which have not been resolved, raise serious concerns about the effectiveness of the council to govern the municipality. The commissioners concluded that the council as currently constituted cannot remedy the issues to ensure the proper functioning of the council, and that there needs to be a break in democratically elected representation at the council for at least two years. The Bill will dismiss the council and provide for the appointment of administrators to perform the powers, functions and duties of the council until a new council is elected. The Bill provides for the next general election for the South Gippsland Shire Council to be held in October 2021, ensuring there is sufficient time to address the issues raised in the commissioners’ report while balancing the strong community interest in having democratically elected representatives. Dismissing a council by Parliament is the most extreme intervention by the state and is only undertaken in the most serious cases of governance failure. The issues identified in the commissioners’ report, including the continuing conflict between councillors, demonstrate extremely serious governance failures warranting the dismissal of the council. Without this Bill, there is a risk of further deterioration of the governance at the council and the probity, integrity and accountability expected of local government. The community and Parliament expect the highest standards of governance, probity and representation from their councillors and council staff. This Bill will ensure good governance in South Gippsland is restored. I commend the Bill to the house. Mr T SMITH (Kew) (09:39): We on this side of the house support this bill. I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day. ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AMENDMENT BILL 2019 Introduction and first reading Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes) (09:40): I move:

That I have leave to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Environment Protection Act 1970 to prohibit the provision of certain plastic bags and to prevent the provision of misleading information relating to plastic bags and to make technical and consequential amendments to the Environment Protection Amendment Act 2018 and for other purposes. Mr MORRIS (Mornington) (09:40): I seek a brief explanation of the bill. Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes) (09:41): The bill delivers on our government’s commitment to ban all lightweight, single-use plastic bags in Victoria. The bill has two objectives. One is to introduce that ban and the second is to apply minor technical and amendments to the Environment Protection Amendment Act 2018. Motion agreed to. Read first time. Ordered to be read a second time tomorrow.

PETITIONS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2243

Petitions TOORAK ROAD, KOOYONG, LEVEL CROSSING Ordered that petition lodged by member for Malvern on 18 June be considered next day on motion of Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern). Documents SOUTH GIPPSLAND SHIRE COUNCIL Report of the Commission of Inquiry into South Gippsland Shire Council Municipal Monitor Report for South Gippsland Shire Council Ms KAIROUZ (Kororoit—Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Suburban Development) (09:42): By leave, I table the report of the commission of inquiry into South Gippsland Shire Council and the municipal monitor report for South Gippsland Shire Council. Ordered to be published. DOCUMENTS Tabled by Clerk: Auditor-General—Fraud and Corruption Control—Local Government—Ordered to be published Education and Training Reform Act 2006—Order under ss 3.1.11 and 3.3.28. Bills DISABILITY (NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME TRANSITION) AMENDMENT BILL 2019 Council’s agreement The SPEAKER: I have received a message from the Legislative Council agreeing to the Disability (National Disability Insurance Scheme Transition) Amendment Bill 2019 without amendment. Committees PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES COMMITTEE Membership The SPEAKER (09:43): I have received the resignation of Dr Kieu, MLC, from the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee effective from today. Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure) (09:43): By leave, I move— Members interjecting. Ms ALLAN: Hang on. You will get your turn. Do not telegraph all your punches in one go. The SPEAKER: Order! Ms ALLAN: By leave, I move: That Ms Blandthorn be appointed a member of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee. Members interjecting. Ms ALLAN: Hang on, you will get your turn. Goodness me, there is a lot of excitement about welcoming the member for Pascoe Vale onto the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee. I am confident she will be a fine and outstanding member of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee.

COMMITTEES 2244 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019

I know we do not normally anticipate future debates but I am anticipating that there might be a little bit of colour and movement over the next few minutes as those opposite like to lift the elbow a little bit on the way through on this motion and make a little bit of a song and dance about what has been going on our side. Isn’t it great that they are more focused on our side than on their own issues. They are wanting to distract away from some of the issues. I am just explaining to my colleague what is going on here. I am delighted to have moved the motion that the member for Pascoe Vale be on the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee. In all seriousness, this is an important committee of the Parliament. All committees are important, but considering the work of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee to scrutinise the budget—the committee has just done a fine job on that over the past couple of weeks—I am confident that the member for Pascoe Vale will serve in a top-quality role on that committee. Ms STALEY (Ripon) (09:45): The opposition does not oppose this motion, although we are amused by it. Dr Kieu in the other place, he of the lustrous Bob Hawke hair— A member interjected. Ms STALEY: Magnificent, I agree—has had the shortest tenure ever I would say on the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, demonstrating the disarray of this government when it comes to their personnel. We are now seeing that we have got the member for Pascoe Vale being put forward as the new member of PAEC and as the chair of PAEC. I am sure she will acquit this role admirably, but she is of course not the second choice, she is in fact the third choice, because Mr Dalidakis, formerly of the other place, was the first choice of the government to be the chair of PAEC in this term. However, having done one round of budget estimates and having been forced to sit opposite the ministers as they did not answer questions, obfuscated and could not answer questions, he has quite rightly packed up and gone and got the big job. Then of course we believe that the member for Pascoe Vale was not in fact the second choice for chair of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, because that was the member for Mordialloc. But the member for Mordialloc, quite rightly, understood that for him to take on this role would place him on the same career trajectory as the member for Essendon. Not wanting that career trajectory, he preferred to stay on the career trajectory he is on. Therefore he turned down the chairmanship of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, and so we come today to the appointment of the member for Pascoe Vale. Why did we need to do this so quickly today? Because of course the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee cannot meet without a chair. The clerks have given advice that the deputy chair can only act when the chair is unavailable and therefore there has to be a chair, and there is not a chair. The committee was meant to meet, I believe, today. That meeting has been scheduled, then taken off line and put back online. I think it might be back on after this motion goes through in this Parliament today. Absolutely we do not oppose the appointment of the member for Pascoe Vale to this committee, but we do put on the record that this is a clear sign of the shambolic nature of this government. They are losing people: they lost Philip Dalidakis from the Parliament, then they had somebody refuse. Having looked at the member for Essendon’s career trajectory, I am not at all opposing your choice here to refuse to be chair of PAEC. However, we now have to recognise that the member for Pascoe Vale has chosen to take on this role and the chairmanship. She may feel that she can circumvent the trajectory seen by the member for Essendon and can go on to greater things beyond it. But we are here today debating this motion simply because the government cannot manage its people and is in disarray, with Mr Dalidakis choosing to go to the Governor before advising his Premier that he was leaving—choosing to talk to anybody except the Premier to say that he was leaving this

COMMITTEES Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2245 government because he held the Premier in such low regard. He went off to the Governor and said, ‘No, I don’t want to be here anymore’. Mr T Smith interjected. Ms STALEY: As the member for Kew reminds me, the Premier’s statement then comes out in two lines. That is all he could say about Mr Dalidakis—‘Thanks for being here, and thanks for going’. That is all. ‘We’re happy to see you go. Don’t shut the door behind you’. So today we have this motion. A shambolic process of a divided government has brought us to this position today. And so the member for Pascoe Vale is, one might say, the winner today. But on past performance of previous chairs of PAEC it is hard for us to argue that she is truly winning. We do wish her well in her appointment though. Despite being the third choice of the government, we do expect that she will take on this role and acquit her duties admirably. Members interjecting. Ms STALEY: Thank you to the members for Lowan and Euroa, who are interjecting through this period—Speaker, I might need some protection from my own side—and suggesting that I might like to speak for another 24 minutes. However, I am going to disappoint the entire Parliament and conclude my remarks at this point by saying that we will support this motion. Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! We’ll need to get the AFL crowd controllers down here! Mr RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (09:51): Speaker, if this is the most excitement they get over a bit of Weet-Bix and a bit of a Public Accounts and Estimates Committee appointment, goodness me, it is a slow day in opposition. I tell you what, you get a bit salty when you come out of PAEC and the biggest story that comes out of PAEC is the former chair’s delight that he provided on day one to Spring Street journos and the biggest media report was actually the comment that the former chair made about a member in the other place, David Davis, that there should be a tunnel-boring machine named after him. That was the greatest media outcome. So all those opposition members of PAEC who feel a bit salty, who were getting the looks from shadow ministers like ‘Just land one blow. Just give it one go’, we will watch their performance with interest. We wish them well in their endeavours, and maybe they will have a few movements. Maybe they will get some of their rock stars to come onto PAEC and join the incoming chair, the member for Pascoe Vale, who will do an outstanding job and who has already done an incredible job as a member of Parliament and in all the roles before coming into this place as well. We have got a good crew on this committee. We have got a very, very good crew, which was a tight government crew during those hearings, and the member for Pascoe Vale will be an outstanding chair. We are absolutely up and about with her coming on board. It will be exciting next time. Maybe those opposite can get their questions and get themselves in order a bit more. But I also have to take up another comment. There is a bit of love on that side for the member for Essendon, isn’t there? Really, from history lessons, you could add up all of the bills that the member for Essendon spoke on in the 58th Parliament and it would not be like the contributions of anyone on that side. He spoke on about 200-and-something different bills, motions and the like. If you add them all up, it is not like any of your side’s contributions on bills. You get a little bit salty about the member for Essendon. If the PAEC performance of 2019–20 is anything to go by, then keep those PAEC performances rolling on. Do not change a thing on that side, members opposite. We will have some fun on this side and the member for Pascoe Vale will be an absolutely outstanding chair, and we cannot wait to get around to it.

COMMITTEES 2246 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019

Ms McLEISH (Eildon) (09:53): Whilst we on this side of the house are certainly not opposing the appointment of the member for Pascoe Vale to the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC), I do want to give some commentary around the circumstances in which we find ourselves today. I was interested to note that I am following the first person to knock back that position. Clearly it is a highly sought after position—we have had three knock-backs already from the government side. But let us have a look at the context. We had Mr Dalidakis, who has vacated this place hastily—very hastily—as chair of PAEC. It was quite evident that he was in a hurry to get it done before he took off to that well-paying gig with Australia Post. We saw very contracted sessions of PAEC and we saw them going very late at night. He was very keen to make sure that Monday of this week would not be a day of PAEC, because that was the day that he was pulling the pin and scooting off. Obviously with him jumping ship of course it is worth remembering that the way in which he did jump ship was not the normal thing—to go and tell the Premier. No, he scooted off and first of all gave the Governor his notice of intention and then the Premier found out, which I thought was quite amusing in itself. So then he has popped off and now we have had to find the replacement. We know that we have a very capable deputy chair, the member for Polwarth, but it has been ruled that the member for Polwarth is not able to take the chairmanship. In the absence we have to have a chair appointed. Sadly, we would have loved to have seen the member for Polwarth as the chair of PAEC. So we have had the replacement process and, as we have heard from our lead speaker, the member for Mordialloc had the opportunity to take on this role. He is already a member of PAEC. It looked as though he was enjoying that role quite a bit from what I saw, but he did not want to take that step and become chair—that highly accountable position of chair where you have to do a lot of work. The member for Mordialloc was keen not to take on that additional workload. So then they had to go somewhere else. They went to Dr Kieu. Dr Kieu, a member for South Eastern Metropolitan Region, was actually appointed—fleetingly. It is really quite astounding that someone can be appointed so fleetingly. He was probably very keen to do the job, but there has been a change and we had the Leader of the House pop in this morning and move to remove him from that committee before he started— before he even went to a meeting. It is effectively being sacked without doing anything. We feel for Dr Kieu in the other place. And so then finally they have had to land with somebody else, and they have managed to dig up the member for Pascoe Vale. I am sure she will do a terrific job, but it is in interesting circumstances that she finds herself the third choice rather than the first choice for this role. We will not be opposing this, but it was worth making sure that the house was very aware of the circumstances around the need for this appointment. Ms RICHARDS (Cranbourne) (09:57): I am delighted to rise and congratulate the member for Pascoe Vale and say what a terrific chair we are going to have on such an important committee. I think it is terrific that the member for Eildon and the member for Ripon speak with so much insight into all of the terrific benefits that you will see on this side of the house. We know that the member for Mordialloc has some terrific traits, and it is lovely to see that his wit, his spark and his intelligence are recognised by those on the other side, and how much depth we have on this side of the house and how much depth we have in in the other place as well. There are so many insights that can be offered into all the benefits of so many people on the Labor side and all the opportunities there are to have people of that calibre appointed to such an important role. And so now we are very fortunate to have the member for Pascoe Vale heading up this extraordinary committee. It was great to hear the member for Eildon and the member for Ripon recognise how hard we worked, how many hours were put in, and I think that that is a credit to this committee—that its commitment to oversight and commitment to auditing this government’s budget was taken incredibly seriously. So I am delighted to have such a terrific new member in the role of chair. I am delighted to be joining the member for Narre Warren South and the member for Mordialloc, and of course Ms Stitt in the other place, and those people across the chamber as well, in undertaking this role. We will enjoy again having those terrific ministers of the Crown being able to offer their insights and their deep understanding of the benefits of the budget next year, as we saw this year. I am very honoured to have

COMMITTEES Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2247 the opportunity to speak on this motion and look forward to a long and enduring and strong continued relationship and role working with the member for Pascoe Vale. Mr WELLS (Rowville) (09:59): I speak on this motion. There is one thing better than a Saints win, and that is factional brawling within the Labor Party. I love it. I love the factional brawling in the Labor Party. How is it that on day one Dr Kieu is elected and we are told from the upper house that he has been appointed and next minute, because of the factional brawling that is going on within the Labor Party, he gets shafted and then they bring in the member for Pascoe Vale. You have just got to love it. So if the Saints do not win against Brisbane this week, that is all fine because of the factional brawling. It is tearing apart the Labor Party, and Dr Kieu must be the shortest appointment on the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee in the history of this Parliament, of one day. One day. Now, I would have thought that the government would have looked at the balance of public accounts and said, ‘The member for Polwarth is the absolutely best chair to be running and directing public accounts’. Did you see his performance in public accounts over the last couple of weeks? It was absolutely outstanding. So the government should have appointed the deputy chair to become the chair, without any question or without any doubt. Now, let us get to the member for Mordialloc—oh no, there he is. If you are looking at the Labor members, at who should have been chair, it should have been the member for Mordialloc, without any doubt. And do you know why? Because of the training that he had when he was a member of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Committee—absolutely no question. He was incredibly well trained when it came to the start of meetings, the intellectual contribution and the reading of all documents. There is no doubt. And I will ask the member for South Gippsland— A member: Who was the chair? Mr WELLS: Well, I was the chair. But the member for Gippsland South would agree that there was no doubt that the member for Mordialloc should have been the chair of this committee. Now, I do not know what goes on within the Labor Party with the factional brawling—of what is there one moment and what is there the next. As two previous speakers have indicated, we are certainly not opposing the member for Pascoe Vale, because, in seriousness, I saw the work that the member for Pascoe Vale did on electoral matters and I thought she did an outstanding job. You will do a great job as chair of public accounts. So we cannot have Mr Dalidakis, who has gone off for a million-dollar job on postal, so that was choice number one. Choice number two— Members interjecting. Mr WELLS: Postal votes—Australia Post. And then we could not have the member for Mordialloc. I would have then thought they would have gone to the member for Broadmeadows and the member for Yan Yean. So I do not understand how it works, but obviously they have been overlooked once again. And while I am on my feet, there was the issue of the 1 o’clock meeting today. So we are assuming that the member for Pascoe Vale will be chairing that meeting at 1 o’clock today because it is important that that meeting goes ahead. So has it been— A member interjected. Mr WELLS: Yes. Okay. So it is going to be confirmed that it is going to be at 1 o’clock today, and we are expecting that when they go in there they have a vote to see who the chair will be. Mr R Smith: Are they going to have a farewell dinner for Dr Kieu? Mr WELLS: That is a very good point. The member for Warrandyte has actually raised a very good point—that when you have the meeting at 1 o’clock, if the incoming chair is going to be the member for Pascoe Vale, will there be a farewell for Dr Kieu? I mean, he was appointed yesterday, he is coming in today, he has been shafted today. Will there be a farewell?

MEMBERS STATEMENTS 2248 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019

The other point that needs to be mentioned, which the member for Gippsland South said, is that I thought there was an election commitment that there would be equal time in public hearings, when the ministers come together, for opposition and government. I think that election commitment may have been broken, because it did not work out that way. It was about two-thirds government and about one- third opposition, and that clearly is a broken election commitment. But can I say to the member for Pascoe Vale: I wish you all the best. Motion agreed to. Members statements BENDIGO FLEXIBLE LEARNING OPTIONS Ms EDWARDS (Bendigo West) (10:04): It was great to attend the smoking ceremony and welcome to country by the Dja Dja Wurrung to celebrate the establishment of the first Hands on Learning program for the City of Greater Bendigo. Bendigo Flexible Learning Options supports the educational re-engagement of students aged 12 to 17 years of age who are at extreme risk of dropping out of schooling. In 2017 the BFLO received a $5000 grant from Hands on Learning Australia and the Save the Children Fund to establish the innovative Hands on Learning education program. The City of Greater Bendigo provided BFLO with access to the disused Kangaroo Flat Tennis Club grounds and facilities for this purpose. Since then many BFLO students have benefited by participating in weekly Hands on Learning sessions: they have created a place where they feel they belong and have people to belong to and have found purpose and empowerment. The Hands on Learning organisation, supported by Save the Children, provides ongoing support to Hands on Learning artisan teachers within schools across Australia, supporting vulnerable students to stay and achieve at school. BFLO students and artisan teachers provided demonstrations of Hands on Learning in action while we enjoyed a barbecue lunch and warm homemade soup prepared by the students. The installations and ergonomic rustic furniture fashioned from discarded wood pallets by the students are very popular with local businesses and some have now been utilised by the Kangaroo Flat Hotel in their outdoor garden. Congratulations to Anton van Maanen, principal at the BFLO campus in Kangaroo Flat, and to Weeroona College Bendigo, who support the program. The BFLO is evidence-based educational practice that enhances the effective engagement of vulnerable youth in schooling, and with 50 enrolments it is making a huge difference to students. NORTH EAST LINK PROJECT Mr GUY (Bulleen) (10:05): Councils in Melbourne’s east and north-east are becoming more and more concerned with the enormous vegetation loss from the government’s North East Link proposal. New infrastructure does not have to come at the loss of 25 000 trees. In my recent discussions with the cities of Banyule and Manningham they advised of the suggestions they have put forward for reasonable and sensible ways to reduce vegetation loss and importantly retain vegetation for noise dampening. The retention of existing vegetation in several areas which are now under threat would greatly assist residents in Macleod, Watsonia, Doncaster and Bulleen. I place on record my support for the Banyule, Whitehorse and Boroondara submission on vegetation retention, particularly along the Koonung Creek trail, and particularly suggestions for vegetation retention along and near Esther Street in Bulleen. DONCASTER ROAD BUS AND BIKE LANES Mr GUY: With reports the state government will scrap the Doncaster Road peak-hour shared bus and bike lanes, cyclists will be put at the mercy of having to share with direct vehicle traffic. This is immensely short-sighted. Shared peak-hour bike and bus lanes should be kept. As a Manningham resident who uses them every so often, I can attest to the success and importance of the retention of this system. It is important that we provide useful infrastructure to allow cycling to increase as a portion

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2249 of transport as a true public transport mode. That is why as a minister I intervened to approve, fund and begin the Darebin Creek link, a hugely significant cycle link for the northern and suburban bike trails. I ask the government not to scrap these bus and bike lanes and not to limit the cycling potential of the City of Manningham. RUSSIAN NATIONAL DAY Mr GUY: Speaker, 12 June was Russian National Day. Victoria’s Russian community have a proud history. Most came to Australia after the Second World War, and while they have made hardworking contributions to our wonderful multicultural nation, many have gone on to bigger and better things. While my Ukrainian is okay, my Russian is 20 years rusty, but in sending my best wishes I would like to say to this community: ПозДравляем с Днем принятия Декларации о государственном суверенитете РСФСР. YOU YANGS REGIONAL PARK Mr EREN (Lara) (10:07): Last Friday I was pleased to announce, along with the Minister for Resources, that our government is declaring the You Yangs Regional Park a mining-free zone, with additional protections to be placed over the landmark hills. Due to the park’s environmental and cultural importance, earth resources regulation will place an exemption over the area, restricting it from minerals exploration licensing. The You Yangs support a wide range of outdoor recreational activities. Taking their name from the Aboriginal words meaning ‘big hill’, the You Yangs are significant to the region’s traditional owners, the Wadawurrung people. The exemption will provide clarity for exploration companies, who are encouraged to direct their efforts towards areas of the state that are more prospective for new mineral discoveries. The You Yangs are a special place for the Geelong community, which values them greatly, along with being a great drawcard for tourists and recreational users. It is good news for everyone that the You Yangs will now benefit from these better protections. GEELONG COMMUNITY HUBS Mr EREN: It was also a pleasure to officially launch the Geelong community hubs last Wednesday. Our government is proud of its support for the establishment of the Geelong community hubs. The Geelong community hubs will play a strong role in connecting migrant and refugee families in Geelong to the wider community. Geelong is known for its vibrant multicultural communities and for the spirit with which its local residents embrace its newest residents. These hubs will help to foster greater connections across Geelong. In particular, women and children will benefit from having a safe and accessible environment where they are supported to learn and practise English, connect with playgroups and build pathways to volunteering and employment. BAIMBRIDGE COLLEGE Ms KEALY (Lowan) (10:07): Welcome today to the Baimbridge College students who were in the gallery earlier but have wandered across to the Legislative Council to watch proceedings there. It was great to speak with them this morning, to meet with them and to hear their concerns that while there was bipartisan support to upgrade their school with a $8.4 million commitment from both The Nationals and Labor, Labor has let them down and refused to fund their school in this year’s budget. I have encouraged the students to talk to any Labor ministers that they see in the corridor to emphasise their plight, and I do wish all of these students are the very, very best for their future. KANGAROO PET FOOD TRIAL Ms KEALY: The kangaroo pet food trial has been completely destroyed by Labor, with Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning staff now recommending to farmers that they apply for the alternative permit to shoot and drop kangaroos and let them rot on the ground rather than

MEMBERS STATEMENTS 2250 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019 apply for pet food trial permits because Labor has managed the trial so badly. Farmers are waiting months for permit approvals and tags, there are reports of DELWP staff hanging up on farmers desperate for permits before their land becomes too wet to enter and shooters have no certainty on income for the future. Labor must immediately fix the mess of their own doing and support the waste reduction initiative and kangaroo population management strategy that the successful kangaroo pet food trial delivers. RUPANYUP RURAL MIGRATION INITIATIVE Ms KEALY: I would like to acknowledge the great work of the Rupanyup community and the Rupanyup Rural Migration Initiative team of Malcolm Uhe, Sally Boyd and David Matthews and the Community Bank team for this awesome initiative to attract new Australians to our region as part of the Rupanyup Rural Migration Initiative. This locally led initiative is helping people to migrate our region by providing housing and linking it to jobs— (Time expired) TURKISH ELECTRO TECHNOLOGY Ms SULEYMAN (St Albans) (10:10): I would like to welcome the Turkish Electro Technology (TET) industry association to Melbourne. The TET delegation is taking part in the annual Turkish Electronics Industry Business Forum, which is being supported by the World Trade Organization as well, this week in Melbourne. Turkey and Australia, particularly Victoria, have a very special friendship and there are so many opportunities for trade. The members of the 2019 Victorian parliamentary Anzac delegation had the opportunity in Istanbul to meet with the chairman of TET, and I would like to thank him and his board members for their warm hospitality. 3ZZZ Ms SULEYMAN: On another matter, I would like to congratulate 3ZZZ ethnic community radio, who are celebrating 30 years of continuous broadcasting in over 60 languages and reaching over 400 000 listeners. It is particularly important to note the committee members and volunteers who reach out in their languages each and every day connecting our multicultural communities together. It is all voluntary. I would like to commend them for their hard work—they are truly the backbone of 3ZZZ— and in particular all the conveners in the last 30 years. Happy 30 years, and may there be another 30 years of ethnic community radio on our airways continuing its rich tradition. I make note of volunteering and the ethnic communities that play an integral role in Victoria, in particular George Zangalis. VOLUNTARY ASSISTED DYING Mr ANGUS (Forest Hill) (10:12): Today is the day in Victoria when health care changes forever. Today is when this government’s voluntary assisted dying regime becomes operational. In my view this is a very sad day for Victoria, when sick and vulnerable people in our community potentially become a lot more vulnerable. The euthanasia bill was forced through this chamber on 20 October 2017 after a marathon all-night sitting. There were then, and still are now, many unanswered questions in relation to the operation of this regime, including issues of conscientious objection for staff and the role of palliative care. The law contains many requirements that will be virtually impossible to ever determine, including, for example, who actually raised the issue of euthanasia in the patient’s consultation with their doctor given that it is illegal for a doctor to raise it with a patient. Very important in my view will be the shift in the role of the healthcare service from one of preserving and protecting life to that of state-sanctioned suicide. The government likes to talk about the issue of elder abuse, but the operation of this act may well be the ultimate form of elder abuse. Last week at the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearings when asked about what the actual medication to kill the patient will be the Minister for Health would not disclose the deadly material

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2251 but did say that the patient themselves would have to mix the deadly cocktail with water before taking it orally, hardly a satisfactory answer on this vitally important issue. This act represents another broken promise from the Premier as he said prior to the 2014 election that the government would not introduce such a bill, then did so three years later. Given this huge change in the approach to patient care and also the little-known and shocking fact that abortion is legal in Victoria up to the point of birth, perhaps Victoria’s next numberplate slogan should be ‘Victoria: the death state’. LAURAINE DIGGINS, OAM Mr DIMOPOULOS (Oakleigh) (10:13): I would like to extend my condolences on the passing of Lauraine Diggins, OAM. Lauraine was an institution in the Victorian art scene. She founded and became managing director of the Lauraine Diggins Fine Art gallery and had a long and successful career in the arts sector. Lauraine approached work and life with passion, humility and integrity, qualities recognised earlier this year when she was awarded an OAM for her service to the museums and galleries sector. It was not just art where Lauraine made her mark. She was the first woman to be elected to the board of the Carlton Football Club in 2002, she served on the board of Melbourne Opera and undertook many, many other roles. I want to extend my sincere sympathies to Lauraine’s family and friends, in particular her husband, Michael; her daughter, Nerida; son-in-law, Aidan; and grandchildren, Luca and Camille. She will be very dearly missed. CHRIS SMALE Mr DIMOPOULOS: I would like to extend my condolences on the passing of a good friend of mine, Chris Smale. I met Chris just a few years ago, but he had an extraordinary impact on me. Chris’s association with the Labor Party far surpassed mine. He was a lifelong Labor Party member and served as chief of staff to several Cain government ministers. He was also a successful barrister. Chris was a fierce advocate for causes close to his heart. He was a learned mentor, someone who always provided me with frank but thoughtful advice, and he always had a ready smile and a chuckle. Above all, he was a dear friend. I want to extend my thoughts and sympathies to Chris’s wife, Suzanne, his children, his family and his friends. ST COLUMBA’S PRIMARY SCHOOL Mr NEWBURY (Brighton) (10:14): St Columba’s Catholic primary school is a special school in my community. The school, ably led by Daniella Maddalena, was a finalist in the ResourceSmart School of the Year Awards. In 2018 the local foreshore became the classroom for students as they transformed their learning process and learned about Indigenous history, scientific knowledge and improving the Port Phillip environment. I congratulate the school on their initiative and leadership. BRIGHTON HEBREW CONGREGATION Mr NEWBURY: After 30 years leading the Brighton Hebrew Congregation, Rabbi Levin retired. I recently joined the congregation as Alex Tsykin was inducted as the new rabbi. I warmly welcome Alex; his wife, Ahuva; and their four beautiful children into the Brighton community. 1ST/14TH BRIGHTON SEA SCOUTS Mr NEWBURY: I would like to pay special acknowledgement to the 1st/14th Brighton Sea Scouts. Two of their Venturers, Thomas Joyce and Felix Cousins, were recently presented with the Queen’s Scout Award, and group leader Janet Cardell was presented with the Wood Badge. All three have shown extraordinary scouting commitment. I was also touched to be inducted as an honorary leader of the scout group.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS 2252 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019

GRENVILLE STREET, HAMPTON, PEDESTRIAN CROSSING Mr NEWBURY: Despite Public Transport Victoria previously confirming that the Grenville Street railway pedestrian crossing in Hampton is one of the worst in the state, it being the site where Hampton grandmother Gloria Holmes was tragically killed soon after Public Transport Victoria cancelled safety works there, the Minister for Transport Infrastructure has now advised that she has sought advice on the issue. Minister, we need more than delays by this government passed off as bureaucratic red tape; we need action now. CREATIVE GEELONG Ms COUZENS (Geelong) (10:16): The Andrews Labor government, through the Revitalising Central Geelong partnership, is proud to partner with our local Creative Geelong to support local and emerging artists through the Third Space Gallery. Revitalising Central Geelong’s projects are bringing more people to the city and creating a more exciting destination to live in, work in, visit and invest in. Geelong is becoming a productive, creative hub of activity, and there is so much opportunity for the future in Geelong. I am very pleased to be supporting Geelong’s creative industry by partnering with Creative Geelong—a not-for-profit with a reputation of community-mindedness, social inclusion and delivering on commitments. I was pleased to officially open the Third Space Gallery, which provides a place for local and emerging artists and start-ups to exhibit their work and share it with the Geelong community. I want to acknowledge and thank Jen Cromarty, the founder of Creative Geelong, and Dr Fiona Gray, the president, and the many talented artists for this fantastic exhibition. Now in its third year, the Revitalising Central Geelong Action Plan continues to deliver projects to a growing Geelong that will bring more people to the city and more things to do and see. By working together we can ensure Geelong is the vibrant city centre we want, with a prosperous local economy and the bright future it deserves. We will leave behind those who simply commentate from the sidelines and do nothing. Geelong is a great city thanks to the Andrews Labor government’s commitment to revitalising central Geelong. KEW HIGH SCHOOL Mr T SMITH (Kew) (10:17): Kew High School is an important school in the electorate of Kew, and it serves students not only in the eastern suburbs and in Boroondara but in Ivanhoe as well. Kew High School was promised a new STEM centre by the Minister for Education. It has not been delivered in this budget; it has not been planned for at all. We need $8.7 million immediately from the Andrews Labor government to build a STEM centre at Kew High School. It is a broken promise, with $1 million only in the budget for general upgrades at that important school. Labor matched my promise at the last election for a new STEM centre at Kew High School. It is not in this year’s budget, and I condemn Labor for another misleading statement in the lead-up to the 2018 election. NORTH EAST LINK Mr T SMITH: The North East Link is a huge issue for the communities in North Balwyn and Kew East, and the loss of 25 000 trees, in particular at Koonung Creek Reserve, whilst this project is constructed is a grave concern. That is an important local park where families walk their pets and enjoy important time together, and to see it being destroyed for an expansion of the Eastern Freeway is of grave concern to my residents. Equally, the destruction of the Boroondara Tennis Centre on the other side of the freeway will have a direct impact on families who play tennis and enjoy that important sport throughout my electorate. CARRUM PRIMARY SCHOOL Ms KILKENNY (Carrum) (10:19): Congratulations to Carrum Primary School for being recognised as the 2019 ResourceSmart School of the Year. This is a tremendous achievement and

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2253 recognises Carrum primary for all of the incredible work this school does in boosting sustainability and caring for our environment. Carrum primary has been acknowledged for inspiring other schools to act on climate change, using the school curriculum to activate interest in our environment both at school and throughout our local community. Congratulations to school principal Clem Langford and the entire school community and of course Marcus Mulcahy, whose passion for the environment and sustainability is ever present, for leading the way, showing the rest of Victoria how schools can make a difference in protecting our environment and how young people in particular can make a real impact. It was also terrific to listen to Carrum primary and Radio Carrum’s outside broadcast from the MCG on 13 June. They really captured all the excitement and passion of the 2019 ResourceSmart Schools Awards. You can still catch all the enthusiasm on SoundCloud—it is absolutely worth a listen. MELBOURNE AMMA CENTRE Ms KILKENNY: My heartfelt thanks to the Melbourne Amma Centre ashram in Carrum Downs for their recent Embracing Peace event to celebrate Victoria’s rich multiculturalism and acknowledge our wonderful volunteers, whose commitment to supporting our local communities is cause for celebration. I was delighted the Andrews Labor government was able to support this wonderful occasion. I would also like to thank the Amma Centre for their incredible and continuing generosity to my local community. Their support to fund breakfast clubs at nine of my local schools is making such a profound difference to so many students. FINGERBOARDS MINERAL SANDS MINE Dr READ (Brunswick) (10:20): Under standing order 49 I present a petition to the Legislative Assembly bearing 4558 signatures in the following terms: to the Legislative Assembly of Victoria— this petition of concerned Victorians, in particular East Gippsland residents, draws to the attention of the house the proposed Fingerboards mineral sands mine in East Gippsland, which will have severe and negative impacts on existing multimillion-dollar agricultural industries, contaminate water supplies over an extensive area, pollute the internationally recognised and highly sensitive Ramsar- listed Gippsland Lakes wetlands via the Mitchell and Perry River catchment areas, and destroy key fish hatcheries and significant bird habitat. The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Assembly of Victoria request the planning minister to refuse a mining licence to Kalbar Resources Limited due to the impact the mine and its associated contaminants such as dust, silica, water runoff and radioactive substances will have on existing horticultural and agricultural grazing and support industries, river water quality, town water quality, groundwater, community health, noise pollution, dust pollution, social impact, property values, traffic and roads, sediments, fish hatcheries, flora, fauna and endangered species. Clearly the community does not want this mine in the middle of an important water catchment and food bowl. HANDS ON LEARNING Mr EDBROOKE (Frankston) (10:22): It was fantastic to celebrate 20 years of our homegrown educational success story, Hands on Learning, this week. Hands on Learning is a Frankston innovation connecting students to education with fantastic outcomes for students in our region. Twenty years after it was founded at Frankston High School by the amazing Russ Kerr, Hands on Learning is now in 100 schools in Victoria. FRANKSTON DOLPHINS Mr EDBROOKE: I just wanted to point out that on Sunday our VFL team, the mighty Frankston Dolphins, had an amazing afternoon, defeating North Melbourne by 50 points at SkyBus Stadium and ending a 20-match losing streak. This is our first win of this season and our first win since round 6, 2018. For the true believers in the club—those who stood by for those two very hard and long years, who did all the work to save the club—it was a great day in Frankston. The Dolphins are back in business.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS 2254 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019

FRANKSTON STATION Mr EDBROOKE: I would like to wish a happy birthday to Frankston station and to everyone that helped to create it. This time last year we were building the new Frankston station and a year later it has been shortlisted in a national design competition. This is a big lesson for detractors of Frankston, and we have seen some of them in this house. Those who say it cannot be done should just get out of the way and let us do it. JUBILEE PARK, FRANKSTON, REDEVELOPMENT Mr EDBROOKE: The Frankston community know very well how valuable the Jubilee Park redevelopment is to local sporting clubs. Sadly, the Liberal federal government did not match the Labor state government’s $10 million funding for this great election commitment, and Frankston City Council were curiously silent— (Time expired) INTERNATIONAL HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE ALLIANCE Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (10:23): I rise to congratulate the federal Morrison government’s initiative and the Jewish community of Australia’s initiative in being accepted as the 33rd member of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, IHRA, and the first from the Indo-Pacific region. IHRA brings together governments and experts from around the world to look at Holocaust education, research and remembrance, whilst importantly ensuring that it identifies that we do not have any further genocides, and early warnings of that. Although some 14 000 kilometres from the Holocaust sites of Europe, Victoria and Australia play a significant role, Victoria having the largest number of Holocaust survivors per capita outside of Israel and a huge amount of programs that are done which the rest of the world can learn from, including the Jewish Holocaust Centre, which 23 students from around Victoria attend. I note also the $10 million grant from Josh Frydenberg and the federal government to expand the Holocaust centre; Courage to Care, which does some fantastic work with their absolute catchcry: ‘Don’t be a bystander, be an upstander’; and the Gandel Holocaust Studies Program, which takes in teachers from around Australia. Some 300 educators since 2010 have gone to Israel to visit Yad Vashem. Great work, and congratulations to everyone involved. VICTORIAN PARLIAMENTARY ISRAEL FRIENDSHIP GROUP Mr SOUTHWICK: I also wanted to thank my co-convener for Box Hill on the new parliamentary friendship group for Israel— (Time expired) NEWHAVEN PRIMARY SCHOOL Ms CRUGNALE (Bass) (10:25): Half the world’s population is under 25 years of age. Our young and youth are an absolute asset to our community; they can change the future and show the rest of us a different way of seeing the world. Their stories, ideas and experiences can importantly inform how we better deliver programs, services and support locally and across Victoria. It was brilliant to have met the Newhaven Primary School years 5 and 6 and to be part of a Q and A. They spoke about the environment, education, local health services and their experiences. We went on to discuss school speed zone recommendations, organic waste, plastic-free July, skate parks, the new junior secondary school, footpaths and mental health. Their breadth of interests is testament to their families, their teachers and to the students themselves as active local-global citizens. Knowledge is power and their voices make change. I want to thank all the teachers and the principal, Sharyne Munday, for providing such a great learning environment. LAKESIDE COLLEGE Ms CRUGNALE: I also attended Lakeside College Pakenham’s Thanksgiving service. Musical performances formed part of the evening, and special mention to the preppies who sang the butterfly song. Speeches reinforced that everyone is of value, has a gift and demonstrates leadership in some

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2255 way. Prep to year 6 awards went to: Anhadveer, Harper, Javier, Maya, Jai, Prannalli, Sienna, Caitlin, Holly, Charlie, Tyler, Chevyleigh, Baylie, Olivia, Dennis, Poppy, Anen Yasha, Phoebe, Charlotte, Mieke, Mikayla, Garren, Dot and Louisa. Thank you to principal Thomas Brennan and all for a wonderful celebratory evening. REFUGEE WEEK Ms BLANDTHORN (Pascoe Vale) (10:26): I would like to take the opportunity to recognise that this week is Refugee Week. I am also extremely grateful to represent such a diverse community in the Pascoe Vale electorate. My constituents are from every corner of the globe, from every walk of life and are of every age. This progressive sense of multiculturalism and diversity in the electorate I represent owes much to the positive impacts of migration and refugee settlement in the area. As I stated in my first speech in this place, I believe we must protect and promote diversity and we must encourage intercultural and interfaith dialogue. In a recent address regarding Refugee Week 2019 the president of the Refugee Council of Australia, Phil Glendenning, stated: … right across this country the contribution refugees make to this nation is about building the place up. Every day in the Pascoe Vale electorate various cultural organisations, refugee services, sporting clubs and individuals work alongside each other to foster a strong sense of acceptance, opportunity and diversity within the social fabric of our community. From organisations like VICSEG in Coburg, who provide support and training to migrants and refugees, to cultural clubs such as the Kurdish Association of Victoria in Pascoe Vale, to groups such as the Oak Park Soccer Club, which welcomes people to come and play with them, there are so many people in our area seeking to recognise the ongoing contribution that refugees and migrants make in our community. I encourage all members of my electorate but also beyond to continue to engage with the stories and contributions of refugees in our society. UNITED CULTURAL SUPPORT Mr MAAS (Narre Warren South) (10:28): On 8 June I was pleased to attend United Cultural Support’s event to recognise the work of their volunteers, which was held at Selandra Community Hub, Clyde North. The event commemorated the invaluable contribution of 15 Afghani, Pakistani, and Iranian Hazara volunteers to United Cultural Support, a non-profit organisation committed to empowering people of all ages and cultural backgrounds. They do this by promoting social inclusion of minority groups and active community engagement through educational programs, events and workshops for members and local residents. Their services include providing opportunities to build self-esteem and confidence through physical activity and sports programs; connections to support people with special needs, disabilities and drug addiction; education programs to empower people for further employment; and facilities to improve wellbeing through arts and cultural activities. These initiatives are not made possible without the hard work and dedication of the volunteers. It was an absolute privilege to present awards to United Cultural Support’s hardworking volunteers and to congratulate them on their achievements in front of their families, friends and colleagues. My thanks to community leaders Mr Adam Sadiqzai, Mr Nazir Yousafi and especially to Ms Sadia Ali, president of United Cultural Support, for organising this wonderful event. BLACKBURN FOOTBALL CLUB Mr HAMER (Box Hill) (10:29): It was terrific to join the Blackburn Football Club on Saturday, 15 June, to announce that this year’s state budget had allocated $650 000 towards a new pavilion at Morton Park in Blackburn, including fit-out of the pavilion, a scoreboard and other infrastructure so that local sporting clubs have the facilities they deserve. The Blackburn Football Club was first established in 1903 and over the last 116 years the club has become the centrepiece of sport and recreation in the Blackburn area. The Blackburn Football Club is one of the largest clubs in the Eastern

MEMBERS STATEMENTS 2256 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019

Football League (EFL) and in 2019 is fielding two senior men’s teams, one senior women’s team, one under-19s team and 22 junior teams, ranging in age from under-nines to under-17s and including five girls teams, and a close association with three local Auskick teams that operate under the AFL banner. As well as football the club is now entering its fifth year of fielding two netball teams in the recently created EFL netball league. The Blackburn Football Club has been built on community spirit and survives on the contributions, enthusiasm and goodwill of volunteers as well as the generosity of local businesses. I look forward to working with the club to help deliver this great project. BOX HILL SENIOR SECONDARY COLLEGE Mr HAMER: Box Hill Senior Secondary College is the training ground for the world’s next basketball stars. Over 120 students from the school have been awarded scholarships at US colleges, enabling these students to gain tertiary qualifications while furthering their sporting careers. One ex- student has already gone on to be NBA Rookie of the Year, and I am sure there are more to come. It was terrific to see the school’s basketball program profiled on last week’s 7.30 program on the ABC. REFUGEE WEEK Mr HALSE (Ringwood) (10:31): This week is Refugee Week, and I think we all need to be reminded of what that means. Today more that 68.5 million people are forcibly displaced around the world, which is the highest number on record—40 million of those are internally displaced peoples, 25.4 million are classified as refugees and 3.1 million are official asylum seekers. Among the 25.4 million refugees, over half are under the age of 18 and 10 million are stateless people who have been denied a nationality. Alarmingly in our world, every 2 seconds, someone is forcibly displaced as a result of conflict and persecution: This means that 45 people are displaced in the time it takes to make a members statement. Too often these people are subject to policies that perpetuate suffering, put lives at risk and criminalise natural human behaviours like seeking safety and shelter. We need to remember that it is never illegal to seek asylum. I am proud to be part of a government that has declared Victoria a refugee safe haven. In Ringwood, refugees and asylum seekers are always welcome. I thank those who have chosen to make Ringwood their home. VICTORIA STATE EMERGENCY SERVICE KNOX UNIT Mr TAYLOR (Bayswater) (10:32): I rise today once again to speak about the great work that our emergency service volunteers do for our community, particularly the great work of the Knox SES. Last Thursday I had the opportunity to visit the current site with the Parliamentary Secretary for Emergency Services, the member for Frankston. We were given the chance to sit down and chat with the dedicated members and volunteers of the Knox SES to talk about the work they do and the challenges they face day to day. We also got a tour of their current facility to check out the kinds of equipment they use and, let me tell you, they are certainly well-equipped to take on any situation thrown at them. But one thing that shone through from our discussion was that these volunteers are always the first to put their hands up, the first to step forward and the first to assist those in need. They attend all manner of emergencies—from wild weather to floods, fire and collisions on our roads as well as other major police investigations. One of the challenges that was raised by the team at the Knox SES is that they are currently looking for a new place to call home. Currently the Knox SES are located on Knox City Council land and through no fault of the SES or local council their time at this site is now coming to an end. This has raised a level of unwanted uncertainty for not only the volunteers at Knox SES but the community more broadly. Ever since my time as a local councillor, I have been acutely aware of the need to look at finding a more permanent and appropriate home for the Knox SES, and now as the member for Bayswater from day one I have been working hard with both the minister and the emergency services parliamentary

STATEMENTS ON PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2257 secretary to find an outcome to this issue. Our visit the other day was a great opportunity to touch base with this great community-driven organisation to further understand how we can best support them to do the vital work they do, because this government will always back in our emergency services. DANIELLE GOWER AND FIN SINCLAIR Mr RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (10:34): I want to give a shout-out to the students doing work experience in my office, Danielle Gower and Fin Sinclair from Parkdale Secondary College and Cornish College, wonderful examples of great education in my community. Statements on parliamentary committee reports PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES COMMITTEE Report on the Appointment of a Person to Conduct the Financial Audit of the Victorian Auditor- General’s Office Mr RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (10:34): It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee’s (PAEC) Report on the Appointment of a Person to Conduct the Financial Audit of the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office. Goodness me, that is a mouthful. You do not want to get that out wrongly. This is one of the first reports of the 59th Parliament and one that will be in a sequence of PAEC reports. This is an important part of the oversight of the Victorian Auditor- General’s Office. That institution has more than 150 years of history; it is one of the oldest oversight bodies, and it is in turn overseen by the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee. It is critically important that we always audit them, undertake to look out for their best functions and make sure that they are running to their optimum standard. Normally there is not much colour and theatre about the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, except in that fortnight period when everyone gets a bit excited and the opposition get their chance to grill our ministers. But we had a bit of colour and movement today with the excitement from those opposite about the appointment of the new chair, the member for Pascoe Vale, who will do an outstanding job. This is one of many reports and forewords that the member for Pascoe Vale will be involved in. Besides the colour and theatre that we have during those hearings and the scrutiny of ministers, we have got a really good crew together for this committee, and I am really excited about the work that we will do over the 59th Parliament. Despite the backwards and forwards and some of the banter that goes on during those estimates hearings, I think everyone comes to this committee with the greatest of respect for the institution that is the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee and the important role that it plays as an anchor to our Parliament and our democracy. It is a privilege to serve with those members on this committee in the important work that we do. Part of that work will be scrutinising the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office and appointing financial and performance auditors as we go along the journey to make sure that the office is operating to its optimum standard. When you think about the types of reports that the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office does, it provides really important scrutiny of our system of government, giving trust and confidence to the Victorian people about various projects and initiatives. I remember reading recently one of their key reports, which was into transitions from early years to primary school and from primary to secondary school. This was really informative work that has guided the department and the office of the Minister for Education in how they strengthen those transitions and key movements as they analyse and scrutinise students’ NAPLAN data to see how they are progressing and how we also support children with additional needs. That is just one example, one subset, of the important work of the Auditor-General’s office. There is also of course the scrutiny the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office provided for a project like the east–west link and the concerns that were put forward about the dollar return and the value of that project. This was a policy in the 57th Parliament. We are now into the 59th Parliament—three Parliaments later—and they are still going on about a project that at best delivered a 45 cent return on

STATEMENTS ON PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS 2258 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019 every dollar invested. That is the kind of scrutiny that it provides. When you get through all of the colour and movement of government—all the press releases, all the jargon, all the rhetoric—the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office put an incredible amount of work into the heart of that report, which showed that the 45 cent return meant that the east–west link was a failed policy and that it should have been abandoned as soon as someone in the then Liberal-Nationals government cooked up the idea. But in the 59th Parliament it is like groundhog day. They keep on going on about these projects and keep muddling themselves up about them, even though Victoria has voted three times on this. The then Prime Minister Tony Abbott said the 2014 Victorian election was a referendum on the east–west link, and where did that get to in Victoria? They will keep going on about that, but the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office uncovered the lacking nature of that project. As I said before, I am really looking forward to the reports that we will do. We have a big one coming up soon on the budget hearings, and I cannot wait to get on with that work with the member for Pascoe Vale, the member for Narre Warren South, the member for Cranbourne and a member in the other place, Ingrid Stitt; and of course the member for Evelyn, the member for Gippsland South, the member for Polwarth and the member for Prahran. They do an incredible job. We are working well together, and I look forward to how we do things over the course of the 59th Parliament. PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES COMMITTEE Report on the Appointment of a Person to Conduct the Financial Audit of the Victorian Auditor- General’s Office Mr T BULL (Gippsland East) (10:39): Like the member for Mordialloc I rise to make some comments on the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee’s (PAEC) Report on the Appointment of a Person to Conduct the Financial Audit of the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office. While it may not be the most exciting report to give some commentary on, we are a bit light on for reports to speak on at the present stage of the parliamentary process. However, it does provide an opportunity for us to outline the importance of the Auditor-General’s Office and the great role that it does play. It was interesting to hear the member for Mordialloc provide some commentary around its long existence of 150 years and the fact that it is probably the longest running and most historical oversight body that we have. It does play an important role. PAEC has obviously just been through a very, very busy week. It has undertaken significant scrutiny of the budget. It was obviously pleasing to delve into a number of the issues that relate to specific ministers’ portfolios. I noted the member for Mordialloc’s comment that maybe not a lot of news came out of it. Well, certainly a lot of information did come out of it from our perspective, which we look forward to relaying on to the wider Victorian community and public. This report relates to financial auditing of the Auditor-General. I want to make some very brief comments on some of the important inquiries and reports that the Auditor-General’s office has undertaken in relatively recent times. First of all, we have reporting on local government performance. I do note that we have a bill in the house today that goes to the heart of local government performance, which is an unfortunate situation. But the Auditor-General’s office has done a number of reports and inquiries relating to various aspects of local government performance, which is something that, being our third tier of government, is of critical importance to all Victorians. Some of the other reports that have been completed include one on the outcomes of investing in regional Victoria, which is one that is obviously of great importance to those of us who represent electorates that are based in rural and regional Victoria. The level of investment there and the outcomes are something that we certainly need some focus and some scrutiny on. There were reports on managing the environmental impacts of domestic wastewater and on school councils in government schools. The Auditor-General did quite a significant report in relation to some of the challenges being experienced by our school councils. V/Line passenger services was another. On the Gippsland line, which finishes in my electorate, unfortunately we have seen some

STATEMENTS ON PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2259 very, very poor outcomes in relation to services running on time of relatively recent times, and the Auditor-General’s office provided oversight in relation to that. Recreational maritime safety is one issue that is very important. Having an electorate that has the Gippsland Lakes within it, I know that maritime safety unfortunately comes to the fore on a reasonably regular basis when we do have those unfortunate situations. Other reports include patient safety in public hospitals and managing Victoria’s native forest timber resources, which is a very important one. Our timber industry is facing a lot of uncertainty at the moment. We have a large number of contractors, mill operators and mill workers who have very uncertain futures because of the lack of security of timber supply at the moment, so the Auditor-General’s report into that sector is welcome. It outlined some of the challenges that are being experienced but also the importance of that sector economically not only to my electorate but right across the state. The last report that I want to touch on is on maintaining state-controlled roadways. Recently, as a result of the PAEC hearing just last week, we heard that the Transport Accident Commission project which is installing wire rope barriers along our roadways is being maintained out of the general roads maintenance fund. My local panelbeater told me recently that the number of cars that are coming into his business that have hit or scraped these barriers is significant. They obviously cause damage to the barriers as well, and the road maintenance budget needs to be increased in line with those installations. The Auditor-General’s office plays an important role, and it is important that we have all the i’s dotted and the t’s crossed. PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES COMMITTEE Report on the Appointment of a Person to Conduct the Financial Audit of the Victorian Auditor- General’s Office Mr McGUIRE (Broadmeadows) (10:44): I refer to the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee inquiry into the appointment of a person to conduct the financial audit of the Victorian Auditor- General’s Office (VAGO). The importance of who audits the Auditor-General is a response to the age-old issue of who watches the watchers, or to refer to the Roman poet Juvenal, the way he put it was, ‘Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?’. The literal translation defines this as ‘Who will guard the guardians themselves?’. This is a significant job. The committee in its report made the recommendation that to expedite the financial audit of the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office for the year ending 30 June 2019 the audit services of Mr Geoff Parker be renewed and that he conduct the financial audit of VAGO for the year ending 30 June 2019. The reasons they have given are important to put on the record in the Parliament. They include his qualifications. He is a director at Nexia Melbourne, an accounting firm in Melbourne, which is also a member of Nexia Australia and New Zealand, which has offices not only in capital cities across Australia but also in Christchurch, New Zealand. He is a member of Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand and is a registered company auditor. According to the report, the committee considers that Mr Parker has demonstrated a strength of experience in auditing VAGO and has demonstrated an excellent audit approach, including an understanding of applicable accounting standards and of the responsibilities demanded of a financial auditor at this standard over the previous three-year period. That is the view of the committee on the role to be played and its significance. This is one of the first reports to come through. As we go into other roles and have further committee reports, I will return to some of the themes that I have covered in previous Parliaments. But before I move on to those, I think it is important to actually acknowledge the new committee chair, who is the member for Pascoe Vale. There was some commentary earlier today, which I just want to put to one side. I have seen the member for Pascoe Vale as the senior vice-president of the Victorian ALP in the role of chair, and I can tell you this will be a highly rigorous, disciplined, tightly run committee. I know from parliamentary experience as well that the member for Pascoe Vale has also been the chair of

STATEMENTS ON PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS 2260 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019

SARC, the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee. You have someone who is widely experienced in parliamentary procedure and you have someone who has the political nous and skill, so I think this is an outstanding appointment and should be applauded by the Parliament. We heard some gratuitous commentary that I will let go. I also do want to acknowledge the commitment and rigour brought by the former Minister for Small Business, Innovation and Trade, the Honourable Philip Dalidakis, who has now stepped down from this Parliament. I worked with him as Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Innovation previously, and he brought a lot of drive and rigour to this portfolio. He was very well regarded by the sectors—and that is probably the best way to analyse this—and he did a lot throughout the state. I know that as minister for trade this took a lot of his time away from his home and his family and he is wanting to get a better work-life balance, so I wish him well in his future jobs and with his family. In summing up, in my contributions in the past I have looked at how we can collaborate better between different tiers of government to drive strategic results, so I am pleased that we do have a city deal for Melbourne’s north and west. This is a really important proposition that we can get to to get new infrastructure and get some investment where it is needed most, particularly from the Australian government. We are looking at major projects and how that will unfold. This will obviously be subject to further negotiations, but I think it is a real opportunity because we need the federal government to be a partner, not a bystander. PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES COMMITTEE Report on the Appointment of a Person to Conduct the Financial Audit of the Victorian Auditor- General’s Office Mr ANGUS (Forest Hill) (10:49): I am pleased to rise today to also speak on the report of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC) on the appointment of a person to conduct the financial audit of the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO). This is a straightforward, albeit brief, report, but it does contain two recommendations on page vii. The first recommendation is to appoint Mr Geoff Parker of Nexia Melbourne for a period of one year, and then there are three dot points: first of all to outline what he is going to do—that is, to conduct the financial audit of the Auditor-General’s office; second, that he will do so in accordance with the agreement for the provision of services as outlined in appendix 1 of the report, and I will come to that; and thirdly, that he will do so at a fixed-fee level of remuneration which is identified in the report. The second recommendation goes on and talks about PAEC and the Parliament conducting a tender in 2020 for services in relation to the financial audit of VAGO for the three-year period 2019–20 to 2021– 22 inclusive. They are the recommendations from this very brief report. Essentially, as other speakers have noted already, basically this is a matter of who audits the auditor, because that is what this particular role is: financial auditor for the Auditor-General’s office. As I was looking at the report I noted on page iii there are photographs of the committee members. I see there we have as the chair the Honourable Philip Dalidakis. Of course he is no longer the chair; in fact he is no longer in Parliament. He did not last long, and he went very swiftly a couple of days ago, on Monday of this week. Interestingly, as we were discussing and debating this morning in the Parliament, his successor, Dr Tien Kieu from the other place, I think lasted about 24 hours. He was appointed for a very, very brief time, and now we have got the member for Pascoe Vale coming in as the chair. As others have noted, I am sure she will do a very good job in that role. But I suppose the point I am making there is the fact that this has been an extraordinary situation caused by an unprecedented move by Mr Dalidakis in resigning not only from the Parliament but also of course from the chairmanship of this committee on virtually no notice, telling the Governor first and then the Premier after that. That shows how unstable things really are on the other side of the house. In relation to the role of VAGO, I have spoken many times about that in this place and its important roles, both the financial audit role and the performance audit role. I again put on record my thanks to

STATEMENTS ON PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2261

VAGO and the officers and the Auditor-General himself, Mr Greaves, and all his staff for the important work that they do for all of us on behalf of not only the Parliament of Victoria here but also all the Victorian taxpayers. One of the things that I very much look forward to and enjoy is going to the briefings that the Auditor-General provides on a regular basis in relation to his performance audits. Indeed there is one today on another important report that was tabled in this place earlier this morning. It really is an important role that the Auditor-General fulfils. I note that the VAGO website states:

The Auditor-General is an independent officer of the Victorian Parliament, supported by around 185 staff, to provide assurance to Parliament and the Victorian community about how effectively public sector agencies are providing services and using public money. We achieve this through an annual program of financial and performance audits of state and local government public sector entities. I was also looking through the 2017–18 VAGO annual report just to refresh my memory as to the size of the business that is being operated there, and I noted that the turnover is $45.3 million. In that year they made a surplus of $2 million. They had total assets of $25.9 million, total liabilities of $18.3 million and net assets of $7.6 million. We can see that it is not an insubstantial business in itself, so the role of the financial auditor of this particular important parliamentary office is one that is very important. In relation to the report from PAEC, we have appendix 1, which forms the bulk of the report. That goes for most of the document—in fact from page 7 to page 43. It outlines the actual agreement for those services. It is a pretty technical sort of report in a lot of ways but nevertheless an important one, and it will help the Auditor-General’s office in their particular role by having someone come in and look at the financial audit side of VAGO. SCRUTINY OF ACTS AND REGULATIONS COMMITTEE Report on the Statute Law Revision Bill 2018 Mr PEARSON (Essendon) (10:54): I am delighted to make a very brief contribution on the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee’s report on the Statute Law Revision Bill 2018, which is a report published in 2019. The Statute Law Revision Bill does not get a great rap from time to time, but it plays an important role in terms of ensuring that the statute books reflect common practice. I do note that it used to be, up until about 1958, that bills were regularly updated every 10 years because technology as it was at that stage made it very difficult for amendments to be regularly inserted and bills to be updated. So there was a standard practice, as I understand it, that every 10 years bills would be updated. Arthur Rylah of course was the chief secretary at that time and presided over a lengthy rewrite of the Victorian statute books in 1958. I do want to draw the house’s attention to the important role that the Statute Law Revision Bill plays in relation to grammatical errors, in tidying up the correction of grammar, punctuation, spelling and cross-referencing errors, as enunciated in schedule 1 on page 3 of the report. That brings me to Oxford commas, or serial commas. Oxford commas or serial commas tend to be more prevalent in American English rather than Australian English, but it is important to point this out. ‘I love my parents Lady Gaga and Humpty Dumpty’ could say that you love your parents, Lady Gaga and Humpty Dumpty, or it could say that your parents are Lady Gaga and Humpty Dumpty, whereas if you insert an Oxford comma so it reads ‘I love my parents, Lady Gaga, and Humpty Dumpty’, that addresses it. That is why the Statute Law Revision Bill plays such an important role in ensuring our statutes are up to date. I commend the report.

BILLS 2262 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019

Bills BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES REGISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL 2019 Statement of compatibility Ms HENNESSY (Altona—Attorney-General, Minister for Workplace Safety) (10:57): In accordance the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I table a statement of compatibility with respect to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment Bill 2019. In my opinion, the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment Bill 2019, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement. Overview The Bill amends the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 to remove a requirement for an applicant seeking to alter the sex recorded in their Victorian birth registration to have undergone sex affirmation surgery. Instead, the Bill allows an adult to apply to the Victorian Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages (the Registrar) to alter the sex recorded in their birth registration by way of a statutory declaration that the person believes that their sex is as nominated in the application, and which is accompanied by a supporting statement from an adult who has known the applicant for at least 12 months. The applicant must nominate the description of the sex to be used on their birth record, which may be ‘male’, ‘female’ or any other gender diverse or non-binary descriptor nominated by the applicant. This means a person will be able to describe their sex in a way that reflects their identity. The Bill introduces a new process to allow the parent(s) or guardian of a child to apply to the Registrar to alter the sex recorded on the child’s Victorian birth registration. This process will be restricted to children with the capacity to consent to the alteration. Children aged 16 and 17 years old will be presumed to have that capacity. The Bill allows the Registrar to issue a document acknowledging the sex of an adult or child whose birth is registered outside of Victoria, if they have lived in Victoria for at least a year. In addition, the Bill amends the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, the Corrections Act 1986, the Serious Offenders Act 2018 and the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 to require detainees in youth justice facilities, prisoners, prisoners on parole, offenders or registered sex offenders to comply with an approval process before making their application to alter the sex recorded in their birth registration, or for a document acknowledging their sex. The approval process is similar to the approval process for change of name applications. The Bill amends the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act and the Corrections Act to allow the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety to obtain information from the Registrar about all alterations of the record of sex of a prisoner or all of the documents issued acknowledging the sex of the prisoner where this is reasonably necessary for the purposes of the administration of the corrections legislation or for the purpose of the provision of services related to the health of the prisoner. The Bill also amends the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act to allow the Registrar to provide written notice that a document has been issued to the Registrar in the state or territory where the birth of the person, the subject of the document, is registered. Human Rights Issues Right to equality and the protection of families and children Section 8 of the Charter provides that every person has the right to enjoy their human rights without discrimination, is equal before the law and is entitled to the equal protection of the law without discrimination and has the right to equal and effective protection against discrimination. Discrimination under the Charter means discrimination on the basis of an attribute set out in section 6 of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010, including gender identity, marital status or sex. Section 17 of the Charter provides that families are the fundamental group unit of society and are entitled to protection and that every child has the right, without discrimination, to such protection, as is in their best interests and is needed by reason of their being a child. New sex descriptors New section 30A(2), inserted in the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act by clause 8 of the Bill, and new section 30E(2), inserted by clause 10 of the Bill, allows a person to nominate a sex descriptor to describe their sex in their birth registration or document respectively. A sex descriptor may be ‘male’, ‘female’ or any other descriptor nominated by the applicant. This means a person will be able to describe their sex in a way that reflects their gender diverse or non-binary identity. This new additional category promotes the

BILLS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2263

right to equality of trans and gender diverse people because it allows a person to use a description of their sex that is the most appropriate and meaningful to them. This description will be recorded in their birth registration, and be what is shown on their birth certificate. Removal of barriers to acknowledging a person’s sex on their birth record Currently, a person wanting to alter the sex recorded in their birth registration must have undergone sex affirmation surgery. Sex affirmation surgery is a serious medical procedure that involves the alteration of a person’s reproductive organs. For some people who identify as a sex that is different from that recorded in their birth registration, such surgery is not an option because the person has a medical condition or disability that prevents the surgery being undertaken, or because the surgery is unaffordable, not easily accessible or even available where the person lives. Further, some people who identify as a sex different from that recorded in their birth registration do not wish to undergo surgery. The surgery requirement applies regardless of other ways in which the person may live in their affirmed gender identity. New section 30A in clause 8 of the Bill removes the current requirement to have undergone sex affirmation surgery. New section 30E in clause 10 of the Bill similarly removes these requirements for a person whose birth is registered in a place other than Victoria, in order to apply for a document that acknowledges their sex in accordance with their nominated sex descriptor. In removing this unnecessary barrier, the Bill promotes the right to equality and makes it easier for trans and gender diverse people to alter their birth record in a way that recognises the inherent dignity and autonomy of a person. It also promotes the right to privacy which seeks to protect personal and social individuality and identity, encompassing physical and psychological integrity. The new process for applying to alter the record of sex in a birth registration does not require a person to show medical evidence of gender transition or confirmation by a medical professional as to the person’s sex: such requirements would inappropriately medicalise the person’s sex or gender identity, and undermine the person’s own statements about their sex or gender identity. Instead, the new process is primarily based on the person’s self-declaration as to their sex. The equality rights of persons with disabilities may also be promoted by these changes, as some medical conditions preclude persons from undertaking sex affirmation surgery. New process for acknowledging a child’s recorded sex New sections 30B and 30BA, inserted by clause 8 of the Bill, introduce a process for the parent(s) or guardian of a child to apply to alter the sex recorded in the child’s birth registration. New sections 30EA and 30EB, inserted by clause 10 of the Bill, introduce a process with the same requirements for the parent(s) or guardian of a child whose birth is not registered in Victoria, but who has lived in Victoria for at least 12 months, to apply for a document acknowledging the child’s name and sex in accordance with the nominated sex description. In both cases, an application cannot be made unless the child consents to the application and the child must have the capacity to consent to the alteration. As for adults, clauses 8 and 10 of the Bill provide for the nomination of a sex descriptor of the child’s choice. The introduction of these new processes for altering a child’s recorded sex, where previously there were no mechanisms for doing so, promotes the right to equality and the protection of trans and gender diverse children by allowing them to alter the sex recorded in their birth registration in a way that is appropriate and meaningful to them. However, the Bill may also limit the right to equality of children and the right to protection of children by: providing for a special approval process to alter a child’s recorded sex that is different to the process for adults; providing a more restrictive application process for children under 16 than for those aged 16 and 17 years old; and requiring minors to obtain parental approval for altering their recorded sex. In my opinion, any such limitation is reasonable and justified for the protection of families and children in accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter. The Bill introduces a special approval process to alter a child’s recorded sex by requiring a relevant person, being a doctor, registered psychologist or a person in a prescribed class of persons, to make a supporting statement affirming that in their opinion the application is in the best interests of the child. Although this requirement makes the application process for children more restrictive than for adults, it provides an important independent safeguard of the child’s general health and wellbeing, and takes into account the particular vulnerabilities of children. I therefore consider that it strikes a balance between the rights of the child to equality and their right to such protection as is in their best interests, and is needed by reason of their being a child under section 17(2) of the Charter. Children aged 16 and 17 years old are presumed to have the capacity to consent to an application to alter their recorded sex. This presumption means that the application process for children under 16 years of age is

BILLS 2264 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019

different than those for children aged 16 and 17. Unlike children aged 16 and 17, children under 16 years of age must have their individual decision-making capacity assessed by a relevant person to ensure that they have the capacity to consent to the application being made. This variation recognises that children aged 16 and 17 generally have the maturity to understand the meaning and consequences of altering their recorded sex. A different process for children aged under 16 than for those aged 16 and 17 is therefore appropriate in recognition of this variation in capacity. In my view, there is no less restrictive means available to ensure that the rights of children who have different decision-making capacities are protected in this context. The application process for altering the child’s recorded sex is also more restrictive than that available for adults in that the application must be made by a child’s parent(s) or guardians on their behalf. I consider that this process strikes an appropriate balance between the rights of the child to equality, and the protection of families under section 17 of the Charter, by preserving the rights of parents to make decisions in the best interests of their child and recognising the variations in capacity between children of different ages and children and adults. In recognition of the fact that parents might disagree as to what is in their child’s best interests, new section 30BB, inserted by clause 8 of the Bill, and new section 30EC, inserted by clause 10, provide a mechanism for one parent or guardian to make an application to the County Court for an order to approve the alteration of the child’s recorded sex if the Court is satisfied that the alteration is in the child’s best interests. Where neither the parents, nor a guardian, make an application on behalf of the child, despite the child’s request for an application to be made, the matter would need to be resolved through the Family Court. New section 30C(3)(a), inserted by clause 9 of the Bill, would allow the Registrar to alter the record of the child’s sex if the Family Court has ordered that the record be altered. In my view, there is no less restrictive means available to ensure that the rights of families, children and the right to equality are all respected. Right to privacy Section 13 of the Charter provides that a person has the right to not have their privacy unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. Change to process for acknowledging recorded sex Both clauses 8 and 10 of the Bill remove the requirements that a person must have undergone sex affirmation surgery in order to apply to alter the sex recorded in their birth registration, or for a document acknowledging their name and sex. The Bill therefore promotes the right to privacy, as a person seeking to alter their recorded sex will no longer be required to disclose their medical history in their application. Further, the removal of the surgery requirements promotes bodily autonomy which also falls within the scope of the right to privacy. Information sharing New section 30K, inserted by clause 16 of the Bill, allows the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety, in certain circumstances, to obtain information from the Registrar about all of the alterations to a prisoner’s recorded sex and all documents issued acknowledging the name and sex of the prisoner. New section 30K clearly sets out that the Registrar must only disclose information to the Secretary about a prisoner’s recorded sex upon the request of the Secretary. The interference is not arbitrary because the information that the Registrar must disclose is limited to certain information about a prisoner’s recorded sex and the request can only be made in relation to a defined class of persons who are deemed to be in the legal custody of the Secretary under part 1A of the Corrections Act. Furthermore, the Secretary will only be able to make a request for this information where the request is reasonably necessary for the administration of Corrections legislation, as defined in section 104ZX of the Corrections Act, or for the purpose of providing services related to the health of the prisoner. Requests for information about alterations to the prisoner’s recorded sex in their birth registration may be required for the management, supervision or transfer of prisoners in the Secretary’s custody. Such information might be required, for instance, to ensure the safety of trans or gender diverse prisoners, or to determine whether a person should be considered an at-risk prisoner in need of special protective measures. Further, the information disclosed under new section 30K to the Secretary would come within the meaning of ‘personal or confidential information’ in part 9E of the Corrections Act and would be subject to the provisions of that part providing for the use and disclosure of that information only in prescribed circumstances. New section 30FA, inserted by clause 12 of the Bill, provides that the Registrar has the power to provide written notice to another Registrar that a document has been issued. The interference with privacy is lawful because it is clearly set out in the Bill and it is not arbitrary because it relates only to providing notice in the specific circumstances where a document has been issued and only to the Registrar in the state or territory where the birth of the person, the subject of the document, is registered.

BILLS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2265

The purpose of sharing this information with another Registrar is to ensure the integrity of all state and territory registers for births, deaths and marriages, as a person who has altered their recorded sex could potentially have different identity documents. Written notice of the acknowledgement document offers the best identity security protection, enabling the Registrar of the state or territory where the person’s birth is registered to appropriately note the name and sex of the person as recorded in the document. I therefore consider that any interference under the Bill with a person’s privacy is lawful and not arbitrary and is therefore compatible with the Charter. Hon Jill Hennessy MP Attorney-General Minister for Workplace Safety Second reading Ms HENNESSY (Altona—Attorney-General, Minister for Workplace Safety) (10:57): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I ask that my second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard. Incorporated speech as follows: Before this Government had begun its first term, we committed to putting equality back on the agenda after four years of regression, particularly for lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex—LGBTI—Victorians. It is with great pride that we can say that promise was kept with achievements including the first Minister for Equality, adoption equality, an historic apology for historical convictions for homosexual sex, the establishment of the first Gender and Sexuality Commissioner and the now under-construction Pride Centre. It is a list, however, that sadly remains incomplete. In the last Parliament, the government introduced similar reforms by way of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment Bill 2016. That legislation was defeated by a single vote in the other place leaving trans and gender diverse Victorians to continue to be subject to unfair and unnecessary barriers to obtaining documentation that reflects who they truly are. As a government, we will continue the work of creating a fairer Victoria by eliminating discrimination in our laws and respecting the diversity inherent in our state. The Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment Bill 2019 (the Bill) is an important part of this broad equality agenda. Though in that pursuit, we should not become complacent and forget that opposition remains. While many of us here, in the other place and across Victoria recognise the importance of advancing equality, it is not a universal belief across the political spectrum. While we continue in our efforts, we must not forget how hard the LGBTI community and their allies have fought and how the advancements we have made must continue to be protected. The inability for trans and gender diverse people to have an accurate birth registration, which truly reflects their identity, means that high barriers continue to be thrown up against them in their daily lives. As a result, organisations and institutions may query the person’s sex by asking inappropriate and intrusive questions, for example when providing a service or amending documentation such as bank accounts, insurance details, credit cards, and university records. In some circumstances where there is a lack of understanding, it may lead to appropriate care and services not being provided. While the government is pleased that in 2018, in response to legislative changes brought about by marriage equality, the unfair “forced divorce” requirement was removed from the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 for people seeking to alter the sex recorded on their birth registration, we remained committed to reintroducing the 2016 reforms to remove other unnecessary barriers. The Bill, which reflects that commitment, was developed in consultation with LGBTI communities. I am grateful for their assistance in developing a Bill that will improve the legal recognition of trans and gender diverse people in Victoria. The Bill amends the Birth, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act to set out a new process for a person to alter the sex recorded in their birth registration without first having to undergo sex affirmation surgery. Sex affirmation surgery is a serious and invasive surgical procedure that involves a number of health risks, is not covered by Medicare, and not always available in Australia. This requirement also inappropriately medicalises the recognition of a person’s affirmed gender, sending a harmful message to trans and gender diverse people that there is something wrong with them that needs to be “fixed”. Growing numbers of trans and gender diverse people do not feel the need for medical transition.

BILLS 2266 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019

The Bill’s amendments mean that a person can apply to have their recorded sex altered on the basis of the person’s own declaration and in accordance with a description of their sex that is appropriate and meaningful to them. By removing the requirement to have undergone sex affirmation surgery, the Bill promotes the right to equality in the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. The application process for adults The Bill introduces a new application process for adults to alter the record of sex in their birth registration in a way that provides an appropriate level of legal formality, while promoting the dignity and personal autonomy of applicants. The applicant must make a statutory declaration nominating the sex to be recorded in their birth registration. Their application must include a statement from another adult who has known the applicant for 12 months or more, who believes the application is made in good faith and supports the application. The Bill allows the applicant to nominate a sex descriptor of their choice to describe the sex on their birth record. A sex descriptor may be ‘male’, ‘female’ or any other descriptor chosen by the applicant to recognise their gender diverse or non-binary identity. This new additional category is not limited by the Bill and will allow a person to describe their sex in a way that reflects their identity. This choice is important because a list of descriptive terms to describe a person’s sex in their birth registration has not otherwise been widely agreed within the general community. This approach is consistent with that of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which allows counting of persons who are male, female or ‘other’. The category of ‘other’ can be further described in a way that is specified by the applicant. In addition, in the most recent Commonwealth census, people who do not identify as either male or female had the option of identifying as ‘other’, with such identity able to be specified in the way chosen by the person completing the census. The only limitation on the use of sex descriptors in the Bill is a discretion for the Registrar to refuse to register a descriptor that is obscene or offensive, or cannot practicably be established by repute or usage. The Bill similarly provides for a person, whose birth is registered in a place other than Victoria, but has lived in Victoria for at least a year, to apply for a document that acknowledges their nominated sex. The application process for children Unlike all other Australian states and territories, Victoria currently has no statutory process for a child to alter the sex recorded in their birth registration. In recognition of the fact that many young trans and gender diverse people are capable of expressing a strong gender identity, the Bill also introduces an application process for a child’s record of sex to be altered in their birth registration. Similar to the process for an adult, a child would not be required to undergo treatment and a sex descriptor of their choice must be nominated in the application. The application would be made on behalf of a child by their parents or guardian (or in particular circumstances one parent may make the application on the child’s behalf). The application must include a statutory declaration from the parents or guardian of the child stating that they believe on reasonable grounds that altering the sex recorded in the child’s birth registration is in the best interests of the child. An application cannot be made unless the child consents to the application. Where the child is under 16 years of age, the application must include an assessment by a doctor or registered psychologist (or prescribed person) that the child has the capacity to consent to the application. All applications on behalf of a child must include a statement from a doctor or registered psychologist (or prescribed person) that the alteration is in the child’s best interests. These are all important independent safeguards of the child’s general health and wellbeing that recognise the different decision-making capacities of children and their ability to understand the outcomes of their decisions. A child aged 16 or 17 will be presumed to have the necessary legal capacity. The Bill similarly provides for the parents or guardian of a child, whose birth is registered in a place other than Victoria, but who has lived in Victoria for at least a year, to apply for a document that acknowledges the child’s nominated sex. Approval process for people subject to detention or supervision orders to make an application The Bill will provide additional checks and safeguards in respect of applications by people (both adults and juveniles) in detention or under supervision who wish to make an application to alter their recorded sex. The additional conditions are very similar to those that currently apply in relation to the change of name process. The approval process provides for the relevant supervising authority to consider the application with regard to its reasonableness, necessity and other relevant considerations including security or the safe custody or welfare of the person or any other person. Responding to concerns The Parliamentary debate on the Bill in 2016 demonstrated a disappointing lack of understanding and acceptance by certain Members of Parliament of the difficulties faced by trans and gender diverse Victorians

BILLS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2267

in our community. Trans and gender diverse people are not some abstract, hypothetical category in a text book: they are your parents, your children, your siblings, your friends and your work colleagues. Misguided concerns were raised that the proposed reforms put women’s safety at risk, for example in domestic violence shelters, change rooms and toilets. The government takes concerns about women’s safety seriously but makes it very clear that these concerns are not supported by the evidence. Women have nothing to fear from these reforms. In reality, trans and gender diverse people are at higher risk of facing harassment or violence in receiving services or using facilities if they are forced to use those that are not appropriate to their affirmed gender. In practice, and regardless of the Bill, Victorian service providers already endeavour to respond to the needs of trans and gender diverse people who wish to access particular services that might have been established for a single sex. Conclusion This Bill is about giving trans and gender Victorians a basic right—a birth certificate which reflects who they truly are. It enables more adults who want to alter their recorded sex to do so without having to undergo invasive surgery, and enables children to have a birth certificate that reflects their affirmed gender identity. Together these amendments promote the right to equality and privacy in the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. The Bill recognises the inherent dignity and autonomy of a person applying for a new birth certificate that is most appropriate and meaningful to them. I commend the Bill to the house. Ms McLEISH (Eildon) (10:57): I move:

That the debate be now adjourned. Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. Ordered that debate be adjourned for two weeks. Debate adjourned until Wednesday, 3 July. FLORA AND FAUNA GUARANTEE AMENDMENT BILL 2019 Statement of compatibility Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes) (10:58): In accordance the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Amendment Bill 2019.

In my opinion, the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Amendment Bill 2019, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement. Overview The Flora and Fauna Guarantee Amendment Bill 2019 (the Bill) amends the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (Principal Act) to promote Victoria’s biodiversity, enhance accountability and transparency, and deliver effective protection for native species and important habitats. Most relevantly for the purposes of assessing compatibility with the Charter, the Bill provides for the application of critical habitat determinations and habitat conservation orders over any land in Victoria, the use of a register to record instruments issued under the Principal Act, and improvements to the compliance and enforcement of the Principal Act. This includes the expansion of inspection, seizure and evidence gathering powers of authorised officers, the introduction of infringeable offences, and increased penalties for breaches. Human Rights Issues Human rights protected by the Charter that are relevant to the Bill • The human rights protected by the Charter that are relevant to the Bill are: • The right to freedom of movement in section 12 of the Charter; • The right to privacy and reputation in section 13 of the Charter; • The right to public life in section 18 of the Charter; • Cultural rights in section 19 of the Charter; • Property rights in section 20 of the Charter; and

BILLS 2268 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019

• The right to be presumed innocent in section 25(1) of the Charter. For the reasons outlined below, in my opinion, the Bill is compatible with each of these rights. Freedom of movement Section 12 of the Charter provides for the right of every person within Victoria to move freely within Victoria and to enter and leave it and to have the freedom to choose where to live. Critical habitats and habitat conservation orders Clause 15 of the Bill substitutes section 20 of the Principal Act, which allows the Secretary to make critical habitat determinations. Limits on when an area may be declared to be critical habitat are in set out in new section 20(2). Under new section 26, inserted by clause 20 of the Bill, the Minister may make a habitat conservation order for the purposes of conserving, protecting or managing any critical habitat (being an area determined under substituted section 20), or any area of Victoria that the Secretary proposes to determine as critical habitat but in respect of which a critical habitat determination has not been made. The Minister must not make such an order unless the Minister considers it is necessary to halt, prevent or repair damage that has occurred, is occurring, or is likely to occur to the critical habitat or proposed critical habitat, or to manage that critical habitat or proposed critical habitat to ensure its conservation or protection. A habitat conservation order may (among other things) restrict or prohibit activities and the use or development of property within the critical habitat or proposed critical habitat. An order may also require that a person proposing to undertake an activity, land use or development obtain a permit from the Minister. Additionally, an order may also restrict or prohibit activities and the use or development of property within an area that is outside the critical habitat or proposed critical habitat if the activity, land use or development is likely to adversely affect the relevant habitat. To the extent that a habitat conservation order may limit the freedom of movement of a person by imposing conditions that restrict or prohibit movement or actions within a relevant area, any such limitation is reasonable and justified within the meaning of section 7(2) of the Charter. This power is an appropriate management tool to ensure the protection of habitats which may be essential to the survival of threatened species. A habitat conservation order must not be made unless the Minister considers that the order is necessary to halt, prevent or repair damage that has occurred, is occurring, or is likely to occur to the critical habitat, or to manage the critical habitat to ensure its conservation or protection. New section 29 contains a process for providing notice of the making of such an order to relevant landholders, including the opportunity to provide submissions. The Bill also provides a process by which a permit can be obtained for a particular use or activity in an area subject to a habitat conservation order. Additionally, under new section 36, a person can apply to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal for a review of a requirement or prohibition contained in a habitat conservation order that affects that person’s interests, a decision of the Minister under a habitat conservation order that affects the person’s interests or a decision of the Minister to suspend a licence, permit or authority of that person. Further, a person can apply to the Tribunal, under new section 37, for a declaration concerning the validity of such a requirement, prohibition or decision. In my opinion, the inclusion of the above measures in the Bill means that any limit on the right to freedom of movement that occurs due to the imposition of a habitat conservation order will be a proportionate measure. I also consider that no less restrictive means are available that would sufficiently serve the protective purpose of the orders. Accordingly, I consider that the Bill is compatible with the right to freedom of movement under section 12 of the Charter. Privacy Section 13 of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with, and not to have their reputation unlawfully attacked. An interference with privacy will not be unlawful where it is permitted by a law which is precise and appropriately circumscribed. Interferences with privacy will not be arbitrary provided they are reasonable in the particular circumstances, and just and proportionate to the legitimate aim sought. Habitat conservation orders Section 13(a) protects the right not to have one’s home unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. It is possible that the creation of a habitat conservation order and associated restriction and conditions may interfere with a person’s home, where that home is located on land that was subject to such an order.

BILLS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2269

As discussed above, the habitat conservation orders serve an important purpose, and the restrictions imposed by such orders are proportionate to that objective. Additionally, review can be sort of the orders. For these reasons, any interference with privacy caused by the creation and/or operation of a habitat conservation order would not be arbitrary. Neither will such an order be unlawful, given that the provisions are clear and proportionate. Entry without warrant by authorised officers Clause 29 of the Bill amends authorised officers’ existing inspection and evidence gathering powers in section 57. Entry without consent or a warrant is only permitted for land, non-residential buildings and vehicles, and the powers of authorised officers are appropriately restricted to only permit seizure of any thing (including documents) where it is necessary to prevent its use in the contravention of the Principal Act and related instruments or to prevent its concealment, loss or destruction. Further, entry without consent or warrant may only occur at a reasonable time and by reasonable means. Given these protections, and the fact that there is no power to enter residential buildings, I consider that the power of entry without warrant in section 57, as amended by clause 29, does not limit the right to privacy. Entry with warrant by authorised officers Consistent with the current position under the Principal Act, a warrant must be obtained to enter a building that is occupied as a residence. Only things named or described in the warrant, or things that the authorised officer believes on reasonable grounds are connected to the offence specified in the warrant or another offence against the Principal Act or regulations, may be seized. The Bill provides that an authorised officer may only apply for a search warrant if the authorised officer believes on reasonable grounds that there is, or may be within the next 72 hours, on or in the building a particular thing that may be evidence of the commission of an offence against the Principal Act or the regulations. In addition, the Bill inserts new provisions to ensure that a search warrant for residential premises is executed under appropriate circumstances. For example, new section 57C requires announcement prior to entry, unless the authorised officer or person assisting the officer believes on reasonable grounds that immediate entry to the building is required to ensure either the safety of any person, or that the effective execution of the search warrant is not frustrated. The entry with warrant power accordingly also does not arbitrarily or unlawfully interfere with the right to privacy. Inspection and evidence gathering powers As well as powers of entry, authorised officers also have the power to seize any thing (including a document) found at the land, building or vehicle; examine or take copies of or take extracts from documents that are seized or produced to the officer; require samples to be given or take samples of any thing. To the extent that any of these items contain personal information, these powers may result in an interference to privacy. However, these powers relate to regulating the Principal Act and protecting flora and fauna. Consequently, it is unlikely that an item seized would contain personal information of a kind that a person expects to remain private. Additionally, the powers can only be exercised where an authorised officer has lawfully exercised a power of entry which, as discussed above, are themselves compatible with the right to privacy. Accordingly, these powers do not limit the right to privacy. Publication of enforceable undertakings and agreements with landowners Clause 20 will insert new section 42 into the Principal Act, which provides that the Secretary must ensure that a register of critical habitat determinations and habitat conservation orders is kept and maintained, which must include ‘agreements with landowners’. Clause 37 inserts new Division 3A into Part 6 of the Principal Act, creating a framework for enforceable undertakings. New section 62E provides that the Secretary may publicise the failure of a person to comply with a court order made under new section 62D in relation to an enforceable undertaking. New section 62I provides that the Secretary must maintain a register of enforceable undertakings which must be published on the Internet. The publication of certain information on a register, and the publicising of a person’s failure to comply with a court order, engages but does not limit the right to privacy and reputation under the Charter. Enforceable undertakings are voluntary. A person who enters into an undertaking with the Secretary would be aware of the framework in new Division 3A, including the enforcement and publication provisions, and so would know that details of the undertaking will be publicly available and that failure to comply with a court order may be publicised. Publication of a failure to comply with a court order may only occur after a person has failed to comply with the enforceable undertaking, a subsequent order of the Magistrates’ Court,

BILLS 2270 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019

and written notice from the Secretary under section 62E (within 14 days of being given the notice). A landowner who entered into agreement would also be aware that the agreement would be published. Public availability promotes transparency and accountability in relation to enforceable undertakings more broadly. Additionally, there is unlikely to be an expectation of privacy regarding the kind of information published by virtue of the operation of these provisions. In my opinion, the publication of possibly personal information by way of the operation of the enforceable undertaking regime and the creation of a register of critical habitat determinations and conservation orders do not limit the right to privacy and reputation as they are neither unlawful nor arbitrary. Accordingly, the Bill is compatible with the right to privacy under section 13 of the Charter. Right to public life Section 18(1) of the Charter provides that every person in Victoria has the right to participate in the conduct of public affairs. Clause 9 amends section 8 of the Act which establishes the Scientific Advisory Committee. New subsection 8(3B) provides that a majority of members of the Committee must be scientists who are not employed under Part 3 of the Public Administration Act 2004. The amendment to section 8 may operate to restrict some public servants from being members of the Committee, and thus restrict the ability of such public servants to participate in public life through participating on the Committee. However, the restriction serves an important purpose of ensuring the objectivity of the Committee members. Additionally, at least four of the nine scientists appointed to the Committee can be public servants, so the restriction will not operate to prevent all public servants from possible appointment to the Committee. Accordingly, any limitation on the right to public life under section 18 of the Charter is reasonable and justifiable. Cultural rights Section 19 of the Charter provides for the rights of Aboriginal persons to maintain their distinctive spiritual, material and economic relationship with the land and waters and other resources with which they have a connection under traditional laws and customs. The Bill maintains and makes amendments to offences in the Principal Act which prohibit the taking of listed flora and fish without approval, which on their face may be seen to restrict the rights of Aboriginal persons to access flora and fauna which have a connection to traditional laws and customs. However, the Bill maintains the existing exemption at section 6A of the Principal Act that provides that where a traditional owner group entity has an agreement under Part 6 of the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010, any provision in the Principal Act that provides for an offence for carrying out an agreed activity (other than section 32) does not apply to a member of the traditional owner group who is bound by the agreement, and who is carrying out an agreed activity, to which that offence would apply, on land to which the agreement applies. As outlined in relation to the freedom of movement above, the Bill provides for the application of critical habitat determinations and habitat conservation orders over any land in Victoria, which may restrict or prohibit activities and the use of property within an area. The offence of failing to comply with a habitat conservation order (section 32), is not exempted by section 6A and continues to apply to traditional owners carrying out agreed activities on land to which an agreement applies under Part 6 of the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010. On their face, these powers may be seen to restrict the rights of Aboriginal persons to access natural resources which have a connection to traditional laws and customs. However, the Bill will provide at new section 28 that, prior to making a habitat conservation order in relation to critical habitat that is within the area of land subject to an agreement under Part 6 of the Traditional Owner Settlement Act, the Minister must not make that order unless the Secretary has taken all reasonable steps to reach agreement with the relevant traditional owner group entity on alternative measures for the conservation, protection or management of the critical habitat. Furthermore, clause 6 of the Bill provides for new decision making principles including the requirement that a decision, policy, program or process undertaken under the Principal Act gives proper consideration to the rights and interests of traditional owners by acknowledging the cultural and spiritual connections to land, biodiversity and resources through a relationship with country; by supporting participation in decision- making; and by facilitating access to biodiversity and providing opportunities for economic advancement.

BILLS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2271

Consequently, in applying critical habitat determinations and habitat conservation orders over land that may potentially restrict the cultural rights of Aboriginal persons the decision-maker will be required to give consideration to those rights and interests. In my opinion the Act’s offences and application of critical habitat determinations and habitat conservation orders do not unjustifiably limit the rights of Aboriginal persons to maintain their distinctive spiritual, material and economic relationship with the land and waters and other resources with which they have a connection under traditional laws and customs. Accordingly, the Bill is compatible with cultural rights under section 19 of the Charter. Property rights Section 20 of the Charter provides that a person must not be deprived of his or her property other than in accordance with law. This right requires that powers which authorise the deprivation of property are conferred by legislation or common law, are confined and structured rather than unclear, are accessible to the public, and are formulated precisely. Expansion of inspection and evidence gathering powers of authorised officers Clause 29 of the Bill amends authorised officers’ existing inspection and evidence gathering powers under section 57 of the Principal Act. These amendments empower an authorised officer to seize any thing found at the land, non-residential buildings or vehicles for the purpose of preventing its use in the contravention of the Principal Act, regulations and specified instruments, or preventing the concealment, loss or destruction of the thing. An authorised officer may also take samples of any thing found at the land, building or vehicle in respect of which the authorised officer suspects that there has been a contravention of the Principal Act or specified instrument. An authorised officer may only exercise these powers when doing so is necessary to investigate compliance with the Principal Act or relevant instruments. Further, under new section 57E, the authorised officer must provide a written receipt for the item seized and must take reasonable steps to return the item if the reason for its seizure no longer exists. As described above in relation to the right to privacy, the Bill strengthens the framework for obtaining and executing a search warrant for residential premises to ensure they are limited to appropriate circumstances. In my view, the powers of authorised officers are appropriately circumscribed to only permit seizure of items necessary to investigate compliance with the Principal Act, ensuring that the important conservation objectives of the Principal Act are protected. New section 57I also provides for the disposal or destruction of seized flora or fauna by order of a court, if the court is satisfied that the person was not authorised to possess the flora or fauna, or of any other thing if the owner of the thing cannot be found. Habitat conservation orders As outlined in relation to the freedom of movement above, habitat conservation orders may prohibit or restrict land use and development within a critical habitat, proposed critical habitat, or outside the relevant habitat if the land use or development is likely to adversely affect the habitat. To the extent that a habitat conservation order may apply to private property to limit a person’s property rights, any such limitation is reasonable and justified as this power is an appropriate management tool to ensure the protection of habitats essential to the survival of threatened species. Additionally, the Bill provides at new section 39 for compensation to be paid for financial loss suffered as a natural, direct and reasonable consequence of the making of the order where the order affects an existing use right under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 or an authority granted under another Act. These provisions do not infringe the right to property because any deprivation of property that may occur as result of making a habitat conservation order is clearly provided for by law and will occur for a legitimate purpose, being to achieve important conservation objectives. Accordingly, the Bill is compatible with the right to property under section 20 of the Charter. Right to be presumed innocent 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. This right is relevant where a provision shifts the burden of proof onto an accused in a criminal proceeding, so that the accused is required to prove matters to establish, or raise evidence to suggest, that they are not guilty of an offence. Evidentiary provisions relating to retention notices New section 57H, inserted by clause 30 of the Bill, sets out evidentiary presumptions in relation to retention notices that apply in any proceedings under the Principal Act. An authorised officer may, in circumstances

BILLS 2272 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019

specified in new section 57G, issue a retention notice requiring a person to keep a thing, and not dispose of or sell it. New section 57H provides that if a thing specified in such a notice is no longer in the specified person’s possession, that is evidence that the person has not complied with the notice. The section further provides that if a thing is specified in a notice as being in the possession of a particular person that is evidence that the thing was in the possession of that person. In my view, new section 57H will not lessen the burden of proof placed on the prosecution. The burden of proof remains on the prosecution to prove that the item subject to the retention order is no longer in a person’s possession, and that the retention order has not been complied with. Accordingly, in my view, new section 57H does not limit the right to be presumed innocent under section 25(1) of the Charter. Offences regarding restricted and protected flora The Bill will include several new offences in the Act which contain exceptions. However, since the exceptions to the offences must be disproved by the prosecution in order for the relevant offence to be proved, the offences do not place an evidential onus on a defendant to raise one of the exceptions. Clause 25 substitutes section 52 of the Principal Act and inserts new section 52A. Clause 22 substitutes section 47 of the Principal Act and inserts three new offences. These offences do not shift the burden of proof since the prosecution is required to prove all elements of the relevant offences, which includes proving that the exceptions in these offences do not apply. Accordingly, the Bill is compatible with the right to be presumed innocent under section 25 of the Charter. Hon. Lily D’Ambrosio, MP Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change Minister for Solar Homes

Second reading Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes) (10:58): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time. I ask that my second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard. Incorporated speech as follows: This Bill strengthens and modernises the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (the Act), delivering on the Government’s commitment to review the Act. The Bill amends the Act to ensure that it is stronger and can more effectively protect Victoria’s biodiversity in the face of existing and emerging threats such as climate change. The reforms in this Bill were first introduced into Parliament on 23 May 2018 but lapsed when Parliament was prorogued before the election. This Bill reintroduces substantively the same reforms, consistent with the Government’s ongoing commitment to ensure Victoria’s biodiversity is healthy, valued and actively cared for. Victoria’s natural environment is home to a special and unique blend of plants and animals. Many species and ecological communities only occur in this State. However, despite the best efforts of individuals, the community, non-government organisations and governments, Victorian native species continue to face significant pressures that threaten their survival. The vulnerability of our flora and fauna is only likely to increase as climate change affects our environment. In 1988 the Act established for the first time in legislation a clear commitment to the achievement of the conservation of our native species and was a landmark piece of conservation legislation. The Act was prepared in recognition by government that Victoria’s native species were in trouble and declining. The Act introduced ‘modern, efficient and effective management systems for the protection of the State’s native species, basic legal powers and a framework for public participation’ and, at the time, was transformative. The Act created the framework for strategies and approaches that remain relevant today. For example, the Act was more than just endangered species legislation and placed importance on prevention, to ensure more species did not become threatened in the future. The Act emphasised the importance of cooperative approaches to biodiversity conservation and recognised that all government agencies and the community need to participate in the conservation effort. As such, much of the Act’s architecture is still fit for purpose. Victoria’s continued decline in biodiversity can in part be attributed to a lack of implementation of this Act, rather than to deficiencies in its structure.

BILLS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2273

In the 30 years it has been in operation, however, the Act has not been comprehensively reviewed, and in parts, no longer reflects contemporary international and national approaches to biodiversity conservation. This Bill is not a reinvention of the Act but seeks to modernise it and revive its use. Where the Act’s existing tools are still appropriate, this Bill seeks to encourage their effective use and to create incentives for positive conservation action. The reforms in this Bill respect the aspiration of the original championing Act, but introduce contemporary practices in biodiversity management, regulation and government accountability. The development of this Bill was informed by community consultation and in 2017, the Government released the Review of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act—Consultation Paper for eight weeks of public comment. The public consultation period attracted significant community interest. Two hundred and ten written submissions were received from a broad range of stakeholders, including industry, local government, environment groups, public authorities and individuals. Since the introduction of the 2018 Bill, the Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability Victoria released the Victorian State of the Environment 2018 report. The report finds most biodiversity indicators are poor and trending downwards. Also released was the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (PIBES): Global assessment summary report on biodiversity and ecosystem services, which found similar trends occurring globally. What is clear is that business as usual will not adequately address threats to Victoria’s biodiversity. That is why, during the past four years, the Victorian Government has provided more than $149 million for the protection of Victoria’s biodiversity, including for initiatives that deliver on ground environmental action. Coupled with Protecting Victoria’s Environment—Biodiversity 2037 and new native vegetation clearing regulations, this Bill will give Victoria a modern and effective approach to protecting Victoria’s biodiversity. WHAT CHANGES WILL THE BILL MAKE? Part 1—Preliminary I now turn to the specific amendments which the Bill will make to the existing Parts of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. Section 4—Objectives of the Act Currently the Act contains a set of conservation management objectives. The scope of the objectives is broad: they relate to all indigenous flora and fauna in Victoria and not merely threatened species, as well as communities of flora and fauna, potentially threatening processes, and genetic diversity. The objectives have been updated to place greater emphasis on prevention and restoration. The first objective [section 4(a)] guaranteeing the survival of all Victoria’s flora and fauna has been retained, with minor modernising amendments. New objectives include: • To prevent indigenous taxa and communities of flora and fauna from becoming threatened and to recover threatened taxa and communities so their conservation status improves; • To identify and conserve areas of the State in respect of which critical habitat determinations are made. New Section 4A—Principles of the Act The Bill introduces a set of principles to guide the administration of the Act and direct decision makers to consider certain matters in exercising functions under the Act. They require that decision makers give proper consideration to the rights and interests of Traditional Owners, the potential impacts of climate change, public participation, supporting collaboration between government, the community and partner agencies, the precautionary principle and the best available information in the management of Victoria’s biodiversity. New Section 4B—Minister and public authorities to give proper consideration to the objectives and instruments made under the Act. The Act currently contains an obligation on public authorities to be administered so as to have regard to the flora and fauna conservation and management objectives (section 4(2)). The proposed Bill will provide greater clarity as to what is required, with a new provision that specifies the relevant considerations, consistent with the existing objectives, as well as any instruments made under the Act such as the Biodiversity Strategy, critical habitat determinations, action statements and management plans. The Bill will replace ‘have regard’ with ‘give proper consideration to’, which is reflected in other statutory obligations on public authorities, such as section 32 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities

BILLS 2274 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019

Act 2006. The Bill clarifies the obligations of public authorities under the Act by specifying relevant considerations and provides tools to guide and support public authorities in fulfilling the duty. These tools include: • Ministerial guidelines that can clarify the duty and define what is reasonably expected of public authorities when considering the obligations under the Act; • public authority management agreements which can combine a public authority’s biodiversity obligations under the Act into a single instrument, including permit requirements and obligations under section 4B; • powers for the Minister to request information from a public authority if there are concerns regarding the authority’s ability to fulfil their duty. Overall, the duty strengthens government leadership and accountability by encouraging consideration of biodiversity across government and by clarifying the existing requirement for public authorities to have regard to the objectives of the Act. Part 2—Administration Minor amendments have been proposed in the Part 2 of the Act, which relates to Administration. They include updating terminology introduced in the objectives and including references under the functions of the Secretary to the newly created principles. The membership of the Scientific Advisory Committee has increased from five members to a minimum of seven and a maximum of nine members. References to the Conservation Advisory Committee have been removed, as it has not been established for over 20 years. Part 3—Listing The Bill proposes to amend the Act to give effect to the Intergovernmental Memorandum of Understanding agreement on a national common assessment method for listing of threatened species and communities. This Bill does not change the Act’s current approach to listing threatened communities. Under the common assessment method, Victoria will manage a single list of threatened species in threat categories consistent with the Commonwealth Government and other States and Territories. Eligibility will be assessed initially on the basis of extinction risk in Australia. However, eligibility can be assessed on the basis of risk of extinction in Victoria in suitable circumstances. Provided that the Scientific Advisory Committee has had input into the process, assessments conducted by other jurisdictions, in accordance with the common assessment method, can bypass the need for a preliminary recommendation and the Scientific Advisory Committee can proceed to make a final recommendation. In order to maintain and ensure government accountability, a new provision has been created to ensure the Minister must, after any change to the threatened or processes list, ensure an up-to-date consolidated version of the list is published on the Department’s website as soon as practicable and that the lists are reviewed at intervals of no longer than 5 years. Part 4—Management processes The Bill maintains the Act’s requirement to prepare a Biodiversity Strategy which establishes proposals for achieving the objectives of the Act. The Bill provides that the existing Biodiversity Plan, Protecting Victoria’s Environment—Biodiversity 2037 will be taken to be the first Biodiversity Strategy. The Bill adds the requirement for the Strategy to contain targets to measure the achievement of the objectives and introduces a new framework for monitoring and evaluating implementation, which embeds key components of the existing plan into the Act. The Bill inserts a new obligation on the Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability to report on the progress of a Biodiversity Strategy in achieving its proposals and targets every five years and makes consequential amendments to the Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability Act 2003 to reflect this obligation. The Bill maintains the Act’s obligation on the Secretary to prepare an action statement for every listed species, community or potentially threating process as soon as possible after it is listed. The Bill also retains the Secretary’s power to determine that an area is critical habitat. Greater participation will be provided to landowners affected by determinations, underpinned by proportionate regulatory protection for these areas. The Bill inserts a new definition of critical habitat which clarifies and expands upon the current Act’s definition. Under the current Act, the Secretary may determine that the whole or any part or parts of the habitat of any taxon or community of flora or fauna is critical to the survival of that taxon or community. Establishing that any particular area of a taxon’s habitat is critical to its survival is scientifically challenging.

BILLS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2275

The Bill’s new definition of critical habitat includes any area that significantly contributes to the conservation in Victoria of a listed taxon or community of flora or fauna and includes an inclusive list of factors which may contribute to an area’s significance. Critical habitats may: • contain habitat that makes a significant contribution to the conservation in the State of any species or ecological communities listed as threatened under the Act, or is in the process of being listed as threatened under the Act (a preliminary recommendation must be made by the Scientific Advisory Committee before it is eligible); or • support ecological processes or ecological integrity that makes a significant contribution to the conservation in the State of any species or ecological communities listed as threatened under the Act. The Bill gives a greater role to the Scientific Advisory Committee in critical habitat determinations. The Scientific Advisory Committee may make a recommendation to the Secretary to make a critical habitat determination. In preparing a critical habitat determination, the Secretary must consult the Scientific Advisory Committee. The Secretary must give reasons to the Scientific Advisory Committee for a decision to propose—or not propose—a critical habitat determination following a recommendation. Once a critical habitat determination has been made, the Secretary must take all reasonable steps to enter into agreements with affected landowners or public authorities. The ability to prepare more detailed management plans for species, communities or potentially threatening processes that require particular attention will be maintained. A management plan must set out: • the way in which the objectives are to be implemented or promoted for the benefit of that species or community or the management of that threatening process; and • how the effectiveness of management activities will be assessed; and • the date by which the management plan is recommended for review by the Secretary. Circumstances in which a management plan must be prepared will be set out in Ministerial guidelines. Publication of a draft plan and public consultation will continue to apply to the making of management plans. Part 5—Conservation and control measures Under the current Act, critical habitat can be protected by the making of an Interim Conservation Order. The Bill proposes that an interim conservation order may have effect beyond the existing two-year limit, consistent with similar powers in New South Wales and Western Australia. The proposed new name for the order— ‘habitat conservation order’—reflects this move to longer term management. The Bill requires the Minister to consider whether to make a habitat conservation order within 2 years of the making of a critical habitat determination in relation to critically endangered flora or fauna, or communities of flora or fauna. The Minister must not make the order unless it is necessary to: • halt, prevent or repair damage to the critical habitat or proposed critical habitat; or • manage the critical habitat or proposed critical habitat to ensure its conservation or protection. Consistent with the current Act, the Minister may suspend a licence, permit or other authority issued under any other Act that permits the holder of the licence, permit or authority to act in contravention of a habitat conservation order. Habitat Conservation Orders may provide for: • the conservation, protection or management of flora, fauna, land or water within an area of critical habitat or proposed critical habitat; • a requirement for any person proposing to undertake any activity, land use or development within the critical habitat to obtain a permit from the Minister; • a power to enable the Secretary to undertake any actions or works to conserve, protect or manage the critical habitat or proposed critical habitat; • a requirement to repair any damage to the critical habitat or proposed critical habitat that has occurred since notice of the critical habitat or proposed critical habitat was given; • similar powers in respect of an area that is outside the critical habitat or proposed critical habitat without which actions are likely to adversely affect the critical habitat. Compensation will be available to a person who has an existing right under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 or an authority under another Act, and who is affected by a habitat conservation order, or a person

BILLS 2276 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019

with a licence, permit or other authority which has been suspended by the Minister. A person who has been affected by an order may also appeal to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal for review. Consultation and notice provisions will continue to apply to the making of orders. The Act continues to protect listed species and members of ecological communities and prohibit activities impacting on protected taxa without approval. Strict liability offences have been created to enable enforcement using infringement notices in future. The current Act enables flora that are not listed as threatened to be declared to be protected by order of the Governor in Council. This power has been used to manage flora at risk from commercial and personal use. Under the current Act, flora declared protected in this way are covered by the same offence as threatened flora. As a consequence, the same approval requirements apply to public works for non-threatened flora and threatened flora. With respect to non-threatened flora, this duplicates the role of the native vegetation clearing controls in the Victorian Planning Provisions. The Bill focusses the regulation of common, non-threatened flora on higher risk activities such as commercial harvesting and removes the existing overlap with native vegetation clearing controls. In order to facilitate this, the current list of protected flora will be reviewed. The Bill introduces a new “restricted use” category, which will apply to flora that are not listed as threatened, but may be at risk if commercial or personal use is not sustainably managed. Protection of threatened flora is retained. The Bill inserts a new exemption from the need for a permit to take protected flora for public authorities acting in accordance with a public authority management agreement under the Act. This can bring a public authority’s flora and fauna obligations under the Act (including its duty under section 4B) into one instrument, removing the need for individual approvals and significantly reducing regulatory burden, provided equivalent or improved ecological outcomes are achieved. The Bill maintains the Act’s exemption for taking protected flora from private land, for non-commercial purposes, and will clarify that private land excludes land owned by or vested in a public authority (consistent with the existing protected flora order of the Governor-in-Council). Part 6—General The current Act has been challenging to enforce. It lacks a range of enforcement tools that enable a tiered response based on the severity of the offence. The enforcement provisions, powers of authorised officers and penalties are out of date and do not match related legislation in Victoria and interstate. The Bill increases penalties so the Act provides an effective deterrent to breaches and is brought in line with other legislation in Victoria. The penalty for a number of offences will increase from a maximum of 50 penalty units to 240 penalty units, in line with related legislation such as the Wildlife Act 1975. Higher penalties will apply for body corporates. The Bill also strengthens the powers of authorised officers and introduces an enforceable undertaking regime. These amendments aim to bring the Act in line with other legislation in Victoria and with best practice enforcement frameworks. They will provide an effective deterrent to breaches of the Act. Conclusion In summary, this Bill reaffirms the Victorian Government’s commitment to guarantee the persistence of Victoria’s flora and fauna. It brings the Act in line with international best practice and enables greater protection for critical habitats. It re-establishes a modern framework for biodiversity protection and management in Victoria, supported by strong enforcement structures. I commend the Bill to the house. Ms McLEISH (Eildon) (10:58): I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. Ordered that debate be adjourned for two weeks. Debate adjourned until Wednesday, 3 July. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the Clerk. Ms Halfpenny: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I understood that it would be question time by now. Are you sure that it is not that? I thought we were going to questions. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is 25 seconds.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2277

Ms Halfpenny: Okay, all right. I suppose what I would like to talk about is that I just hope that this question time will be a question time that we can all listen to and hear the questions that are being answered and also work in a respectful way so that everybody has a chance to answer questions and also ask questions properly. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member would be aware that that is not a point of order. The time has come for me to interrupt business under sessional orders for questions without notice and ministers statements. Business interrupted under sessional orders. Questions without notice and ministers statements FINES VICTORIA Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (11:01): My question is to the Attorney- General. Yesterday, referring to the implementation of Fines Victoria by the Andrews Labor government, the Minister for Local Government, Adem Somyurek, said: If I can just say, the debacle and the bungle is a matter for the Attorney-General; it clearly sits within her portfolio. When will the Attorney-General fix this absolute debacle and bungle so rightly identified by her own colleague the Minister for Local Government? Ms HENNESSY (Altona—Attorney-General, Minister for Workplace Safety) (11:01): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. It is very clear that he is backing in Robert Clark as his new president of the Liberal Party, who was the architect of fines reform. There is no question that some parts of the IT system relating to Fines Victoria are falling short. I do not quibble with that whatsoever. The government has recently undertaken a review and is making some determinations in respect of how we move some of those challenges forward. Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (11:02): The Attorney-General’s own cabinet colleague has described her implementation of Fines Victoria as a debacle and a bungle. Hundreds of Victorians have had their drivers licences— Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Premier to assist with the smooth running of the house. Mr M O’BRIEN: Hundreds of Victorians have had their drivers licences wrongly suspended or been ordered to pay fines for offences they did not commit. Will the Attorney-General finally apologise to those Victorians who have suffered because of this debacle and bungle? Ms HENNESSY (Altona—Attorney-General, Minister for Workplace Safety) (11:03): Again, can I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Let me be absolutely clear that many challenges of the fines reform system have their genesis in the system that the other side of the house implemented. Having said that— Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Attorney-General to resume her seat. Before calling the Leader of the Nationals on a point of order, I warn members that the level of shouting across the chamber then was unacceptable. Members will be removed from the chamber without warning if there is that level of shouting during question time. Mr Walsh: On a point of order, Speaker, I would ask you to bring the member back to answering the question rather than debating the question. Sorry may be the hardest word to say, but it does not take very long if someone has got the courage to do it.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 2278 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019

The SPEAKER: Order! I do not uphold the point of order. Ms HENNESSY: I take no hesitation to apologise to any Victorian that has had a less than ideal experience with any element. Certainly there is absolutely no hesitation about government ensuring that people are better supported around having a system that is functional, so I do not have any hesitation whatsoever to apologise to anyone that has had a less than ideal experience. And I would say that that is in deep and dark contrast to Mr Side Letter over here, who has never apologised to Victorians for setting us up into a very expensive— (Time expired) MINISTERS STATEMENTS: PLASTIC BAG BAN Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes) (11:05): I rise to inform the house of the Andrews Labor government’s commitment to ban single-use, lightweight plastic bags. We are addressing our overuse of plastic bags. Victorians use over 1 billion of these plastic bags each and every year—that is 1 billion. The majority of these end up in landfill and around 10 million end up as litter, polluting our environment and endangering our wildlife. We know that this is simply not good enough, and that is why we are taking this action. Reducing the number of plastic bags we use is an important part of tackling the overall impact of plastic pollution in Victoria. We know Victorians want to do more to reduce plastic pollution. We received over 8000 submissions on this very question and more than 96 per cent—96 per cent—said yes, go ahead and do it. And that is what we are doing. We have worked very closely with the industry to ensure that they are prepared for the ban and that sustainable alternatives are available to them. We want to make this as easy as possible. We are also taking action to reduce other types of plastic pollution. That is why we are developing a plastic pollution action plan, and we will have more to say on that in due course. We will continue to work at a national level for a coordinated approach to ban thicker plastic bags, and work is underway on that. Plastic pollution is a significant environmental problem. The actions we take now will help ensure that we do have a clean and bright future. As promised, from 1 November this year, single-use, lightweight plastic bags will be banned here in Victoria. FINES VICTORIA Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (11:06): My question is to the Attorney-General. The Ombudsman found in an investigation into Fines Victoria that a grieving father was harassed over fines for his dead son despite the father providing Fines Victoria with a death certificate for his own son, who died in tragic circumstances. How many more letters, emails and phone calls do there have to be from members of Parliament to the Attorney-General on this debacle that is Fines Victoria before the Attorney-General will actually fix this mess? Ms HENNESSY (Altona—Attorney-General, Minister for Workplace Safety) (11:07): Can I thank the member for Caulfield for his question. The set of circumstances that the member outlines is clearly unacceptable, and it is clearly unacceptable that somebody has had that experience. As I said when I was answering the question from the Leader of the Opposition, we have recently undertaken a review of certain functionalities in regard to the system, and the government is currently making some decisions—and some of those decisions have commercial-in-confidence consequences. Those decisions clearly go to addressing the functionality to which the member for Caulfield’s question relates. Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (11:08): Given that the government has had an undertaking that Fines Victoria was meant to be fully operational by December 2017 and this entire debacle fixed by the end of June 2020, how many more times will the minister have to apologise before this bungle is resolved? Ms HENNESSY (Altona—Attorney-General, Minister for Workplace Safety) (11:08): Can I thank the member for Caulfield for his question. As I outlined when I responded to the Leader of the Opposition’s supplementary question in respect of his first question, the government—and certainly

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2279

I, as the Attorney-General—will always respond as compassionately as possible to anyone who has a less than ideal experience. In terms of the substantive issue to which the member for Caulfield’s question refers, as I said, the very important review that has been undertaken in respect of an element of that functionality is currently under consideration by the government. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: VICTIMS OF CRIME COMMISSIONER Mr CARROLL (Niddrie—Minister for Crime Prevention, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice, Minister for Victim Support) (11:09): As Victoria’s first Minister for Victim Support I am pleased to update the house on the appointment of Ms Fiona McCormack as the new victims of crime commissioner. First and foremost can I thank Mr Greg Davies for his service as Victoria’s first victims of crime commissioner. Mr Davies did express that his successor should have a history in dealing with family violence, and I think Fiona very much meets that. Mr Davies saw firsthand that some 50 per cent of applications to the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal are from family violence incidents. It remains the number one law and order issue in our state, and that is why we set up the royal commission, implementing all 227 recommendations, backed up by a record $2.8 billion investment. It is why we are getting on with the job with this appointment. Fiona McCormack has over 20 years experience dealing with victims of family violence, children at risk and members of the culturally and linguistically diverse community. I am very pleased that she will be a change maker, with decades of experience that will help us drive the change to put victims front and centre. I do want to quote the late Philip Cummins, a distinguished former Supreme Court judge and the inaugural chair of the Victims of Crime Consultative Committee, who said:

The even hand of justice requires that victims properly be acknowledged and properly be respected. I have every confidence that Fiona McCormack as the new victims of crime commissioner will fulfil that vision of Philip Cummins in supporting me, the Attorney-General, the family violence minister, the Premier and all members of our cabinet. She will be a wonderful voice for victims. I think she will be outstanding. The Andrews Labor government has enshrined her position in law as well as supporting the Victims of Crime Consultative Committee. I look forward to and I welcome this appointment. I think we have got an important reform area in supporting victims of crime. TIMBER INDUSTRY Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (11:11): My question is to the Premier. The former minister for innovation, Philip Dalidakis, was a champion of Victoria’s forest industries, having previously worked for the Victorian Association of Forest Industries. Was Mr Dalidakis supportive of the Andrews government’s policy to reduce native timber industry supply in Victoria, putting at risk 22 000 jobs associated with this industry? Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (11:11): I do thank the member for Murray Plains for his question about a former member of the government, his former employment and his views on matters of forestry policy. Anyway, the Leader of the National Party—the member for Murray Plains as he is probably more correctly addressed—understands the government’s policy settings in relation to forestry issues. There was a timber release plan; a decision was just made very recently by VicForests with full support from the government. As the member ought to know, the government did in fact take the extraordinary step of purchasing a mill so as to see that business grow and thrive. Members interjecting. Mr ANDREWS: Well, we know what those mill owners say about the member for Murray Plains. I could quote if you want, but it might be unparliamentary. I am not entirely sure where the questioner

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 2280 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019 is headed with this, but the government’s policy is set by members of the government. We wish former members of the government all the very best in the future. Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (11:12): Speaker, Philip Dalidakis publicly slighted the Premier by going to the Governor before informing him of his resignation. How can Victorians have confidence in the Premier’s support for the 22 000 jobs in the forest industry, when obviously Mr Dalidakis has clearly lost faith in the Premier’s leadership? Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (11:13): I do thank the questioner for his question. I just need a little moment to compose myself, so wounded am I by the attack from those opposite. The government has outlined its policy intentions in relation to forestry matters. I would just draw to the member for Murray Plains’s attention that that industry made their views on him very, very clear, and there is a bit that is not unparliamentary and therefore I will at least paraphrase it: they told anybody with an interest in their industry to never, ever deal with the member for Murray Plains. That is what they said about you. So again I am happy to be questioned on these matters. They have got a very clear view—crystal-clear—about the trustworthiness of those opposite. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: LITERACY AND NUMERACY RESOURCES Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education) (11:14): I rise to update the house on the Andrews Labor government’s investment in literacy and numeracy. Last year Victorian students achieved the state’s best-ever NAPLAN results in reading and numeracy in both primary and secondary schools. But our ambition in the Education State is to do even better. The improvements in literacy outcomes come off the back of the incredibly popular online Literacy Teaching Toolkit. With over 1.47 million hits on the website, it is the most viewed resource for teachers and parents. Building on this success, I can advise the house that we have now launched the new mathematics teaching toolkit for teachers, parents and even parliamentarians. No doubt it will be equally popular. The new numeracy toolkit will help apply mathematical principles to real-world examples. Students could, for example, learn to read budget papers. They could add up the last five budgets and find that the government has invested $5.6 billion in infrastructure. From this they could work out averages of over $1.1 billion in school infrastructure per year—three and a half times more on average compared to the previous government. It is about getting the basics right: when to add, when to subtract, how to divide. They could understand, for example, that when looking at this year’s 2019–20 expenditure on new output funding and last year’s 2019–20 allocation, you add the figures, not subtract. Students would find the answer is an additional $1.19 billion, not a reduction of $100 million. I highly recommend it. LATROBE VALLEY EMPLOYMENT Mr NORTHE (Morwell) (11:16): My question is for the Minister for Jobs, Innovation and Trade. Minister, as you would be aware, the closure of Hazelwood power station and the Carter Holt Harvey sawmill in Morwell has impacted the jobs and livelihoods of hundreds of local workers, contractors and local businesses. With regard to the current employment status of former Hazelwood and Carter Holt Harvey workers and contractors, I have been advised that 307 of these workers are now employed in casual positions, whilst a staggering 219 have been identified as looking for work. Part of the government’s response to Hazelwood closing was the establishment of a worker transfer scheme for a two-year period that provided an opportunity for former Hazelwood workers and contractors to transfer their employment to the three remaining power stations in the valley. So, Minister, can you advise if this worker transfer scheme is still operational, or has it now been closed? Mr PAKULA (Keysborough—Minister for Jobs, Innovation and Trade, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events, Minister for Racing) (11:17): I thank the member for Morwell for the question and for his ongoing interest in employment in the Latrobe Valley. As I think the member is aware, the Latrobe Valley Authority and the worker transition service that he refers to is within the responsibility

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2281 of the Minister for Regional Development, but I will provide him with as much information as I can in regard to the matters that he has raised. The worker transition service that he refers to, which as he correctly identifies was set up to assist not just those ex-workers from Hazelwood but those from Carter Holt Harvey, has so far engaged with some 729 clients affiliated with Hazelwood and 135 from Carter Holt Harvey, and 185 former Hazelwood workers and 34 Carter Holt Harvey employees are currently being assisted to find work. So on the information that has been provided to me by the Minister for Regional Development the substantive answer to the question is yes, it is still operational. I say all that in the context of the fact that there have been some 2000 new jobs created across the Latrobe Valley, including 170 at Greenham abattoir in Moe and indeed in regard to Toyota’s insurance underwriter, where there are 87 more professional services jobs which have also been created. Indeed the most recent figures would say that the unemployment rate in Gippsland is 3.5 per cent, as against a regional Victoria average of 4.2 per cent. A member: The question was about the Latrobe Valley. Mr PAKULA: Which I understand. The other point I would say to the member is that we have also commenced construction of the high- tech precinct in Morwell with a $17 million investment from the government. The Latrobe Valley Authority funding is ongoing; it is funded through to the end of June 2020. As the minister indicated during her presentation at the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, there are still funds remaining in the Latrobe Valley Authority fund. And whilst I recognise what the member has said in relation to the fact that a number of those people who have been employed are in casual roles, I would also indicate that, as the union movement and the labour movement more generally have been campaigning for more secure work, that is not an uncommon occurrence across the economy. But I would be more than happy to convey the balance of his question to the Minister for Regional Development if there is any other information she can provide. But in relation to the substantive part of his question it is my advice that the program is continuing. Mr NORTHE (Morwell) (11:20): Minister, on 1 May 2017, the then Minister for Industry and Employment by way of media release stated that the government’s worker transfer scheme would support the transfer of around 150 highly skilled Hazelwood workers so they can remain in the power industry. I am regularly contacted by former workers and contractors, many of whom are looking for work, working on a casual or part-time basis or even working outside the Latrobe Valley and Gippsland region, including in interstate locations. Many remain disappointed and frustrated that they have not had the opportunity to participate in the government’s worker transfer scheme. Minister, given there are nearly 220 former Hazelwood workers, contractors and Carter Holt Harvey employees who have been identified as looking for work, why have only approximately 90 of the promised 150 vacancies been filled under the worker transfer scheme? Mr PAKULA (Keysborough—Minister for Jobs, Innovation and Trade, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events, Minister for Racing) (11:21): I thank the member for his question. As I indicated in my substantive answer, the service that he refers to has engaged with some close to 900 workers when you combine the numbers from Hazelwood and Carter Holt Harvey. As I indicated, there have been 2000 new jobs created and there are over 200 former Hazelwood and Carter Holt Harvey employees being assisted through the program as we speak. Now, if the member has information that there are other workers from either of those two plants who are seeking support and are not receiving it— Mr Northe: On a point of order, Speaker, I appreciate the minister’s information, but my question was: there was a commitment made for 150 positions to be made available under the worker transfer

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 2282 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019 scheme and only 90 of those have been allocated at this point in time. Why haven’t the remaining 60 been committed to at this stage? The SPEAKER: Order! The minister is being relevant to the question that has been asked. The minister, to continue. Mr PAKULA: Well, in the 16 seconds remaining I would say to the member that in relation to either workers who are seeking assistance or who have not been assisted yet, I am sure the Minister for Regional Development would be happy to receive that information. As I indicated, the scheme is ongoing and there is more than a year of it remaining— (Time expired) MINISTERS STATEMENTS: NORTH EAST LINK Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure) (11:23): I am very pleased to rise today to update the house on how the Andrews Labor government is delivering yet another transport infrastructure project, this time the North East Link project, the biggest road project ever built in Victoria. As I made the observation I think during the last sitting week, the North East Link has been a project that has been talked about for decades. It has been talked about for a very long time, but it is only the Andrews Labor government that will deliver this project—a project that will slash travel times, get trucks off local roads and most importantly help Victorians get to where they want to go more quickly and easily. And do you know what? On top of all of this it is also going to create over 10 000 construction jobs—important jobs for our economy—as well as supporting the freight industry with a quicker and easier journey between the south-east of the city and the north and the road network. Today I am pleased to also provide some additional information on the progress to date of the environment effects statement process, which is currently underway—the very important independent planning process to help guide the delivery of this project. The public submission period that was extended for two weeks recently closed on 7 June, and more than 850 submissions were sent in to this process from a wide variety of groups. The detailed submissions come on top of the extensive community consultation that had already been undertaken, because building such a big and large project through a built-up area does take a lot of work, presents some challenges, presents some issues, but do you know what? We are going to work with the community on those issues, which is why we have been very keen to hear from them as we get on and deliver this big and important road infrastructure project that is also going to provide extra capacity on the Eastern Freeway, which means reduced congestion and reduced travel times. This is the Andrews Labor government getting it done. TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (11:25): My question is to the Premier. Under this government there have been a number of significant cost blowouts on major projects. The cost of level crossing removals has already blown out by over $3 billion, according to the Auditor- General. The Melbourne Metro Tunnel has blown out by over $2 billion. Now John Setka and his CFMMEU are going to start a demarcation war with other unions. Given the enormous risk that this poses to Victorian taxpayers through even more cost blowouts and delays, what action will the Premier take to stop this from happening? Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (11:25): I do thank the Leader of the Opposition for asking me about the biggest infrastructure agenda the state has ever seen. I do not often dispense advice but, gee, I hope you ask me about infrastructure every single day until the end of November in 2022—I really do. Level crossing removals—I am asked about level crossing removals. We promised 20 would be gone. How many are gone? Members interjecting. Mr ANDREWS: Twenty-nine; that is exactly right. What is more, while the opportunity presented we upgraded track, we upgraded signalling, we upgraded power supply and we built brand-new

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2283 stations, none of which were included in the original commitments that we made. Gee! Well, you know, they are opposed to doing that sort of work. On this side of the house we are particularly proud to take extra opportunities during a once-in-a-generation investment in getting rid of dangerous and congested level crossings that are holding us back from running more trains more often. You asked the question. Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, the question was about the demarcation war that John Setka is now threatening and what action the Premier is going to take to protect Victorian taxpayers from the effects of that. I ask you to bring him back to answering the question. The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier is being relevant to the question asked. Mr ANDREWS: I was then asked about the Metro Tunnel, and there are some people who have been opposed at every single stage. Not content to have sat there and admired it gathering dust as a plan on the shelf for four years, they have then used every tactic with their usual unsuccessful brilliance to try and stop that project. Well, it is powering ahead. It is ahead of time. It is creating jobs. It is taking the busiest line out of the city loop— Mr Wakeling: Why won’t you mention his name? John Setka. Mr ANDREWS: It is very clear you could not get a question up today. Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: The member for Essendon and the member for Ferntree Gully are warned. Mr ANDREWS: Anyway, there are some who very loudly oppose the Metro Tunnel. This government is delivering it. Members interjecting. Mr ANDREWS: You asked me about these projects. Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, if the Premier is not prepared to deal with this serious issue about a demarcation war on Victoria’s building sites, he should just sit down. But otherwise Victorians are entitled to an answer. The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr ANDREWS: I would again advise the Leader of the Opposition: do not hold your breath waiting for us to take advice on infrastructure delivery from you. You sat down, all right. You sat down and did nothing for four years—a holiday from hard work for four years, where days lost to industrial action were— Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will not respond to interjections. Mr ANDREWS: It would be disorderly to respond to interjections. But the history of the state shows that those opposite, who are Eddie the Expert today, when they had the opportunity did not build a thing, did not do a thing. They are now apparently the font of all knowledge and wisdom when it comes to the delivery of infrastructure. Well, I do not concur with the conclusions that the Leader of the Opposition has drawn on each of the projects he listed. We will continue to deliver the projects that are so important for our state. That is what we said we would do, and we are getting on with it. Mr Edbrooke interjected. The SPEAKER: I warn the member for Frankston.

CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS 2284 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019

Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (11:29): Death threats, assaults and the use of standover tactics by bikie gangs have all been features of union demarcation disputes in this state. What guarantee will the Premier give that people who work on these projects will be protected from this union thuggery? Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (11:30): Of course the record resources we provide to Victoria Police is directly on point to the notion of dealing with any potential criminal activity. So I would refer the Leader of the Opposition to the fact that the law applies equally and Victoria Police have never had more resources to enforce it. Also, directly to the issue of industrial disputation and unrest on any site, I would draw the Leader of the Opposition’s attention—surely, he must have been aware of this when he asked his question—to the working days lost through industrial action under those opposite, which reached 19 days per 1000 employees. In the current figures, the latest I have to hand for the March quarter, it was less than one day per 1000 employees. Not only will I not be lectured on infrastructure delivery from people who did not deliver any, I will not be lectured on industrial disputation from those who managed on the few projects they did get away nothing but chaos. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME Mr DONNELLAN (Narre Warren North—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers) (11:31): I rise to update the house on the government’s signing of the new national disability insurance scheme (NDIS) bilateral agreement on Monday. This will very much provide certainty to the 105 000 people in this scheme once it is fully rolled out, including Victoria’s $2.5 billion contribution. As we have indicated to the commonwealth, it is not perfect but it is certainly an improvement on what they were suggesting earlier on in signing the bilateral agreement. There has very much been movement at the station. If you look at the changes, the Morrison government wanted to use accumulated funds potentially as their future contribution, but we have got that quarantined for use in disability services. They have also agreed to look at patients who are in the hospital system who are approved for the NDIS but cannot get out to actually move that along, and I thank the Premier and the Prime Minister for dealing with that. There are children with severe disabilities who are voluntarily relinquished into the care of the state, and the Prime Minister and the federal minister himself have indicated they will also work on that. So that is very much an improvement in the outcome for those with disabilities. But like a lumberjack, there is a lot more work to do; there is always another log to cut, like ensuring— let us be very clear—that the commonwealth gets independent monitoring and independent pricing so we know what is going on. We also want to see that there is going to be more transparency in relation to the commonwealth government’s contribution. So I want to give a jodel out to the new minister, Stuart Robert, for his preparedness to put improvements into the scheme. He is a good listener, as the Urban Dictionary would say. I notice there was a bit of jodelling going on at the weekend at the Liberal Party state conference, for the hyperlocal love fest. They jodelled Robert Clark through a farrago of factions into the president’s role. They jodelled on the special dress and the attire of the member for Brighton, and they jodelled about their favourite food, a curry. Constituency questions BRIGHTON ELECTORATE Mr NEWBURY (Brighton) (11:33): (803) My constituency question is for the Minister for Education, and I ask the minister whether this government has a secret plan to close Elwood-based Lady Forster Kindergarten by not renewing its lease. Lady Forster Kindergarten is a special kindergarten located on the Elwood foreshore. It celebrates its 95th anniversary this year. Lady Forster is also unique in that it is located on the beach. Lady Forster is an integrated part of the Elwood

CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2285 community and also delivers an exceptional program through its coastal curriculum, where children learn about Port Phillip Bay and the foreshore ecosystem. The kindergarten is an integral and much-loved part of my community, and it is unthinkable that the government could be planning on shutting the doors on the kindergarten and the hundreds of Elwood families it services. I look forward to the minister’s response. ST ALBANS ELECTORATE Ms SULEYMAN (St Albans) (11:34): (804) My constituency question is for the Minister for Roads. What is the latest information on implementing safety measures along Ballarat Road in Sunshine at the intersections of Perth Avenue, Adelaide Street, Chatsworth Avenue and Reid Street? This has been an ongoing concern for my residents, particularly in Albion, Ardeer and Sunshine. For a number of years many locals have expressed their concerns. We have seen the VicRoads investigation into installing traffic lights at these three intersections. Recently we had a fatality along Ballarat Road. As many people would be aware, Ballarat Road is not just a local road, it is actually a freeway, and quite frankly these four intersections need some form of safety measures. Installing traffic signalling and safe pedestrian crossings would be the solution that the residents are calling for. I would like to commend Perth Avenue residents and in particular residents of Federation retirement village who tomorrow will be protesting and putting awareness on this issue. GIPPSLAND SOUTH ELECTORATE Mr D O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (11:35): (805) My question is to the Minister for Agriculture. I want to ask: when will the minister introduce rate relief for drought-affected farmers in Central Gippsland, particularly on their municipal rates? I know my colleagues in the north are interested in support for farmers on their water rates as well. The drought in Central Gippsland is now into its third year in some parts of my electorate. There has been some recent rain in some of the worst hit areas— May had at least average rainfall, which was a good sign—but it is clear that the drought is far from over and that it is still hurting many of our farmers. The context at the moment of course is also the recent sending out of land valuations. This has seen a flood of complaints come through to me and also to the local media on the increase in valuations, particularly of farmland. There is significant concern about the increase, why it has happened and of course the subsequent rate increases. MACEDON ELECTORATE Ms THOMAS (Macedon) (11:36): (806) My constituency question is for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change. Minister, with $3 million allocated in this year’s budget for the implementation of the Hanging Rock Strategic Plan, can you advise what the next steps are to deliver on the Andrews Labor government’s commitment to purchase the East Paddock site to make sure the area and its superb views of Hanging Rock are protected into the future and to fast-track priority actions outlined in the plan, including new environmental protections, greater recognition of the rock’s Aboriginal cultural significance and enhancing recreation opportunities for local families and visitors? On behalf of my community I look forward to your response. SOUTH-WEST COAST ELECTORATE Ms BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (11:37): (807) My question is to the Minister for Public Transport, and I seek information about when people living with a disability can expect to be able to access facilities at the Warrnambool railway station and on the Warrnambool train. Minister, there have been several incidents I have made you aware of, of people in wheelchairs and with other mobility aids who have not been able to access the disabled toilets at the station, and often the disability access and toilets are restricted on the train. One recent example involved a passenger using a mobility scooter becoming stuck in the door of the toilet in the station building because it was not up to acceptable standards and then not being able to board the train because there was not an appropriate ramp available. So, Minister, when will people with a disability have the dignity of being able to access facilities on public transport networks in our region?

CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS 2286 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019

WENDOUREE ELECTORATE Ms ADDISON (Wendouree) (11:38): (808) My question for the Minister for Roads in the other place is about three upgrades to Sturt Street west intersections adjacent to a number of schools in my electorate of Wendouree. There are plans are to upgrade the Sturt Street and Wanliss Road intersection in Newington between Ballarat Clarendon College and St Patrick’s College; the Sturt, Russell and Morrison streets intersection in Newington near Loreto College; and the Sturt and Longley streets intersection in Alfredton opposite Ballarat High School. Minister, how will the upgrades to multiple intersections on Sturt Street near a number of schools improve road safety for students, parents, teachers and the broader community? I would also like to thank the Minister for Roads for the installation of electronic speed signs on Howitt Street outside Wendouree Primary School, on Forest Street out the front of Ballarat Grammar School and on Doveton Street outside Dana Street Primary School. I am also pleased that electronic speed signs will be installed out the front of Alfredton Primary School and my old school, St Thomas More Primary School. PRAHRAN ELECTORATE Mr HIBBINS (Prahran) (11:39): (809) My constituency question is for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, and I ask again: what is the latest information and time line on the South Yarra station upgrade and master plan? In response to my previous question the minister stated that work would commence this year and that there had been widespread consultation. However, we had to find out in the recent budget that the time line for completion has been pushed out by half a year to halfway through next year due to contractual lease negotiations. The original South Yarra station master plan project time line had the release of the draft master plan to the community set for early 2019; it is now June, with no draft master plan. Minister, what is the latest information on these two important projects? With 28 000 people using the station every day and growing population growth right next door to the station, it is really important that the community is kept informed and that South Yarra station gets the upgrades that it needs as soon as possible. IVANHOE ELECTORATE Mr CARBINES (Ivanhoe) (11:40): (810) My constituency question is to the Minister for Housing, and I seek updated information from the minister regarding the replacement of gas heaters in public housing properties in my electorate of Ivanhoe. These are particular gas heater models that were identified as a health risk in past Coroners Court inquiries, with recommendations that they be replaced. The 3081 postcode of Belfield, Heidelberg Heights and West Heidelberg in my electorate of course has very significant public housing tenancies. I know that the program has been effective in the rollout of replacement gas heaters where those models have been identified, but as winter is now well and truly back with us I want to be assured that that rollout has concluded. I look forward to the updated information from the minister with regard to the rollout of that replacement program. SANDRINGHAM ELECTORATE Mr ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (11:41): (811) My question is to the Minister for Transport Infrastructure. On the Level Crossing Removal Project website it states that ‘Feedback and ideas from the community will be presented at the Group’s meetings as designs are developed’. It further states ‘local traders and businesses to help shape the Project’. My question to the minister is: how does the Andrews Labor government intend to implement the requests of Mentone traders into the current station designs? Last Monday I once again met with Mentone traders, and they told me that they do not want the entrance of Mentone station moved 200 metres away from the current entrance location. They further told me that they require additional car parking within the existing station precinct and not simply a commitment to replace car parks like-for-like in and around the Mentone area. It is critically important

BILLS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2287 that these requests of Mentone traders be met, otherwise it will affect the viability of local businesses in that area in the future. PASCOE VALE ELECTORATE Ms BLANDTHORN (Pascoe Vale) (11:42): (812) My constituency question is for the Minister for Jobs, Innovation and Trade, and the question I ask is: what supports are available for manufacturers in the Pascoe Vale electorate to boost their innovative capability and potential for continued growth in their industry? The area that I represent has over time seen a big shift in, I guess, large-scale manufacturing to smaller scale manufacturing, and there are a number of companies particularly across the Coburg North area that have made this transition or have been operating in our community for some time. In particular I would like to acknowledge Posture Balance, which is a small company located in Coburg North that designs and develops specialised ergonomic seating and accessories, and it is one of the last remaining manufacturers in Australia able to produce customised chairs for people of varying weights and heights. Posture Balance has even made the chairs that our colleagues sit on in the other place, and their chairs are found in numerous places, including the Department of Defence. Bills LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SOUTH GIPPSLAND SHIRE COUNCIL) BILL 2019 Second reading Debate resumed on motion of Ms KAIROUZ: That this bill be now read a second time. Mr T SMITH (Kew) (11:43): It is, I suppose, an unfortunate situation we find ourselves in today, but it is the coalition’s position that we will support the government’s decision to dismiss the South Gippsland Shire Council. This council has been dysfunctional for quite some time. I appreciated very much the briefing that I received with the member for Gippsland South and the Leader of the Opposition in the other place yesterday from former Justice Vincent, who chaired the commission of inquiry into South Gippsland Shire Council. This report has only been tabled this morning in the Parliament. I understand that there are some time frame constraints and that is why it was brought forward from the original plan to table this on Thursday and to introduce the bill on Thursday, but I am not quibbling over that. It is simply a fact that I have not had the opportunity to go through this report in the detail I would have liked. But from the briefing that I received from former Justice Vincent—and I was very impressed by the thoroughness of the briefing, and I put on record my thanks to Minister Somyurek’s office for facilitating that in the speedy way that that occurred from Monday night onwards—we have no qualms with what has been proposed. We have no qualms at all with the time frame. It is proposed that this council will be under administrators until October 2021. Initially I raised concerns with regard to why it was not simply dismissed until the council elections, which are due next year, but Mr Vincent essentially suggested that this council requires more time to get its act together. Now, if I can read from the executive summary of Mr Vincent’s report:

A Municipal Monitor was appointed in June 2018 to advise and provide assistance to the Council on a range of matters including meeting procedures and decision-making, management of confidential information, interactions between councillors and between councillors and staff and any other governance issues identified. The Municipal Monitor provided a final report to the Minister for Local Government (the Minister) on 21 March 2019 in which he noted the Council was not able to provide good government to the municipality, due to the behaviours of, and conflict between councillors. He therefore recommended the Minister consider suspending the Council and require the councillors to undertake governance training. The minister subsequently appointed a commission of inquiry, which commenced on 21 May 2019. In this report Mr Vincent and his fellow commissioners observed that:

BILLS 2288 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019

There has been a high level of tension, discord and conflict between the councillors elected in 2016. The motivations for individuals involved are irrelevant to this basic fact. He went on to say: This conflict has had a detrimental impact on decision-making by councillors. This is both in relation to long term strategic decisions critical to the sustainability of the Council as well as decisions on potentially controversial issues. Most importantly: The resignations of four councillors for reasons associated with the conflict and their replacement by new councillors, along with replacement of another councillor who resigned for different reasons, means the Council as presently constituted does not reflect a high level of community support when considering votes cast in the 2016 election. While of itself this would not justify intervention, it does weaken the current Council’s legitimacy as a truly representative body. In our view— that is the commissioners’ view— it can legitimately be taken into account against the background of ongoing conflict and disharmony on the Council that is inextricably linked to four of those resignations. It is our view that the underlying tensions between councillors and poor decision-making process are continuing. Hence it was the decision of the commissioners to recommend dismissal. My friend the member for Gippsland South has kept me apprised of developments in the council over the last couple of months. There was a community meeting where some 400 locals turned up and expressed their desire that this council be dismissed. I do not think anyone in this place wants to sack democratically elected councillors—or anyone else for that matter—without serious cause to do so in the public interest, and I am persuaded this piece of work by a very eminent former judge has ensured that I have confidence that what the government has decided to do here is actually in the best interests of the people of South Gippsland. I am a former mayor and councillor. Councils are very important to the provision of services in Victoria, but they should never be platforms for councillors to behave in reckless and, frankly, stupid ways. This complete dysfunction that we have seen in South Gippsland is yet another litany of clown hall behaviours that ratepayers around Victoria are absolutely sick to death of. Councils, as I said, perform a very important role: local service provision, infrastructure and the like. They implement well over 100 acts of this Parliament. But just because councils are elected and have some mandate to govern in the areas for which they are given responsibility by this place, it does not give them the opportunity—or does not give them the right, shall I say—to behave in a way that is detrimental to the public good but most importantly to what they are constitutionally there to do. I will say very briefly that the new local government bill that the minister flagged on Monday will be introduced sometime later this year and the reform paper that he put out certainly provided aspects of bipartisanship that we would be happy to support. But I would like to see a far stronger response from this government on specifically curtailing the opportunity for councillors to spend ratepayers money on campaigns for which they have absolutely zero constitutional responsibility, whether that be advocating for nuclear disarmament or the republic or any other global or national political issue. They may well have those views and they can express them as much as any other citizen of this country, but they should not be able—in fact they must not be able—to use ratepayers money to further their own niche issues. The Australia Day controversy, particularly in inner urban councils of recent times, has certainly shown the disconnect from what mainstream Melburnians—indeed Victorians—want to see from their local councils, which is focusing on rubbish, roads and keeping their rates as low as possible. I make this point very clearly to councils around Victoria: stick to the basics, stick to your knitting and be cognisant of what you are there to do, which is to provide services to your local community. Do not interfere in national or global social or political issues. Do not behave in a way, such as we have

BILLS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2289 seen here in South Gippsland, that is reckless, that is, frankly, silly and that has ensured that the state government has stepped in to dismiss them. I will wind up my comments there because I understand the member for South Gippsland wishes to make a contribution but, again, I support this bill and I hope for its speedy passage through this place. Mr D O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (11:52): I rise to speak on this legislation with a heavy heart but also a sense of relief. I have a heavy heart because I do not think any of us in this place ever wants to be removing elected councillors or anyone from elected democratic positions, but I have a sense of relief because this circus has been going on for far too long—for many years. Indeed it dates back to prior to the 2016 council elections. There was similar conflict in the previous council, although it certainly has been exacerbated since the 2016 election. On the issue of having a heavy heart about removing an elected council, the fact that we have had six councillors resign now out of nine does bring into question the democratically elected nature of this council, particularly when a number of those councillors were actually not the second choice of the people but the third or fourth. That is the case when it came to filling casual vacancies on a countback a number of the councillors who would otherwise have been elected declined to take up the opportunity because of what had been cited as the bullying, dysfunction and poor governance in the council. So the issue is, yes, it is a democratically elected council in principle, but in fact it is not representing fully the wishes of the people at the election in 2016. That is a sad state of affairs, and it has therefore brought the minister and the government to the position that the Parliament is dealing with today, a position, as the member for Kew pointed out, we fully support and I certainly fully support. I said way back in March when the third and fourth councillors resigned that if their allegations about bullying and intimidation and poor governance were substantiated by the monitor and then subsequently a commission of inquiry then the council should be sacked. I stand here today feeling no vindication, but certainly those allegations made by the departing councillors have been substantiated by the monitor and further by the commission of inquiry. The community view, in my view, is overwhelming, and they will support this decision today to dismiss this council. It is not unanimous—that is clear. There is certainly a strong but small group that has supported what has been happening at the council and will not be happy with the dismissal of an elected body, but we had in March 400 people turn up to a meeting in Leongatha. Again, it was not unanimous, but probably 90 per cent or 95 per cent of the people in attendance voted in favour of asking the minister to dismiss the council. At the same time, there was a poll on the Facebook page of the Star, our local newspaper, where over 1000 people voted, and 96 per cent of them voted in favour of the dismissal of the council. Now, I do not suggest for a minute that that is scientific, but it gives an overview of what people were thinking in the South Gippsland community, and indeed it is consistent with the feedback that I get from people day to day. They are just fed up with it; they have had enough. I want to just go to a couple of the comments by and recommendations of the monitor and the commission of inquiry. The monitor found a number of things, which are now in the public domain. As the member for Kew said, we have only just had a few moments to read them, but the monitor found that: The Council is performing poorly against the following pillars: Direction and Leadership; Culture and Behaviour; and Decision Making. He notes on page 3: I have serious concerns about individual Councillors repeatedly seeking to revisit and overturn Council decisions without authority from the Council, and in my view, in the pursuit of individual agendas and ‘pet interests’.

BILLS 2290 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019

That is a significant concern. He notes on page 7 that: … one Councillor is currently the subject of measures to limit direct contact with all staff except the CEO after an internal investigation substantiated staff complaints against the Councillor. That was written back in March–April. I think that issue has moved on, but that is a significant concern. Then with respect to the council’s behaviour with each other, he notes again on page 7, towards the bottom: … intimidating and/or disrespectful behaviours are commonplace as are long email threads of ‘tit for tat’, accusatorial messages. We have seen that also play out, and I think the report goes on to mention that it has also been in the papers, so that is a concern. That was all the report of the monitor. Since the report of the monitor in April and the recommendation to suspend the council, we had significant behaviour that alarmed me significantly and no doubt the minister as well. Indeed the minister therefore called the commission of inquiry. My particular concern was with respect to the appointment process for the reappointment or otherwise of the CEO, and as it turned out for an acting CEO position. The decision of the council to rush that, to reject the application of the incumbent, Tim Tamlin, when he was the only applicant, and then rush through an appointment for an acting CEO within a week or so, I think for me was the straw that broke the camel’s back and I think for the minister as well. On the commission of inquiry, as the member for Kew did, I thank Judge Frank Vincent and the minister’s office and the department for facilitating the briefing we had with Judge Vincent yesterday. I also acknowledge and thank the minister and his office for keeping me informed of the process and allowing me to have my say on behalf of the community as well. Judge Vincent noted, with respect to the CEO appointment, a number of concerns, including:

… late compliance with the performance review requirements in the existing CEO contract; a remarkable number of meetings—eleven—required, inadequacy of the existing Performance indicators as a basis to carry out a comprehensive review of the current CEO’s contract, public comments by the mayor during the CEO contract renewal decision process, a limited call for internal applicants for the position of Acting CEO, inadequate time for councillors to consider applications for the Acting CEO position, and failure to fully deal with the appointment of the Acting CEO in camera. As I said, they were the concerns that really got me worried. They were the straw that broke the camel’s back. At this point I would like to acknowledge the contribution of Tim Tamlin, who is still technically the CEO at the moment; I think he has his last day on Friday. He has shown remarkable resilience through a very, very difficult time for a CEO, as is evidenced by the reports of the monitor and the commission of inquiry. While I would never say everything is perfect at the council, and I get plenty of complaints about management and what is happening with the council and the shire staff, Tim has done a generally good job, and that is actually acknowledged in these reports. I also recognise the staff, who have been subject to a very difficult time, because many people in the community do not differentiate between the councillors and the staff themselves. I know there has been huge pressure on them and they have copped a fair bit from the community when it has actually been about the behaviour of the councillors. As the commission of inquiry has not, I do not want to make personal comments about any of the particular councillors, but I do want to comment on the mayor’s behaviour and approach to this over the last couple of months. It has been rather Orwellian in his denials of there being any problem. He has constantly told the community through the press, through his own statements and through the mayoral statement in the local papers that the council is performing well and effectively. That was in

BILLS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2291 the face of huge evidence publicly suggesting otherwise, but until we had the monitor’s report and the commission of inquiry report, we did not have official confirmation of that. For the mayor to be continually saying that there was not a problem brought to mind the man who was referred to as Comical Ali in the Iraq War who, as the allied forces were literally at the gates of Baghdad, was still saying a great victory was at hand. The mayor’s comments were totally implausible, and he was clearly in denial. I hope for everyone’s sake that he now accepts the monitor’s report and the commissioners’ report and the decision of this Parliament, apologises and moves on. I also understand this is not the end and that the local government inspectorate has a number of ongoing investigations, so I look forward to those being resolved. But once they are, and over the next couple of years, we have time to heal and move on, so now is the time to start doing that. I send a message out now to the good people of South Gippsland to start considering who they would like to be their councillors in 2021. I think there are some fantastic people who have a lot to offer to our community, and I encourage people to now start considering putting their hand up. We have a wonderful region. It is a beautiful region. It is a highly productive shire. It does have a very good future, it is very well placed going towards the future and I think it will do well. We need to get over this little hump, but I think it has a good future. It needs good people to run it from 2021, and I look forward to being part of that future and working with the new council when it is elected. Motion agreed to. Read second time; by leave, proceeded to third reading. Third reading Motion agreed to. Read third time. The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Spence): The bill will now be sent to the Legislative Council and their agreement requested. ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TREATMENT AMENDMENT (CONSENT) BILL 2019 Second reading Debate resumed on motion of Mr FOLEY: That this bill be now read a second time. Ms KEALY (Lowan) (12:03): It is a privilege, as it always is in this place, to speak on the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Amendment (Consent) Bill 2019. There has been much discussion around this. In terms of the purpose of the bill, I think it is something that most people would support, which is in relation to amending the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 to ensure that a married woman is not required to obtain the consent of her spouse to undergo a treatment procedure using donor sperm in circumstances where the woman has separated from her spouse; to making consequential and other amendments to the Status of Children Act 1974; and for other purposes. On a first reading of this bill and the statements around it, it sounds extremely positive, and of course we should be supporting women to not have to receive permission from their ex-spouse when they are seeking to undertake assisted reproductive treatment. I will raise some other concerns that we have around the structure of this bill and the drafting of this bill. There are significant concerns that we have. I will outline the concerns which have been raised with us—the Liberals and The Nationals—by private assisted reproductive treatment (ART) providers in Victoria. They are deeply concerned about how some of this legislation may be interpreted. As I outline these concerns to the Parliament, I would ask that the minister take these concerns on board and that they do consider it quite carefully and seriously because there may be extraordinarily serious unwanted impacts on the access to and discrimination around assisted reproductive treatment,

BILLS 2292 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019 which may be quite deleterious. In my view, these are issues that must be addressed before this bill is taken to the Legislative Council, and therefore I would ask that there is special attention given to that. Further, I ask that the government and their advisers take additional steps to provide consultation to this important sector, the private sector, that undertakes about 30 000 cycles of treatment every year. It is important that these people are consulted because they are wise, they are experienced and the concerns that they have raised over the limited time we have had to be able to scrutinise the bill really do raise a number of concerns not just with me but within the sector also. It is at the outset something I put forward, and I ask that you not only take the comments I relate through my contribution today on board but that the government also does take the necessary steps, which I believe they should have taken before bringing this legislation forward, which is to consult with the 25 private providers of assisted reproductive treatment in Victoria. Just as a bit of background, this bill largely originates from the outcome of the Federal Court of Australia case EHT18 v. Melbourne IVF [2018] FCA 1421. In this instance, the Federal Court ruled in favour of allowing a woman to undergo in-vitro fertilisation to become pregnant using her own eggs and donor sperm. As it stands, the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 prohibits any such procedure being provided to a woman who is married unless her husband consents. This is where the problem arises, in that if you are separated, under legal interpretation you are still married, and therefore you would require that consent by the partner. However, the way that this bill has been drafted, this has not been simply undone. It is such a complex piece of legislation and has an enormous impact on so many other acts at a state and federal level that any small amendments may seem like they are small amendments, but they have enormous consequential effects through access and discrimination in other aspects of the interpretation of the associated relevant legislation. The bill wants to make it so that if a woman has separated from her spouse but is not divorced she will be able to go ahead with the IVF process without spousal consent. I would like to absolutely endorse the view that that should be the case. That is something that I think it would be difficult to argue in this day and age should not be in legislation, and we do need to make sure that those changes are put in place. However, we need to make sure we get it right because there is a huge impact in reading through the concerns from people involved in this industry, and I would ask that the government do consider pulling this bill and making some amendments before they take it further through the legislative process. The main provision of this bill is to prescribe that a woman who is separated from her spouse, irrespective of gender, is able to undergo assisted reproductive treatment without the consent of her spouse and that any child born of the assisted reproductive treatment is not considered a child of the spouse for the purposes of the Status of Children Act 1974. I note that there is a really interesting case which has just been published on the Australian website today in relation to a High Court ruling, where a sperm donor who has been involved in the parenting of a child donated their sperm to a friend of 25 years who was in a same-sex relationship. They had a relationship with that child over the year and contributed to the upbringing and the cost of raising that child. The High Court has actually determined that the sperm donor has a parenting right to that child. It does change considerably not just the interpretation of the legislation that is before us today but also how this may be interpreted into the future, in that if sperm donors are involved in the child’s life it is impossible to exclude them from parenting rights. This is a significant and complex area. Obviously it is extraordinarily emotive as well. I have friends who have undertaken surrogacy, who have undertaken IVF, and not only is it an enormous cost burden, it is extraordinarily draining and challenging for all involved—the feelings of failure for either parent involved in the situation. I have a friend who went into early menopause in her early 20s and was fortunately the recipient of some donor eggs. She now has three gorgeous little boys, and she raises them like the best mother that you could ever imagine.

BILLS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2293

I have friends who have gone through the very stressful process of not just IVF but also going through surrogacy procedures. It is so draining, and there are so many regulatory steps, which are necessary but are very challenging for couples going through that, whether it is the surrogate couple or the couple involved in the pregnancy. It is a tough, tough challenge, and my thoughts and my heart go out to all families who are involved, because you spend so much time in your life trying to avoid getting pregnant and then when you cannot get pregnant it can be an extraordinary psychological blow for couples. I would now like to move on to the areas of concern regarding the bill, and these are concerns which have been raised by private providers. Again, I emphasise that it is important that these groups are consulted. I would have thought they should have been consulted before the legislation was brought forth, particularly as it is so complex. These are people with expertise in the area, and because it is already a legally complex area, I think they should have been top of the list in consultation. Therefore again I urge the government to undertake that consultation and to meet with these groups to work through these issues and commit to undertaking any amendments that are required to the legislation that has been put forward to this house before it goes through to the Legislative Council. It needs to be sorted. We cannot have a situation where we create discrimination or unnecessarily damage the process around women being able to access ART treatment or any couple being able to access ART treatment. I do ask you, Acting Speaker, to bear with me, because this is quite a complex area and there are some convolutions in here which make it extraordinarily difficult to convey and describe. I guess I am somewhat fortunate in that I studied biomedical science and I have undertaken sperm counts in my time and I have got some familiarity and training around the knowledge and the process around ART. But there is no doubt that this is an area where you do need a huge level of expertise. I am no expert in the area, but the language around donors and gametes and making sure that embryos are included in certain statements is essential. If you do not get that right, you actually destroy the whole intent of the bill, and that is something that does need to be addressed. If I may walk through the issues that were raised with us by Monash IVF Group. This is in a broad sense; there is further information available from Monash IVF, but I believe the government should really be working directly with Monash IVF to be able to work through those issues. There may be some areas where there can be some explanation but also pointing to other areas of legislation which may negate these concerns. However, on my read we will need some amendments to this bill. The first concern I would like to raise is that it implies a woman separated from her husband could use embryos created with his sperm while they were still together without his consent, and this is in relation to the terms of using donor sperm or donor gametes within the legislation when he is not necessarily interpreted according to legislation as a donor; he is an owner of these gametes and therefore has not donated them and so he may be excluded from some elements of this legislation. In division 3, section 16(1) and (2), the act refers only to donated gametes, requiring both gamete sources to consent. In this case the male was not a donor at the time of embryo creation; he was part of the contract. So there is significant concern around use of biological material without the owner’s consent. This needs to be qualified and fixed in the legislation. Section 16(2) implies that a woman separated from her wife could use embryos created with the wife’s eggs under an egg-sharing arrangement while they were together without the wife’s consent. Again, this raises significant concern around use of biological material without the owner’s consent, and again links to whether it is around a donor egg or is part of somebody who is part of the contract in relation to a specific treatment. Thirdly, it allows a woman separated from her partner, irrespective of gender, to use embryos created with donor eggs and/or sperm or donated embryos while they were together without the spouse’s consent. These embryos are currently considered jointly owned by the spouses. Now there is again concern that there could be use of property without the co-owner’s consent. We need to tackle these issues. This is what the purpose of the bill is: to try and avoid some of these issues around management of consent, and this has not been addressed in an appropriate manner through the drafting of this bill. I do not believe that any of these issues have been raised intentionally—I would like to clarify that—

BILLS 2294 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019 but we do need to ensure that the bill is drafted correctly, because if we are raising additional concerns about consent around use of biological material or use of property without a co-owner’s consent, we are getting into an area where we could actually create more conflict and more challenges for certain people in our population who are already challenged in going through ART treatment and a relationship breakdown. Fourthly, it allows a person separated from their partner, irrespective of gender, to commission a surrogacy arrangement using embryos created with the estranged spouse’s gametes without their consent. Again, there are significant concerns around the use of biological material without the owner’s consent. Fifthly, it allows a person separated from their partner, irrespective of gender, to commission a surrogacy arrangement using embryos created with donor eggs and/or sperm or donated embryos while they were together without their consent. Again, this is an issue related to the use of property without the co-owner’s consent. Sixthly, it prohibits couples who are separated but not divorced and wish to co-parent from doing so as they no longer meet either point (a) or point (b), and in this case the male is no longer considered a donor because the intent is for him to be named on the birth certificate and to have equal right. Again, this is something that was probably seen as a small change in an earlier element in the context of the bill, but it has not delivered that. It has actually delivered greater complexity because it has not been drafted appropriately and there has not been full consultation with the entire sector. There are recommendations that Monash IVF have in relation to this, and I will note that this is in relation to the definition of ‘partner’. So those six issues that Monash raise are in relation to just the changes to the definition of ‘partner’. The flow-on impacts of that are significant, and I would think that if the government have the focus on making sure that ART is managed in a safer way that does not have any discrimination against women, when we can outline a number of instances where there will actually be discrimination in terms of the use of property without consent or the use of biological material without consent, these are serious issues that must be addressed. We need to do it once and do it right, and we need to make sure that the government do that. I would also like to refer to consent in division 2, section 10(1)(a) of the act, where a person may undergo an ART treatment or procedure only if all biological and legal owners and their partners, if any, have consented in the prescribed form. A surrogacy arrangement may be commissioned and undertaken only if all biological owners and all parties to the arrangement, including a partner, if any, have consented in the prescribed form, but we have not seen the prescribed form and again we have got that problem with the definition of a partner, which has not been clarified. We have also got an issue where the terms ‘separation’ or ‘separated couple’ are not defined within the legislation. It should be included within the legislation to provide legal clarity and to help to inform agents who have to deliver on this bill to make sure that they are delivering their services in a way that does meet the legal framework of Victoria. There are also significant concerns in other definitions, whether it is around ‘partner’, ‘biological owner’, ‘legal owner’ or ‘separation’, and these are things which must be included. It sounds quite straightforward, but it really does have an enormous impact in terms of making sure we get this process correct. I have also received correspondence from the Fertility Society of Australia, IVF Directors group. They note significant concerns around the drafting of this bill. Again, it is in relation to ensuring that elements of definitions and the amendments that have been proposed in the bill, particularly in relation to the definition of a ‘partner’, do not deleteriously impact on other sections of the bill, which may actually override consent issues or create consent issues for material or for embryos which are co- owned. It is an extraordinarily complex situation, as I have stated, but it is something that does need to be worked through, and I am surprised that it actually came to the house in the state that it is in. The

BILLS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2295 elements that the fertility society have raised are similar to Monash IVF’s, but again I would encourage the government to take the step to meet with these groups and to work with them, given that they are experts in the area. It is not a huge ask; there are 25 private providers, 30 000 treatments a year. They are an important stakeholder group and they should be consulted, and it must be done, given their concerns, before this bill hits the Legislative Council. I would like to just quote now a section from the Fertility Society of Australia, IVF Directors group. They are deeply concerned that:

The current proposed legislation will impose a different sort of discrimination on patients, namely, the male patient. Any new legislation in this area must, as the recent Western Australian review recommended, be free of sexual or other discrimination of any nature. We are anticipating receiving a detailed legal opinion from Ebsworth Lawyers, the lawyers who were engaged in the Federal Court case, providing us with a much deeper analysis of how these proposed legislative changes will impact patients and medical practice. Monash IVF are similarly seeking a separate legal opinion on the impacts of the proposed Bill … and have agreed to make that available. So these bodies have taken the steps of seeking legal advice. We have received some of that legal advice and it is very comprehensive and thoughtful. I would encourage the government to avail themselves of that and to work with these groups to ensure that we are not actually creating a more complex and discriminatory legal framework by the passage of this bill. I would like to of course refer to as well the Gorton report. The Gorton report was one of the reasons that this proposed bill has come to reality, but the full Gorton report has not yet been released. In the interim report this change to consent around women who are separated to be able to go ahead with ART treatment procedures without their ex-spouse’s consent was a recommendation. However, we do need to see the whole Gorton report. I think it should have been released by now, and we are very keen to see what the content of that is. And if the content of the Gorton report indicates that there are further amendments that are required to this Assisted Reproductive Treatment Amendment (Consent) Bill 2019, then we need to make sure that we do this once and we do it right. One change can make an enormous amount of difference to the interpretation of the remainder of the bill. And if we are expecting other amendments to this bill and/or this legislation in relation to Gorton’s review, then I would recommend that we take all of that into account and review the relevant acts in one hit, particularly given the concerns which have arisen as part of this one single piece of legislation and one recommendation in the interim report. It is not just the private ART providers in Victoria who have raised concerns around this legislation; I refer to the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee report around the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Amendment (Consent) Bill 2019. There are a number of issues which have been raised by SARC, and they have noted that they will be writing to the minister and seeking a response to the committee about a number of areas that have been raised. These are issues which are related to components of the bill which I have gone through that were raised by private providers of ART procedures, but I do note in particular that the committee are going to write to the minister seeking further information as to the compatibility of clause 4, when read with provisions other than sections 10(1)(a), 13 and 34 of the principal act, with the charter. I note that clause 4 alters the existing definition of ‘partner’ throughout the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 to exclude the separated spouses of married people, whereas clause 6 extends the parenting presumptions for women who have no partners to married women who have separated from their spouses. The committee are writing to the minister to seek further information—and obviously clarification—around that because we have to have a standard set of definitions which can be applied appropriately and as intended across the entire piece of legislation. Also, the committee notes that clause 6, amending existing section 12 of the Status of Children Act 1974, extends the parenting presumptions for women who have no partners to include married women who are separated from their spouses. There are elements of concern that SARC have raised around

BILLS 2296 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019 that, particularly in relation to how that compares to other legislation, and the observations that SARC made in relation to the statement of compatibility that it does not expressly address the possible impact of clause 4, the definition of ‘partner’, on existing provisions other than sections 10(1)(a), 13 and 34; the possible impact of clause 4 regarding the definition of ‘partner’ on separated spouses, including its application to treatment procedures that use the separated spouse’s gametes or embryos created from those gametes; and thirdly the possible differential impact of clause 6 on separated male and female spouses. These are significant issues. SARC are seeking some further information and explanation from the minister. I cannot see how the only step forward would not be to pull this bill and to fix these issues in the drafting of the bill before this bill goes any further and does become law. I also refer to another issue that SARC will be writing to the minister about, which is the meaning of ‘separated’ in clauses 4 and 6, and the concern that those clauses’ compatibility with married people’s charter rights do not have the family unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with to the extent that the meaning is uncertain and that there is equality on the basis of marital status to the extent that clauses 4 and 6 apply a different test than the one that would be used to determine the end of a de facto relationship. So again, that is in relation to the definitions of ‘partners’ but also of ‘separation’, which can be quite complex to define. It can be done through other legal aspects including court determinations of what ‘separated’ is, but for the purpose of this legislation, given that there are some definitions, it really needs to be clarified what the intent is of the definition within this bill. I have raised and put on record some of the concerns of parties which have contacted us as part of our consultation process to hold the government to account and to provide an informed reflection on the legislation that is before us in the house. However, I do wish to urge the government again that this is something that should have happened before this bill was brought forward. These are significant drafting errors which would have an enormous impact in restricting access for some couples and discriminating against some sections of the community who are involved in the ART process. I think these are all unwanted impacts. I do not believe that this is intentional, but it is the reason why the government needs to take the time to make sure we get this right. Again, I would like to reaffirm that I do not in any way disagree with the intent that a woman separated from her spouse should not have to receive permission from her former partner to participate in assisted reproductive treatment. However, we do not want to see legislation in place that does put additional barriers in place for other sections of the community or does result in a negative effect or confusion within this sector and also within the legislative framework in the very difficult area of egg donation, gamete donation, surrogacy and of course the definition of modern relationships and what that means. We need to make sure we get this right. Again, I do just urge the government to take the time to review this bill and to take additional consultation as required. There are at least seven weeks until the next sitting week of Parliament. It may be long enough for us to actually look at doing that consultation and making the required amendments so that there is not discrimination or any deleterious impact in relation to access to ART for people in Victoria. We also need to make sure that we are not prolonging that delay, because we do want to make sure we fix up those key elements of the bill, in addition, around ensuring women who are separated do not have to receive permission from their ex-partner to access assisted reproductive treatment. There is a recommendation that came through only an hour or so ago, which is around the cross-border implications of these changes to legislation. Because there is a differential in the proposed legislation in Victoria and in South Australia and New South Wales we really need to look at making that consistent. I am aware that there are individual groups who will be writing to the Attorney-General to appeal for a national approach in relation to management of assisted reproductive treatment and associated legislation, which feeds into that and is related to that. I think that that is important—that we do seek to take a national approach. However, understanding that that can take a considerable period of time, at the very least we need to make sure that the laws we make in Victoria are written in

BILLS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2297 a way that deliver the intent that we outlined and also that no human rights are negatively affected as a result of that. In saying that, I do support strong elements and the intent of this bill very, very strongly. However, I urge the minister to pull this bill and to review the elements that have been raised in the debate and by private providers with the Liberal-Nationals. I am aware that some of these matters have also been brought to the attention of the government. It is important that we do it once and we do it right in an area like assisted reproductive treatment. It is such an emotional area for all involved. It can be heartbreaking. It can be enormously joyful when people can finally carry a child and parents can welcome a little one into the world and have that joy of raising a child. It is the highs and lows of assisted reproductive treatment. It is why it is so important that we get this right and provide the right legislative framework to support people to access assisted reproductive treatment and to not be unfairly discriminated against, but also to ensure that we have a great legal framework in Victoria where we can proudly say that we have got it right. I just do not think in this legislation we have quite got it right at this point in time. Ms THOMAS (Macedon) (12:33): I am very pleased to rise today to speak on this bill, and I congratulate the minister in the other place on this important legislation that fulfils an election commitment to abolish an outdated rule that allows men to control the reproductive rights of women. We are doing this by amending the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 to remove the requirement that women need the approval of their former partner to access IVF using their own eggs and donor sperm. At a time when the reproductive rights and choices of women are increasingly under attack from conservative forces around the world, I am very proud to be a member of a government that is unashamedly standing up for equality for women. My impulse is always to support initiatives that seek to give women greater choice and control over their bodies and their lives, and so I am pleased to support this bill. The commitment to amend the act was made following the release of the interim report of the review of assisted reproductive treatment (ART) called Helping Victorians Create Families with Assisted Reproductive Treatment and undertaken by independent reviewer Mr Michael Gorton, AM. Having to get permission from somebody who is not in your life and who will not be part of any prospective family you wish to create simply does not make sense. This bill gives effect to that key election commitment, and in doing so it implements a recommendation of that interim report. It also follows, as we have heard, a Federal Court ruling from September 2018 which found that the requirement to seek consent in the circumstances of a particular case where a woman was separated from her husband but not yet divorced discriminated against the woman because of her marital status. The review into helping Victorians create families with ART is an extremely important piece of work that was commissioned in April of last year. Assisted reproductive treatment is often an extremely vulnerable and trying process for women, and we know that in the last year 13 000 women here in Victoria sought assisted reproductive treatment. Since the act’s last review in 2007, technology, community attitudes and supply and demand for treatment have evolved significantly. Some of the issues being considered by the review relate to whether there are adequate safeguards to protect consumers using or intending to use assisted reproductive treatment services, whether the regulatory framework remains appropriate within an evolving market for assisted reproductive treatment and whether an evolving market and regulatory framework has implications for access to and affordability of assisted reproductive treatment services. Issues of particular concern to me have always been about the accuracy and comparability of data, particularly success rates being offered by fertility service providers. So I am very pleased that in response to the interim report the government is cracking down on unscrupulous IVF providers. On the back of a Four Corners investigation in 2016 that found women were being given misleading info—particularly, I might say, women who were over 40, whose chances of bringing home a live

BILLS 2298 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019 baby are exceedingly slim—and were being preyed upon by unscrupulous IVF providers, this in turn led to an ACCC investigation that found that some clinics made claims and comparisons without adequate disclosure or explanation of the data and that some used technical terms which may be misleading to consumers. The ACCC, for example, cited the use of clinical pregnancy rate data to compare success rates. Clinical pregnancy data reflects a clinic’s success in achieving a pregnancy, regardless of the length, rather than achieving a live birth. The ACCC noted that this data was frequently accompanied by photographs of newborn babies, which it considered was likely to lead to potential clients forming an inaccurate impression about the rate of successful pregnancies being achieved by that clinic. Anecdotally we know here in Victoria that two-thirds of women who seek IVF or assisted reproductive treatment will not be successful in achieving a live birth. So here in Victoria and in response to the evidence and the work of Mr Gorton, I am pleased that the government is, as I said, cracking down on unscrupulous IVF providers who prey on Victorians at a most vulnerable time. In March this year the government asked the health complaints commissioner to launch an inquiry into dodgy, dangerous and unethical practices by IVF providers, and that report is due to be provided to government by the end of the year. The commissioner has also been asked to refer any matters of false, misleading or deceptive conduct to Consumer Affairs Victoria, and penalties will be increased so that IVF providers pay the price if they are caught doing the wrong thing. A second issue also concerns equity of access to assisted reproductive treatment services. I am very pleased that our election commitments include a comprehensive plan around ART, including a $32 million commitment to establish public IVF services that are bulk-billed and subsidised for low- income Victorians. We have also committed to work with regional health services so that more Victorians have an opportunity to become parents through IVF. We know that an IVF cycle can cost up to $15 000, but while people with fertility issues are eligible for Medicare rebates they can still be left thousands of dollars out of pocket just for following their dreams of starting a family. For some Victorians struggling with the cost of living this is an unavoidable barrier, and it is simply not fair. As I said, around 13 000 Victorians were treated at IVF clinics in the last financial year, but less than 10 per cent accessed services at the state’s only bulk-billing clinic. Finally, while outside the scope of the current review, the report highlights the need for more work on the impacts of assisted reproductive treatment on donor-conceived children. Of course this government did very good work last term—and I note the member for Ivanhoe is in the house at the moment—putting children first and enacting laws that will give donor-conceived people a better sense of their identity and also knowledge about their genetic heritage. This information includes the name of the donor, their ethnic origins, physical characteristics and any genetic conditions. But more work needs to be done. This sense of identity is paramount to a number of first-generation assisted reproductive treatment babies as they come into adulthood and as we learn more from their experiences and concerns, particularly, I might say, their relationship with people to whom they are genetically related. Finally, in our society it seems everyone is entitled to an opinion on women’s fertility. Women face enormous pressure to become mothers. Indeed any woman who is not a mother is treated with disdain, suspicion, pity, contempt or a mixture of all of the above. Women who openly choose not to have children are considered selfish. Who will ever forget the contemptible comments of the Liberal senator, Bill Heffernan, who said of our then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, that she was not fit to lead because she was, and I quote, ‘deliberately barren’? Of course women terminating pregnancies in this state were subject to taunts and abuse in the name of ‘counselling’ until we created safe access zones. Our society purports to place a high value on motherhood, yet for those of us who have children, we know that the decision to have a child has long and far-reaching impacts on our financial security, while it is potentially the worst career decision a woman will ever make. If you do not believe me, just ask a woman trying to return to the workforce after a period of maternity leave. The lack of access to

BILLS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2299 child care, unconscious and conscious bias in the workplace—these are sacrifices that many women would be willing to accept if they were borne equally, but we know they are not. In contrast, research in the US tells us that for men, having a child is good for their careers. They are more likely to be hired than childless men and tend to be paid more after they have children. These differences persist even after controlling for factors like the hours people work, the types of jobs they choose and the salaries of their spouses. So the disparity is not because mothers actually become less productive employees and fathers work harder but because employers expect them to. Of course there are women who would dearly love to have a child but for a range of reasons they are unable to conceive and carry a pregnancy without assistance. Today’s bill is for those women, and I am very pleased to be supporting it in this house. While we are still yet to reach 100 women elected to this place, I feel very confident in asserting that all of the fertility experiences I have outlined today have been experienced by one or more of the diverse women in this place. I say thank goodness we now have women with diversity of experience in this place able to speak from firsthand experience on bills such as this one. This bill delivers greater choice and control to women. It removes discrimination. For these reasons alone it should be supported. Ms BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (12:43): I rise today to speak on the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Amendment (Consent) Bill 2019. The intention of this bill is to amend the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 (ART) so that a woman who is married and separated from her spouse does not need the consent of her spouse to access assisted reproductive treatment using donor sperm. It will also make consequential amendments to the Status of Children Act 1974 so that the presumptions of parentage in the act operate consistently with the amendments to the ART act. On face value obviously this is something that is pretty easy to agree with. In this day and age with the progressive nature of how we operate as families—respect for all is the basis of that—it seems absurd that a single woman can make a decision on her own to use donor sperm to fall pregnant or attempt to fall pregnant through ART services and that a woman who is in a de facto relationship that breaks down can automatically then continue with assisted reproductive treatments without any consent from her previous de facto spouse and yet a woman in a legal marriage, if separated from her spouse, does not have the right to have treatments because she is still married although separated. That discriminatory element obviously does need to be changed. This has all come from a situation that went to court in September 2018 where the Federal Court realised that by law a woman was not able to continue with assisted reproduction treatment while she was still married unless she had consent from her spouse. Let us be clear: it was not consent from her spouse so she could use his sperm, it was about donor sperm. However, this does raise some questions around clarity and the complications that can arise from lack of definition. We found that the word ‘separation’ does not have a clear definition. We know we have 25 centres in Victoria that are helping couples or women with assisted reproductive treatment, and it quite surprised me to find out that the government did not consult with these specialists. No-one knows the lay of the land in the area that they work in better than the people who work in that area. So it did surprise me that people from the organisations that do this wrote to the opposition concerned about the fact that they have been left out of the consultation process. Whilst there is no way that we would not agree that a woman needs to have the respect of being able to make decisions about her future, and whilst we are supporting the bill, we are asking the minister in the other place to actually take the time to go and talk to the community. We know Labor have a long history of not consulting, and that seems to be getting bigger and bigger in their agenda. We saw that in the last sitting weeks of Parliament, when we had two bills introduced and rushed through, with no time to consult on or debate them, which is not the normal process.

BILLS 2300 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019

We have now got in the upper house being debated as we speak the Firefighters’ Presumptive Rights Compensation and Fire Services Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2019. Many of us have major concerns about the future of volunteering within the CFA because of the treatment of the volunteers, and an example of that is the lack of consultation. So please do not continue to repeat that behaviour. The whole legislative process is based on respect and on us being representatives of our communities and going and speaking to the people who need to be consulted with. There are seven weeks until we meet again in this place. Obviously we want to move forward with this because people who are themselves time constrained want to have that right and freedom to move on with their life of trying to create a life that will give them the joy that all of us who are fortunate enough to be parents understand implicitly. I also find it quite concerning that Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee has also written to the minister, and if those two things do not raise some level of concern, just a little bit less arrogance than what we are seeing at the moment would be the way to approach this. Hopefully the Premier can see that this arrogance is not appropriate. I also find it interesting that the other side are pontificating about respect for women and equality for women while we have a situation where we have a union boss, John Setka, being allowed to continue— Ms Thomas: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member on her feet has already strayed from the bill in talking about completely unrelated matters to do with the CFA. Now she is talking about a construction union. I ask that you bring her back to speaking about the bill. It is a very important bill, and for her to stray off, as only the second speaker, just goes to show how little they have to say on this important issue. The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Ward): Order! I would ask the member to refer back to the bill. Ms BRITNELL: Certainly. What I am talking about is respect for women and the fact that this bill is highlighting that we need to have the ability to be equal and respected as women in our decisions. So it is really difficult for me to talk about the bill and not think about the fact that here we have the Labor Party saying one thing and doing another, allowing someone like John Setka to continue in his role when he has obviously got no respect for women. Ms Halfpenny: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, this is such an important issue: IVF treatment for women and their rights and their ability to make decisions. To then start talking about this other stuff—think about the women that really need this legislation— The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Ward): What is your point of order? Ms Halfpenny: The point of order is relevance—the member is being irrelevant. Ms Staley: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, the member for Macedon in her contribution made reference to other parties’ positions on women’s capacity to participate and their views on reproductive rights. She talked about reproductive rights being under attack. It was very much about the broader scope of women’s capacity to participate, so I would ask you to not uphold the point of order. The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Ward): Thank you, member for Ripon. I was not here for all of the member for Macedon’s speech; apologies for that. I also have no idea, because I have just come into this, as to how wideranging the discussion of this bill has been so far. I would ask the member to refer to the bill in her speech. Ms BRITNELL: I am more than happy to and feel that that is really important—that we talk about the respect for women, the choices we have to make and our ability to stand up and be supported by other women and by men, because it is about equality of women and men. We had to have the Leader

BILLS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2301 of the Opposition at the federal level call out the poor behaviour of someone who you continue to support, and the Premier has not— Ms Green: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, this member is clearly not interested in the bill. Her comments have been totally irrelevant. I would have thought as a former nurse and with the women in her community wanting to get access to reproductive— The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Ward): Member for Yan Yean, your point of order is relevance? Ms Green: It is; she is not being relevant. The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Ward): I will again ask the member to please refer back to the bill as she continues her speech. Ms BRITNELL: Thank you, Acting Speaker. I suppose really my point is we need to respect the fact that women need to have the choices that are important to them. This legislation is an important piece of legislation. Where a woman is separated from her husband we need to have that defined so that she has the right to continue with the assisted reproductive treatment that she would like to undertake, so that she can go ahead with her plans. But the legislation in its current form is concerning, and it is with respect to that that we ask the government to take some time to consult and not be arrogant, please. Mr CARBINES (Ivanhoe) (12:52): I just wanted to acknowledge the contribution from the member for Macedon and the depth and breadth of that contribution. I also wanted to take the opportunity to go back to the work that the Parliament has done, and particularly the Andrews government has done, in the assisted reproductive treatment (ART) policy space across our time in government. I go back earlier to the inquiry into access by donor-conceived people to information about donors and the Law Reform Committee report of March 2012, a committee of which I was a member. I just wanted to quote from that report because it takes us back to some of our work in relation to this particular bill. It states: The Committee believes that providing all donor-conceived people with the opportunity to access identifying information about their donors, regardless of their date of conception, is consistent with the first guiding principle found in the Victorian legislation regulating donor-conception—that the welfare and interests of persons born as a result of … ART— procedures are paramount. It is also consistent with comparable situations, such as adoption, where Victorian legislation retrospectively allowed adopted people to access identifying information about their birth parents. Why I bring that up is of course these are the reforms and changes. We had an interim government response under the coalition government. We had some minor amendments to the legislation at that time, but ultimately it was the Labor Party that chose to change its platform at an ALP conference and to make election commitments to implement those Law Reform Committee findings. It then won that election, so had that affirmed by Victorians at the ballot box, and then brought that legislation before the Parliament to implement that in the previous term so the children, the donor-conceived offspring, were able to not have denied by the state information that they are entitled to under certainly the human rights charter to know their genetic heritage and where they came from. That was the commitment, and to do that retrospectively says a lot about this Parliament, says a lot about the commitment of our government and the work that we were prepared to do in this ever-changing policy space. To pick up on some of the election commitments we made six months ago, we committed to expanding subsidised IVF services for low-income Victorians—a $32 million commitment. When you reflect on the fact that there were some 13 000 Victorians treated at IVF clinics in the last financial year and less than 10 cent of those were able to access services at bulk-billing clinics, I think it goes to the heart of what the Premier said, which is that nowhere near enough Victorian women are able to access

BILLS 2302 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019 subsidised low-cost IVF. When you think about the particularly high costs, for example, of up to $15 000 per cycle, I note the further work that has been done by Michael Gorton, AM, in his interim report, which notes that cost is a very significant barrier for couples seeking IVF. I think that part of all that goes to the continual work that our government is committed to doing, led by the Minister for Health in the other place, the Honourable Jenny Mikakos, and her predecessor. It then brings us to the heart of what is at the nub of this bill, which is that we are amending the definition of ‘partner’ in the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 to ensure that a married woman is not required to obtain the consent of her spouse to access assisted reproductive treatment if she is separated from her spouse. The amendment will apply equally to women in same-sex and heterosexual marriages. Of course it follows on from a Federal Court ruling in September 2018 which found that the requirement to seek consent, in the circumstances of the particular case where a woman was separated from her husband but not yet divorced, discriminated against the woman because of her marital status. It was considered discriminatory because this requirement to seek consent would not apply to a woman in a de facto relationship who separated from her partner. Just today we see on ABC news that a man who donated his sperm to a friend with a belief he could play a role in the child’s life has won a High Court fight sparked by an earlier decision about the mother wanting to move to New Zealand with the child. Now of course that all reflects again on the commonwealth’s definition of the law as it relates to the donor as a parent and not the state-based law where they are defined as purely a sperm donor. What all this gets to is our government has done the work to respond under legislation to the rights of donor-conceived offspring, who had no say in matters when they were conceived and who seek as adults—thanks to our researchers, thanks to our medical practitioners and the work that they have done and led, particularly in Victoria over many decades—and fully fledged citizens able to vote for themselves to have access and rights that the rest of us take for granted. We have then seen commitments from our government to provide greater access to IVF services for people who need them most—people who feel excluded from those opportunities or who feel particularly financially penalised in the robustness of the services that are provided and the accountability that our Parliament expects for those who seek to provide those services in our community. Can I say also that we have brought ourselves to deal with these matters that relate to rights, in particular for women. I think that goes to the broader question of the empowerment of women that our Parliament has sought to deliver—certainly our government has—in relation to whether they be matters about family violence, whether they be related to the matters around safe access zones for other medical treatment clinics, which we have dealt with. And now we are taking action with regard to providing the appropriate opportunities to remove discrimination as it applies to people in our community, particularly of course to a woman and the ridiculous arrangements that were in place— archaic arrangements that we seek to overturn—which is to abolish that outdated rule that allows men to control the reproductive rights of women by amending the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act to remove the requirement that women need the approval of their former partner to access IVF using their own eggs and donor sperm. As lunch is almost upon us, I will conclude my remarks there. I absolutely commend the bill to the house. Sitting suspended 1.00 p.m. until 2.01 p.m. Business interrupted under sessional orders.

GRIEVANCE DEBATE Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2303

Grievance debate The SPEAKER: The question is:

That grievances be noted. JOHN SETKA Ms KEALY (Lowan) (14:01): This is actually my very first grievance, can you believe it? In five years of being in the Victorian Parliament, this is my first grievance. But that is not the reason that I grieve for Victorians today. I grieve for Victorians today because we have a Premier who talks a lot about calling out violence against women, but when it comes to calling out John Setka, or mentioning that man’s name in this place, he is completely and utterly silent when it comes to calling out violence against women. John Setka, as we know, has been in the media quite frequently lately in particular in relation to charges that he is facing which he has indicated he will plead guilty to. He has indicated that in the courts; he indicated that again just last week. However, it is the same John Setka that, while facing charges of harassing a woman and of breaching family violence orders, was also serving on the government’s very own board, the Building Industry Consultative Council, which ironically is responsible for the women in construction strategy. Now, the women in construction strategy, I would think, needs to have people, particularly women, on it. What an irony: we talk to women about trying to get more women into the construction industry. But more than anything else we certainly do not need anybody who has a cloud of charges over their head in relation to how they are treating women in the community. He is facing charges, which at one stage included throwing an iPad at a woman’s head causing injury and sending horrendous messages to a woman—in fact the list of things which was reported in the Age last week that the police found on Setka’s phone included calling a woman 25 times and sending her 45 text messages. He called her—and excuse me, I will refer to it broadly, Speaker—a ‘weak, effing piece of shit’, a ‘treacherous Aussie’, an ‘effing c’ and an ‘effing dog’. There is absolutely no place for people like that, like John Setka, who are willing to harass a woman to that level, to be on a government- appointed board responsible for developing women in construction strategy. As soon as the minister and the Premier became aware of these actions they should have immediately taken steps to denounce the actions of John Setka and stand him down—if not sack him—from this very, very important board. But what has the Premier done? All he has done is remain completely and utterly silent, saying that the matter is before the courts. This is even though Setka himself has admitted that he will plead guilty to these charges. But this is not a one-off; this is not the first time that we have seen appalling action from the leader of the CFMMEU, John Setka. In fact he comes with a historical line-up of charges. He has been jailed twice after being found in contempt of court. Over 20 years, he has been found guilty five times for assaulting a police officer, five times for assault by kicking, seven times for wilful trespass, five times for resisting arrest, once for theft and once for attempted theft by deception. How on earth is this man able to tell the Premier what he should be doing in the state of Victoria, particularly when it comes to getting women to serve in the construction industry? There is no way that women will ever work in the construction industry when you have got a leader of the key union in that precinct being John Setka. He appears to be such a good mate of the Premier that the Premier refuses, to this day, to say one bad word about John Setka or to call out his abhorrent violence against women, his harassment of women and even his breaches of family violence orders. We do not hear his name—not once, not one single time. That is a complete and utter blight on the Premier; it is a complete and utter blight on the Victorian Labor Party. I will expand this to the grieving of all Victorians, because it is not just the man at the top of the tree, it is not just the Premier, who refuses to call out Setka. When we look at the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee over the last couple of weeks there were numerous ministers who were actually asked point-blank about whether they would call out John Setka and his abhorrent views on women.

GRIEVANCE DEBATE 2304 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019

Would they finally walk their talk? Would they finally put their words into action? Would they call out John Setka for being the bully of women and the thug that he is? Do you know what the most appalling thing was? It was not the Minister for Women who would call him out; she remained silent. When it came to that opportunity of calling out violence against women, our own Minister for Women in Victoria refused to call out John Setka. When it came to the Attorney-General she also had the opportunity to put her thoughts on the record and call out John Setka for his appalling treatment of women. What was her response? Silence, again. That is what we hear over and over and over. After all the lecturing about the changes we need to make in Victoria and about the need to call out violence when we see it, we cannot stand by in silence when it comes to family violence. There is an amazing amount of money being spent on ad campaigns with a man leering at a woman saying, ‘You need to call this man out’, but when it comes to the Premier, when he has actually got one of his own, when it is one of his Labor Party mates, when it is someone who is one of his advisers, he and all of the people on the Labor side of the chamber stay absolutely silent. I think that is a blight on everybody on the government side of the chamber. You have had an opportunity, and you know that this is not a one-off. You know that this is not a one-off case, and to hide behind the fact that this is currently before the courts is complete and utter nonsense, because you can pull back on so many instances in history where John Setka was an inappropriate person to put on a government-appointed board, particularly one which was devising policy to enhance women, and that is exactly what it comes down to. In fact do you know what it came to? It came not to the leader of the Victorian state, it came to Albo. Albo came to the rescue finally in early June—I think it was on 11 June—when he finally came out and called for John Setka to be sacked from the Labor Party. Now even though John Setka heads up the Victorian branch of the CFMMEU, why did it take the national leader of the Labor Party to call for Setka to be finally sacked from the party? Why was the Premier still silent? It was not until later that day that the Premier finally put out a statement. But did the Premier follow in Albo’s footsteps? Did he say, ‘Yep, you know what, we might be a bit slow to the mark, but Albo got it right, and we also call out Setka for his abhorrent views about women’? No. All he said was, ‘Albo got it right’. I quote: They cannot be defended in any context and I support the actions that Anthony Albanese has taken. He did not say that Setka should go from the Labor Party. He did not say that he should not be on our government-appointed board to devise a women in construction strategy. He did not even take any steps at that point in time to stand down John Setka pending the court case. If that is the big thing that Labor are hiding behind—‘We can’t call out Setka because there’s a court case’—guess what? He is going to plead guilty. He has admitted he has harassed a woman. He has admitted that he has breached a family violence order, but all of you still remain silent when it comes to calling out one of your Labor mates, and that is an absolute disgrace, but it is reflective of this government. It is reflective of a government that is willing to put out glossy statements about the wonderful things you are doing for the people of Victoria—‘Aren’t we great. We’re stamping out family violence. All of you other people have to call out family violence when you see it. All you other Victorians have to call out when people are leering at you on a train’. All those other people have to call out when women are not treated with equality, but when it comes to your union mates you stay silent. You cannot walk the walk, and what came to light over the weekend was perhaps a little bit of an insight into what is actually driving the reason behind this silence, because what did we see over the weekend? We saw the union come out and say, ‘We are going to look at pulling funding from the Labor Party. We have got you by the short and curlies, Premier, because if you come out and you call out John Setka, we’re not going to give you millions of dollars for your next election campaign’. It is not just the CFMMEU who has come out and said that. We also saw similar comments from the Rail Tram and Bus Union just yesterday saying, ‘We will also seek to pull political funding from Labor’s next campaign if you do not do as we say and you call out John Setka’. So I ask the Premier: who is actually running this state? When it comes to actually making policy around women and how

GRIEVANCE DEBATE Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2305 we treat Victorian women, is it okay that we have somebody who is actually taking horrific actions against women—harassing women, as I said—calling 25 times, sending 45 text messages which contain horrific language? This is a maintained, awful harassment of a woman. It is horrific. The SPEAKER: Order! The member should be able to air the issues she is raising, but I just remind members in this debate on this particular topic that there is a matter before the court; it is not completed yet. The member is able to canvass broadly the issues, but I would just remind the member of the conventions of sub judice that the house applies to itself. Mr R Smith: On a point of order, Speaker, the member for Lowan is clearly canvassing things that are reported in the paper—in the general media. I am sitting next to her and I can see her notes. She is actually reporting things that are in the paper; she is not straying from that. They are publicly reported, they are widely reported, and the member, I believe, is quite in order to be canvassing the issues that she is. Mr Wakeling: On the point of order, Speaker, the member is actually referring to cases that occurred years ago. She is not talking about the case that is currently before the courts. Ms KEALY: On the point of order, Speaker, I am actually quoting from a document. It was a piece from the Sydney Morning Herald written by Jacqueline Maley and published on 16 June. I am happy to table the document if you would so like. The SPEAKER: Order! Firstly, the member for Ferntree Gully, I think, was referring to the fact that there might have been comments made previously. My understanding was—and from the comments just made by the member for Lowan—she is referring to more recent matters and a particular case that is before the courts at the moment. The fact that a matter is reported in the press does not mean that sub judice does not apply to that particular issue. Earlier on the member mentioned the issue and I allowed her to continue because she did not go to the specifics. She is going very much to the specifics now of the matter that is yet to be decided by the court. So I just ask the member to talk more broadly about the issues that she is raising. Ms KEALY: I am so looking forward to next Wednesday, 26 June, because that will be a telling moment for the Victorian government. It will be a telling moment for the Premier, because at that stage the court will have heard the guilty plea of John Setka to these exact charges of harassing a woman by carriage service and breaching a family violence order. So I, like many other Victorian women in particular, will be interested to see if that is the trigger point, because that is what we have heard the government hiding behind all the time: ‘We’re not going to hear this matter, we’re not going to listen to it, we’re going to completely ignore it because it is before the courts’. Well, let us see what action the Premier takes on 26 June, because if he takes immediate action to call for Setka to stand down from the CFMMEU—when he says, ‘I’m not going to accept another dollar of donations from the CFMMEU’, and when he says, ‘We will not have any meetings, we will not have any relationships with the CFMMEU until John Setka is sacked as secretary of that union’—then I will be happy; then Victorian women will be happy. We have got a very, very key opportunity here because the Premier has hidden so many times, as have the Minister for Women and other ministers within the government—in fact every minister within the government. This is not a one-off case. I go back to the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, where it was heard and found that Setka allegedly threatened to bury a concreter’s head next to Ned Kelly’s unless he was kicked off a worksite. Now, if this is not union thuggery, if it is not absolutely encouraging somebody who has a rich history when it comes to violence, harassment, absolute contempt for police and contempt for parliamentary systems, then I really ask: what sort of people do Labor think should be in positions of power in this state? This bloke, John Setka, has got so much power over the Premier by threatening to withhold donating union money from future Labor campaigns. Whether it is about factional numbers to make sure that the Premier remains Premier of this state or whether it is about factional numbers to make sure he retains his seat,

GRIEVANCE DEBATE 2306 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019 that is what is motivating all the Labor MPs to stay silent. That is why I grieve for Victorians. I am so, so concerned that it is not the Premier who is running this state of Victoria. It is in fact people like John Setka, who are absolute thugs and who are violent against women. It is an absolute disgrace, and I will wait till 26 June to see what action the Premier will finally take to call out violence against women. LIBERAL-NATIONAL PARTIES Mr DIMOPOULOS (Oakleigh) (14:16): Oh, my God. Thank the Lord that is over. It is just extraordinary that the member for Lowan expects us to believe that she has now found a threshold after which, once we cross it, Victorian women will be happy with her and her party— Members interjecting. Mr DIMOPOULOS: No, Victorian women will not be happy with her and her party just because those opposite identify the threshold of a union leader and they have ignored everything else— Members interjecting. Ms Kealy: On a point of order, Speaker, I think the interjection after the member for Oakleigh took his seat was entirely inappropriate. But to cast aspersions on me when I clearly said that this is about John Setka, who has thrown an iPad at a woman’s head, when it is about harassing a woman while breaching family violence orders, I think that is a fairly clear line. So don’t say I am all of a sudden— The SPEAKER: Order! Does the member have a point of order? Ms Kealy: My point of order is that the member is casting aspersions upon me in saying that I have only recently become interested in the matter of standing up against violence against women. I take personal offence, and I ask him to withdraw. Mr DIMOPOULOS: On the point of order, Speaker, I did not— Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! There is no opportunity to take a point of order at this point in time. The opportunity to ask for a withdrawal is one where a member has been personally attacked and feels in a way that they have— Ms Kealy interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member for Oakleigh to withdraw any comments. Mr DIMOPOULOS: I withdraw. The SPEAKER: The member for Oakleigh, to continue. Mr DIMOPOULOS: The member for Lowan has self-defined a threshold. She has picked a union leader in this country and defined the threshold for the advancement of women’s rights— Mr Wells: On a point of order, Speaker, this is actually a grievance debate; it is not a rebuttal debate. So what the member has to do is to stand up and explain to the house what he is grieving for. I would ask you to direct him to put on record—to explain to the house—what he is grieving for. The SPEAKER: Order! The member is entitled to do that at some point during his speech, but he is not out of order at the moment in the contribution that he is making. Mr DIMOPOULOS: I was going to do that in my speech. Fundamentally I grieve for the parlous state of the Victorian Liberal–National opposition. The concerns that I have were fully on display with the member for Lowan deeming a threshold as being of importance to Victorian women and saying that if we crossed this threshold women will be happy. No, women will not be happy with the awful, disgraceful, disorganised, good for very little in terms of public policy Liberal opposition—a party

GRIEVANCE DEBATE Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2307 that still, as the member for Bentleigh reminded me while the member for Lowan was on her feet, does not accept the recommendations of the royal commission, because somehow they will have a budget impost. Guess what: everything we do has a budget impost. That is why you elect a government. The police force has a budget impost. Education has a budget impost. A whole range of these services— Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! I understand this is a passionate debate and the member for Lowan has raised in her contribution a very passionate issue, but I do ask her to cease shouting across the chamber. Mr DIMOPOULOS: This is a party that struggles with homophobia, Islamophobia and sexism. This party struggles with them, and we see it every single week in the Victorian political context and the Australian political context. I would be embarrassed to be on that side; I would be absolutely embarrassed. I am not saying they are like that. Let us be really clear: there are people who represent the Liberal and National parties who do not share these views. The problem is there are too many that do—way too many. Steve Bracks once said the way you have a good political party— Mr R Smith: On a point of order, Speaker, there are people in the Labor Party who also hold views that are abhorrent to me in terms of supporting Israel. There are people over there who have some issues— The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Warrandyte will resume his seat. I warn members about taking points of order in a frivolous way to raise points of debate. Mr DIMOPOULOS: Far too many have this view. Steve Bracks said in order to be a good government you need people, party and politics. Those opposite have not got any of those three right. That is why they are in opposition. Let us start with the party. These homophobic, sexist, Islamophobic comments are not made by some random party member. This goes all the way to the machinery of the party—all the way to the state council. We have many examples of state council members of the Liberal Party making these comments, and I will get to those in a moment. Candidates for public office— Mr R Smith: On a point of order, Speaker, the member for Oakleigh is about to talk about candidates. I wonder when the Premier actually called out Luke Creasey, a Labor candidate at the federal election. I am not sure I remember him being called out. The SPEAKER: The member for Warrandyte is warned. The member for Warrandyte has twice raised frivolous points of order. Mr DIMOPOULOS: He cannot handle the truth, Speaker. So we have got state council members, people who run the Liberal Party, we have got candidates for public office and we have got members of Parliament making the most disgraceful comments, and I will get to those in just a minute. For example, the president of the Victorian Liberal Party, Robert Clark, in 1995, not that long ago, said in Hansard, and I quote: In some respects I would argue that homosexual practices can be considered analogous to the practice of smoking cigarettes. It is a foolish practice— in other words, homosexual practice— it is destructive and it is harmful, and that is capable of scientific and medical measurement and assessment. If honourable members think I have got that wrong, by all means let us debate it in the house and argue on the facts. I go on to say that I believe the analogy is only partial because homosexual practices are far worse in many respects than simply smoking. As I say that, as I call them to account and hold a mirror to their faces, they walk out of the chamber. He goes on to say:

GRIEVANCE DEBATE 2308 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019

It— homosexuality— is something that individuals have to come to terms with and deal with just as someone born with haemophilia or spina bifida has to or, to use an even closer analogy, as people born with a propensity to nicotine addiction— Mr R Smith: Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house. Quorum formed. Mr DIMOPOULOS: Now to 2019, this year. At the Liberal state conference on the weekend a whole range of awful homophobic communications were made on some platform in social media and on the internet— Mr Donnellan: Jodel. Mr DIMOPOULOS: Jodel, it is apparently called—and what is worse about that is the denial from the Leader of the Opposition. Apparently it is fake news. But what was interesting about that was that the former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Bulleen, tweeted in response to his leader’s tweet saying, ‘This is fake news’, ‘Hey? #themoonlandingswerefaked’. In other words, he was a having a lend of the Leader of the Opposition by saying, ‘Come on. Of course they weren’t faked’, as the moon landings were not. But they deny that reality from their own Young Liberals. There are a million examples. If it were not for the complete time wasting of those opposite in terms of calling points of order in a grievance debate on frivolous grounds, I would have had more time. But another example: a motion was submitted by the Geelong senior branch of the Liberal Party that called for sexual orientation to be removed entirely from the federal Sex Discrimination Act 1984, therefore enabling discrimination against LGBTI people. That was not long ago; that was recently. Prime Minister Scott Morrison, the great champion of equality in Australia, abstained from the vote to legalise marriage equality in 2017. Then cabinet minister Kelly O’Dwyer told colleagues, as we knew very well, that she regards her colleagues as ‘homophobic, anti-women, climate change deniers’. That is not coming from anyone outside the party; that is from someone who has had to put up with it within the party. There are a whole range of examples from political candidates and a whole range of others. For example, Timothy Dark, now a Dandenong councillor, stood down from his role at Swinburne University Liberal Club as vice-president because he made the following comments on Facebook, including ‘faggot’ and describing homosexuality as a ‘lifestyle choice’. Timothy Dark was also vice- president of the Keysborough branch when he said: ‘I hate women with hairy armpits, as do the majority of males. I have no problems with lesbians per se, just the lifestyle choice. Are butchy lesbians considered women?’. Offensive. I have learned my lesson from quoting Facebook in the past. I have left out some of the most awful comments—and they are laughing on that side, they should not be—from their own office-holders. I am talking about people who have a position of responsibility in the Liberal Party and the most awful comments. You have the former candidate and now current member Gladys Liu, who called LGBTI issues in an interview ‘ridiculous rubbish’, as if my rights and my community’s rights are not worthy. Of course the most offensive, although he probably does not realise it, is a quote from Hansard on 12 November 2015 from Bernie Finn trying to justify somehow that he is not perhaps as homophobic as some people may think he is, and I quote:

I do have and have had over the years many gay friends. When I think about some of the more enjoyable gatherings over the years they have often been as a result of the input of one or more of those friends who are quite often very talented, have a certain flair, a way with words and are generally speaking very funny. I have to say that I do not back away from my friendship with them at all.

GRIEVANCE DEBATE Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2309

Well, good on you, Bernie. Well done, mate. How appalling is that as an example of how they just do not get it. ‘Gays are okay, if you put them in a little box over here. They are fun at a dinner party, but don’t let them run the state. Don’t let them influence public policy. Don’t let them get married’. There are a whole range of things you could say. He is the most offensive, because he does not realise he is doing it. Can I tell you, Speaker, that I found an interesting article—and this is not in any way connected to an individual I have mentioned in the past—just as an interesting thought across the board. The article in the New York Times of 27 April 2012 was headed ‘Homophobic? Maybe you’re gay’. It talks about some research undertaken about some of these people in political life—it talks about them specifically—who take such a staunch attitude against LGBTI community members and how they are often unfortunately people who are gay themselves and have not come to terms with it. My request to those people would be—and only they know who they are—that other people’s rights are just as important as your rights and you should respect them, particularly in public office. You are not here to tyrannise a minority; you are here to give people the best chance in life whatever that life might be. I just want to focus on a couple of things in the little time I have remaining. The party is in every way struggling with those issues in 2019. We dealt with those issues years ago— Mr Southwick: On a point of order, Speaker, on being factual in terms of the member’s contribution, only last week at our state council— The SPEAKER: I ask the member to resume his seat. Mr Southwick: we had the Pride branch being recognised as the biggest branch in the Liberal Party— The SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat! Mr Southwick interjected. The SPEAKER: The member will leave the chamber for the period of 1 hour. Member for Caulfield withdrew from chamber. The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Mr DIMOPOULOS: Thank you, I only have limited time remaining. Just to go back to what Steve Bracks said about people, party and politics—they do not have the party sorted. They do not have the people either. Look at the people who represent the Liberal-National parties in this Parliament. There is really a lack of diversity if you measure that against the Victorian community, and that says a lot about the policies they come up with at election time, policies which do not get the people’s support but also the policies they object to that we come up with, including our treaty with Aboriginal people and a whole range of progressive issues. I grieve for the Liberal Party and I grieve for the Victorian people. JOHN SETKA Mr WAKELING (Ferntree Gully) (14:31): Firstly, I will just remind the honourable member for Oakleigh that in fact people who are gay or lesbian can in fact now get married, because it took a Liberal government to legislate that. I will just leave that on the record. I am here to grieve for Victorians because of a lack of leadership from this government and the lack of leadership from this Premier when it comes to dealing with the rogue union leader, John Setka. When it comes to industrial relations there is only one Premier that is running this state, and it is not the member for Mulgrave. John Setka has made it very clear that he and he alone will determine what happens to him and his union. This Premier has abdicated his responsibility, has walked away, is hiding under his desk and is

GRIEVANCE DEBATE 2310 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019 not prepared to deal with this very, very important issue when it comes to dealing with rogue union leader John Setka. We have seen this failure of leadership just today in this house when the Premier, during question time, refused to refer to John Setka and come clean on what he is going to do to deal with this rogue union leader. Not only have Mr Setka’s actions been abhorrent when it comes to women, and I will deal with those shortly, but we have now seen Mr Setka make it very clear to Victorians that he is about to wage industrial war across this state. He has made it very clear that he is not going anywhere as a union leader. He is digging in. He reckons he has got the support of his membership, and he has also got the support of other union leaders in this state. He has thumbed his nose at the ACTU, he has thumbed his nose at the Trades Hall Council, but more importantly he has thumbed his nose at this Premier, because he knows this Premier will do nothing when it comes to standing up to John Setka. Mr Setka has made it very clear that he is going to walk on to other sites across Victoria where the AWU has union coverage. He is going to walk in and he is going to sign up AWU members en masse. He has made it very clear that he is about to launch an industrial jihad when it comes to the workplaces across Victoria. Where is the Premier showing leadership on this issue? I have seen in my past as an industrial officer demarcation disputes between the National Union of Workers and the Transport Workers Union, and let me tell you we have not seen anything when it comes to demarcation disputes. One needs only to go back to the 2009 West Gate Bridge industrial demarcation disputes there, where we saw death threats, car chases and violence. We are not talking about glib comments, we are talking about history. We are talking about a union and a union leader that have made it very clear that when it comes to industrial action they are prepared to do whatever it takes to assert their authority across this state, across industrial sites in both public and private operations. And let me tell you, Speaker, the government has shut its eyes, put its hands over its ears and is hoping the whole thing will go away. Let me tell you: it is not going away. And those opposite are content with that. What are we going to see? We are going to see industrial disputation. We are going to see cost blowouts. We are going to see delays in projects. We are going to see delays. Mr Dimopoulos interjected. Mr WAKELING: Those opposite: put your hands over your ears, put your hands over your eyes, it is all going to be okay. Call him out, member for Oakleigh. Stand up in this house and call out the actions of Mr Setka. Call him out. Mr Dimopoulos interjected. Mr WAKELING: Of course you won’t call him out. You’re not prepared to call him out. No-one on that side of the house is prepared to call him out. No-one is prepared to stand up in this house and call him out. Mr Dimopoulos interjected. Mr WAKELING: Speaker, I know it is unparliamentary, but I am happy for a point of order to be taken by someone opposite to say that they do call them out. I am happy for anyone to make an interjection at this point of time and call him out, but of course they remain silent. The member for Yan Yean, the whole lot of them—they all remain silent. They are not prepared to take on Mr Setka because they know that that— Mr Dimopoulos: On a point of order, Speaker— Mr WAKELING: Here we go. Here’s the apology. Call him out. The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Oakleigh on a point of order.

GRIEVANCE DEBATE Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2311

Mr Dimopoulos: Yes. The member referred specifically to me and to other members about being afraid to call out all this rubbish he is talking about, and I think that is impugning me. I ask him to desist. The SPEAKER: Order! I cannot ask a member to withdraw comments— Mr Dimopoulos: I didn’t ask him to withdraw; I asked him to desist. The SPEAKER: I cannot direct the member to do that. I do not uphold the point of order. Mr WAKELING: Well, there we go. We heard the point of order, but the member was not prepared to mention the name John Setka in his own point of order. That just demonstrates the hypocrisy of this government. Let me just give you a bit of background, a potted history, of Mr Setka. Between 1982 and 1991 Mr Setka was charged with 60 offences, and he was convicted or fined in relation to 40 of these offences—40. These included theft, assault by kicking, criminal damage and assaulting a police officer. Let me tell you, Speaker, this is a man that has had history in terms of violence. But between 2011 and 2012 the Premier, then opposition leader, welcomed his union back into the industrial left faction. Instead of wanting to distance himself from Mr Setka and his union the now Premier welcomed him back into the fold, arms around him, ‘We want you back as a member of our union’. Mr Setka, when he was assistant secretary of the CFMEU, was involved, as we know, in the Grocon dispute. Then when he was elevated back in 2012 to state secretary, we saw under his leadership the abhorrent boycotting of concrete company Boral. Under his leadership they orchestrated a $10 million boycott of Boral. That resulted in fines for contempt of court which resulted in an out-of-court settlement of $7 million. These are not the actions of a union leader who is seeking to move Victoria forward. These are the actions of a union leader who is spiteful, who is willing to use his industrial power for power’s sake and who does not care about its impact on Victorians. Now we know that the Premier is very close to John Setka. In fact a colourful Victorian identity highlighted this, and that was none other than Mick Gatto. Mick Gatto highlighted the fact back in 2014 when he said:

I don’t believe Daniel Andrews should cut … ties with— Mr Setka. We know the Premier took advice from Mick Gatto on this very important issue, and that is part of the reason why we see the situation that we have in Victoria. Mr Pearson: On a point of order, Speaker, the member for Ferntree Gully just said that the Premier took advice from Mick Gatto. I am not aware that there is any evidence to support the member’s claim, so perhaps the member might want to clarify that for the benefit of the house. Mr R Smith: Speaker, it is a spurious point of order. If we called for evidence for everything that was said in this house, I am not sure that there would be a lot said. Ms Green: On the point of order, Speaker, with an allegation so substantial I think the member ought be reminded that any serious allegation like that ought be dealt with in a different way and not during a grievance debate. The SPEAKER: Order! I do not uphold the point of order. That is an issue that may be raised in debate. The member to continue. Mr WAKELING: Thank you very much, Speaker. I was actually quoting from an article in the Herald Sun. If in fact what I am saying is incorrect, those members opposite will be able to highlight where the Premier in fact denounced the comments of Mr Gatto and where he said he did not want to have a relationship and close ties with Mr Setka; I will leave that for the next speaker to correct me on that very important issue. Maybe the member for Yan Yean will be able to provide that information.

GRIEVANCE DEBATE 2312 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019

But we know that history will show that Mr Setka has been charged with harassment of a woman and also breaching a court order. Speaker, taking up your earlier commentary, I will not comment on the specifics of that case, but what I will say is that this is not a situation where Mr Setka is denying the allegations and the matter is being presented in a court of law for the court to make a decision and where Mr Setka is in fact denying the allegations. This is a situation where Mr Setka has already indicated he is pleading guilty. He is already pleading guilty to those incidents. I am reminded of when the Premier received allegations of activities occurring amongst one of his ministers involving a woman. What was the immediate action that the Premier took? A member: He stood him down. Mr WAKELING: He stood him down. He removed him as a minister. The behaviour was not admitted to, he was not pleading guilty. It was an allegation. But the Premier called him out and said, ‘That kind of behaviour involving a woman is unacceptable in the state of Victoria and a person like that should not serve on my front bench’. I am not going to make any commentary on whether the actions did or did not occur, but the Premier did. The Premier saw fit to remove that member as a minister of his government. In this situation with Mr Setka, it is not an allegation, he has actually admitted to it; he said it did occur. We called upon the Premier to have Mr Setka removed as a member of the Labor Party, and he said, ‘I’m not prepared to comment because it is before the courts’. We then identified through the opposition, through the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, that Mr Setka was a member of a government board, a government board that was amongst other things looking at ways in which to encourage women into construction. Through that process at PAEC we called for the Premier to act, to show leadership and to stand down Mr Setka from that government board. Mr Setka served on that board in his capacity as a union leader, and we acknowledge and accept that, but it was equally fitting for the Premier to take decisive and immediate action to remove him from that board and replace him on that government board with another union leader. But no, the government refused to act. The government refused to do anything. They said, ‘We will await the outcome of a court decision’. Then we had the abhorrent situation with the comments made about Rosie Batty, and it took the intervention of Mr Albanese in New South Wales to call out Mr Setka. The media went to the Premier and asked, ‘Premier, what are you going to do? He’s a state secretary in Victoria. He’s not even a national secretary. What are you going to do about the Victorian union leader?’. Begrudgingly he said, ‘Oh, yes, I think Mr Setka should probably leave the Labor Party. Yes, I support what Anthony Albanese said’. What would have happened if Anthony Albanese did not say anything? The Premier would not have changed his position. He was embarrassed, so he had to act. You could not have a situation where the federal Labor leader was saying one thing about a union leader and the Victorian Labor Premier was saying another. He was embarrassed. He said on that day, ‘Oh, by the way, we will remove him from the government board’. We know that he did not remove him from the government board, and that was on the Tuesday. He had not removed him by the Wednesday. He had not removed him by the Thursday. He had not removed him by the Friday. He had not removed him by the weekend. In fact it took until Monday of this week for Mr Setka to be removed from the Victorian government board. If the Premier was so moved to act on this important issue, he would have instructed his cabinet to ensure that that position would have taken immediate effect in terms of his removal. Having served as a Cabinet Secretary involved in the appointment of government positions, I have a pretty good understanding of how these things work. He could have acted. He chose not to. And why? Because we know the CFMEU has so much power within the Labor Party. It has got members in this house and members in the other house. It has a very strong voting block, but more importantly, when it comes down to it, it comes down to dollars. We know that this union has donated $3.3 million to the Victorian Labor Party. That is what this is about. It is about the dollars. This Premier puts the interests of his party before the interests of Victorian businesses. He puts the interest of his party against the interests of Victorian workplaces. He puts the interests of his party

GRIEVANCE DEBATE Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2313 ahead of government cost blowouts and delays in government contracts, and that is the shameful situation. The Premier should hang his head in shame. This matter has been handled in an abhorrent and atrocious way. LIBERAL-NATIONALS POLICY Ms GREEN (Yan Yean) (14:47): I join the grievance debate today and grieve for the lack of policy and action by Liberal and National Party members in this place over a very long time and in particular in the period 2010–14. We as a government are taking huge steps in trying to rectify that total ignoring of and cuts to regional Victoria, because absolutely every time they get in, the statistics go in the wrong direction. Employment goes down, unemployment goes up, educational outcomes go down, participation goes down, and that is due to what they do when they are in government—and that is to cut. Mr Carbines: Toenails. Ms GREEN: The member for Ivanhoe has reminded me of that well-known quote from previous Premier Jeff Kennett when he said that regional Victoria was merely the toenails of Melbourne. I think very little has changed. I spent the last four years travelling in regional Victoria and I saw, particularly in coalition seats, the decay of schools—the failure not only on their watch but their failure to advocate ever. And when they are in government they take their salary, they take the white cars and they think that when you win an election the Premier gets the premiership cup—you put it on a table, you put it on a shelf, you have a look at it, fold your arms, put your feet up on the desk and you do nothing. Regional Victoria suffered more than the rest of the state on those opposite’s watch. I refer to a series of articles that Henrietta Cook has been writing in the Age, and in particular one about a panel to look at the rural student lag. Regrettably there has been a decline; there is an achievement gap between rural and city students— Ms Britnell: Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house. Quorum formed. Ms GREEN: An analysis by the Age revealed that the VCE results at more than 60 per cent of state high schools in the country and regions and almost 50 per cent of non-government schools had declined in the past decade. So we are not actually sitting and resting on our laurels on that. That is a terrible statistic. We have actually set up a panel to look into that rural student lag, and that was initiated by this government, by the minister and by the Deputy Premier. Where do we think that the genesis of that lag—the year 9 students who are 12 months behind in their NAPLAN results—would have been? We have been back in office for four and a half years now, so those year 9 students would have been in their formative years before then. During those formative years in primary school what did we see that occurred under the watch of those opposite? They cut almost $1 billion from education over four years. They cut funding from TAFE—$733 million in 2011 to $468 million in 2014—and they shut down teaching at campuses and facilities across the state. They shut Advance TAFE, Farmtech; Advance TAFE Sale, Cafe Rossi; Advance TAFE Sale, SEATS; Advance TAFE, Forestech; Advance TAFE outreach centres at Yarram, Orbost, Heyfield, Buchan and Swifts Creek. They shut Bendigo TAFE, Kerang—how could you have shut Kerang? The Leader of the National Party oversaw closing a TAFE campus in Kerang. They shut the Bendigo TAFE campus in Maryborough. Maryborough has been beset with intergenerational poverty. How on earth could you do that? They shut the Melbourne Polytechnic campus at Ararat, the South West TAFE at Glenormiston, the Federation University campus at Ararat and the Federation University campus at Stawell. In addition, as if that was not enough, they cut school maintenance and rebuilding, and there were barely any schools opened on their watch. In 2014 enrolments at TAFEs had dropped by 33 per cent, and so government-funded training enrolments by regional students, trainees and disabled and disadvantaged learners were all in decline.

GRIEVANCE DEBATE 2314 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019

Then when we came to office we saw—surprise, surprise—there was a skill shortage. Unemployment was up under their watch, but what has happened to unemployment and employment in regional Victoria now? In regional Victoria we have the nation’s lowest regional unemployment rate of just 4.6 per cent, well under the national average of 5.4 per cent. The 2019 budget delivers a brand-new $2.6 billion Delivering for Regional and Rural Victoria program, which will create an additional estimated 4500 jobs. And we are not resting on our laurels on that. We are decreasing the tax burden on rural and regional businesses. We want existing businesses to be able to grow so that not only can the community be educated there, they can also actually have a good, well-paying job. So what do we see from these people, the political masters in Canberra? What is their response to a skill shortage? It is to expand the backpackers visa from two to three years, with no regulations and no checks, and in the face of the most appalling abuse that has been heard—young women being sexually assaulted and appalling conditions. So let us exploit a few backpackers from overseas! It is just so much easier than investing in our young people that live in regional Victoria. Well, we are not the sort of government that will do that. We invest in our young people and we are helping businesses thrive in regional Victoria. This is the third budget in a row that we have cut the regional payroll tax. Firstly we reduced it by 50 per cent, and then again, and now it is down to 0.25 per cent of the rest of the state—by far and away the lowest payroll tax in the country. We are also reducing duty on commercial and industrial property transfers. So that is what an activist government does to rural and regional Victoria. And I know that the member for Oakleigh before invoked our great former leader who I first served under, Premier Steve Bracks. What he always said to us was, ‘If you leave one part of the state to lag, you weaken the whole state’. Well, when the coalition were in government they could not care less about what happened in their own communities. Otherwise why would you ever cut TAFE, why would you cut health services, why would you cut education, why would you allow the increase of poor indicators for early childhood? I will turn to what we are doing in early childhood and education. We are actually growing that sector and we are delivering three-year-old kinder, and where are we rolling it out first? Where are we rolling it out from next year? Not in Labor heartland, not in the centre of Melbourne. We are rolling it out where it is needed and where those opposite never considered the needs of the kids—in the most disadvantaged communities in the far west of the state—in the Buloke shire, in Yarriambiack shire, in West Wimmera. So we actually give a damn about those communities and the future for those children. We do not take a class-based approach and sit on the selection like a squatter on the verandah and think about how you can make your next buck and exploit the next poor old backpacker—and don’t worry about the kids in your town on the wrong side of the tracks or the kids in government schools, because yours are all off at grammar or at boarding school. I have been to towns like Donald and like Charlton—my dad grew up in the Wimmera and he went to government schools—and I had heard about the results from Donald Secondary College and that they get really fine results in VCE. I thought, ‘Gee, this school must be something special. From its results, the teaching and learning, it sounds brilliant’, and I went into that school and I was absolutely gobsmacked by how long those buildings had been in decline. In one administration area there was a crack from the bottom of one corner of the building right to another. You could have almost put your arm through that crack—absolutely disgraceful. I thought, ‘Who does this reflect on?’. I thought, ‘Who has not done what here?’. And I thought, ‘I am going to mine Hansard and I am going to find out if anyone has ever advocated for those schools’. Those schools have moved in and out of the Lowan or Wimmera electorates or Swan Hill—what is now Murray Plains—and Ripon. This was well before Donald Trump was elected or was even running for Republican selection but there were more mentions of Donald Trump by opposition members than there were of this fantastic school. The only members that I saw who had advocated for those schools were Labor members in a former member for Northern Victoria Region, Candy Broad, and a member for Western Victoria Region in the other place, Jaala Pulford. That just said it all.

GRIEVANCE DEBATE Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2315

Then I went up the road to visit Charlton College because I had heard good things about them too, and I was concerned also about some of their lack of access to information technology, broadband and things like that, because of a lack of investment by the federal government. As the staff in the HR area and WorkCover area will know, I actually had a fall there. It was the first time in decades that I had to say that I had had a workplace injury. I slipped on the terrible floor there and sustained a knee injury, but the throbbing of my knee on the way home put a throbbing into my thought processes. I thought, ‘I am not going to put up with this. I am not going to see children in regional Victoria have to put up with that sort of decay and decline’, so with every fibre in my body I thought, ‘I am going to make sure that we get back and we continue to invest in education’. What we have seen under this government is that we have in each budget invested more than the year before, and this year again we have invested massively in education. I talked about TAFE. We have fixed the TAFE problem. We are having free kindergarten. We did not have a fight with them with their enterprise bargaining and have regional kids have no access to kinder because there was an industrial dispute. We are investing in their future. We have got a whole lot of courses where there are shortages, and we have added kindergarten teaching to that shortage now, and we are offering scholarships so that those teachers will be attracted to teaching in rural and regional Victoria. I think that the Liberal and Nationals parties really do have to reflect on why they think they can claim credit for being for rural and regional Victoria. I think I have a real clue as to why fantastic members like the member for Shepparton have been elected and then returned, and the fantastic member for Mildura and also the member for Morwell, who has now been returned as an Independent in this place. It is because they actually speak up for their communities without fear or favour. They are not mute and they are prepared to work with the government of the day to get things done for their communities because they give a damn. It is not just about the trappings of office, it is actually about doing the hard yards. I grieve for those opposite for their complete neglect and lack of regard for rural and regional Victoria. JOHN SETKA Ms VALLENCE (Evelyn) (15:02): I rise today to grieve for the people of Victoria who have yet again been let down by the Premier and his government, who have demonstrated that they put the interests of militant trade unionist John Setka first before the survivors of domestic violence abuse. Everyone from the federal Labor leader Anthony Albanese to Tanya Plibersek, Penny Wong, former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and ACTU secretary Sally McManus has in the last week called upon John Setka to resign from his position as state secretary of the CFMMEU. Yet the Premier and the ministers of this Labor government have failed the test of decency by refusing to call for John Setka’s resignation from the CFMMEU. So chained is this government to the millions of dollars in donations that it receives from the CFMMEU that it cannot bring itself to do what every other Labor leader worth their salt has done— that is, tell John Setka he is no longer welcome in the trade union movement and no longer fit to be a senior official engaging with this government on matters that impact Victorians. The Andrews government has shown itself through silence and inaction on this matter to be morally bankrupt when it comes to standing up for decency and respect and against family violence and intimidation. This government has spoken big about how committed it is to addressing the scourge of family violence in this country, but when it comes to one of its own, one of the most senior ranking officials in the trade union movement, John Setka, when this person was exposed as a perpetrator of family violence this government’s silence was deafening. Instead of stepping up and showing leadership, instead of demonstrating to everyone in this state that no matter who you are, what you do or how politically connected you are nothing but zero tolerance will be acceptable of anyone who engages in family violence, this government chose to turn a blind eye and failed to live up to the standard that the Premier has set himself—that is, and I quote, ‘The standard you walk past is the standard you accept’. Not only

GRIEVANCE DEBATE 2316 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019 has this government walked past it but it has kept walking. In fact it has run a million miles away, it has closed its eyes, it has shut its ears and it has hoped it would all evaporate into the ether. It failed to confront the inconvenient truth that it chose to protect its union donors instead of standing up for family violence survivors and calling out John Setka and demanding his resignation from the CFMMEU. Every senior government minister in the Andrews government has refused to demand John Setka’s resignation. Not even the Minister for Women and Minister for Prevention of Family Violence was willing to stand up for the survivors of family violence and call out this abhorrent behaviour. The Royal Commission into Family Violence, which this government set up and accepted all recommendations from, said governments must treat family violence as a core area of responsibility and hold perpetrators of family violence to account. I grieve for the people of Victoria for the position this Andrews government is taking. Why aren’t they holding John Setka accountable? Why are they failing all the survivors of family violence by refusing to call John Setka out? How was it acceptable under any measure or standard for this person to continue to sit in a paid position on a government board after he indicated he would plead guilty to family violence offences? How does this reconcile with any of this government’s rhetoric on family violence? Quite simply, it does not. The Andrews government has continually cowered behind the pathetic excuse that it cannot say or do anything because the matter is before the court. That is just plain cowardice. No-one is asking the government to comment on the case or suggest what sentence the court should impose. Rather, Victorians are legitimately asking their government if, in today’s society, it is appropriate for a man who has announced he will plead guilty to family violence offences to continue to hold one of the most senior leadership positions in the trade union movement. That has nothing to do with the case before the courts. All we are seeking is leadership from this government, but it has continually demonstrated that it is incapable of such leadership when one of its own is in the frame. Victorians know the tirade of abuse that John Setka subjected this woman—this victim—to. On 13 June the Herald Sun published several of the 45 text messages that were sent to this woman in one night. These messages are full of disgusting and obscene language and are a mark of the man who sent them. They include statements such as: ‘Your dad would be proud of you, you turned into the drunken moron like the one he left … You weak’ expletive ‘piece of’ expletive; ‘You’re a’ expletive ‘just like the rest of your family’; ‘After what I did for you today you treat me like some … moron you sneaky’ expletive ‘that’s why all your memories are going to the tip tomorrow morning, you just triggered a hatred in my heart I didn’t think existed’ expletive ‘dog’; ‘You are a treacherous Aussie’ expletive expletive ‘who wouldn’t know what a decent family was’. The other text messages included photos with the woman’s face drawn over. I grieve for this woman. I grieve for Victorians who are rightly disgusted. This is a man who has called this woman, amongst some of the most disgusting terms, ‘drunken moron’, ‘weak’ expletive ‘piece of’ expletive, and expletive ‘dog’. Yet those opposite sit there like stunned mullets doing nothing to call this behaviour out. Shame on you! How can you let such a man continue to be a leader in the trade union movement so influential to Labor’s strategy and policy? What is even more shameful is the fact that it was not Mr Setka’s guilty plea that initiated suspension of his Labor Party membership or calls for his resignation, rather it was only after his repulsive comments about Rosie Batty were made public that the Labor Party finally caved in to the insurmountable pressure it was under to act. How shameful that it has come to this—that it took attacks on Rosie Batty but not an admission in effect of guilt of family violence before the labour movement would be embarrassed into taking a stand. The stench of hypocrisy of the Labor Party is rife when it comes to always dodging the hard calls on dealing with trade union bosses who bring the labour movement into disrepute. John Setka is not only an embarrassment to you, he is an embarrassment to every other member of the CFMMEU.

GRIEVANCE DEBATE Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2317

This entire sorry episode, which will leave a permanent stain on this government’s legacy, has demonstrated how empty this government’s rhetoric on family violence really is when one of its own is found to be a perpetrator of such unacceptable conduct. But again, this conduct should come as no surprise to anyone. John Setka has an appalling history of engaging in violence and making threats, which the Labor Party has consistently turned a blind eye to, to its utter shame. It is worth putting this violent history on the record to call out how the Labor Party has failed to do anything to bring this individual to account. John Setka has been convicted of criminal trespass as an official of the former Builders Labourers Federation, which former Prime Minister Bob Hawke had the guts to deregister. John Setka has been convicted of criminal intimidation as an official of the CFMEU. John Setka has been found by the federal courts to have engaged in coercion and breaches of freedom of association and right of entry onto construction sites. In March 2008 John Setka entered a construction site and told a foreman that, ‘If you kill anyone on this job I’m going to quit my’ expletive ‘job and get you’. When asked if that was a threat, John Setka replied, ‘I’m not’ expletive ‘threatening, I’m’ expletive ‘promising. I will get you’. In September 2011 the Heydon royal commission found that John Setka had told a construction manager, ‘I know you have a concreter on site. I hate the’ expletive. ‘I’m going to come down there, rip his head off’, expletive ‘down his throat, and bury his head next to Ned Kelly’s’. He later left a phone message with an expletive-filled, racist tirade that said, ‘Leigh, it’s John Setka. Can you please give me a ring about this’ expletive ‘dog Turkish’ expletive ‘painting piece of’ expletive ‘on your job?’. There is more. During the Grocon Myer Emporium dispute in December 2012, in which the Melbourne CBD was shut down and the CFMEU was criminally convicted of contempt and fined $1.25 million, John Setka was found by the federal court to have told Grocon executives that he would ‘smash them’; called construction workers ‘rats’, ‘scabs’ and ‘dogs’; told one construction worker who had been receiving cancer treatment, ‘I hope you die of your cancer’; told a construction worker, ‘Don’t forget my face. I will come after you’; told a security guard that unless he shut up he would ‘shut him up permanently’; and punched the windscreen of a car. And there is more violent and threatening behaviour. This time it involves threatening violence towards families and children. In June 2017 John Setka told a mass crowd that he would give government inspectors—hardworking members of the public service—a dire warning that he would: … tell them who lives in that house and what he does for a living, or she, and we will go to their local footy club. We’ll go to their local shopping centre. They will not be able to show their faces anywhere. Their kids will be ashamed of who their parents are when we expose all these ABCC inspectors. And in September 2018 in quite an abhorrent way—and in my view this was abusive of children—he published a tweet which involved a photo of two young children holding a sign directed to government inspectors that read—my apologies, Deputy Speaker—‘Go get’ effed. By any measure this man is unbecoming and unfit to hold any leadership position, let alone as a leader of a trade union. I grieve for all Victorians, who have a government which by its silence and inaction on this matter and on this individual is saying that this behaviour is okay in our society. It is not. By its acquiescence the Labor Party has enabled John Setka and many others like him to engage in such unlawful and abhorrent behaviour and has stood idly by as he has wreaked havoc on the state’s construction industry. I grieve for all Victorians who are now beholden to the actions of John Setka, his cronies and his militant CFMMEU, who are planning utter disruption and chaos—an outright industrial war—on construction sites right across Victoria on key infrastructure projects like the West Gate Tunnel and Melbourne Metro. With what decency and respect it has left, if it will not act to protect workers and contractors on building sites from John Setka, then at the very least this Andrews government must act to protect women from suffering from the same harassing conduct of John Setka by calling him out now and doing everything it can to ensure he never holds a leadership position in the labour movement again.

GRIEVANCE DEBATE 2318 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019

This would send a signal to all Victorians—those grieving Victorians—that no matter who they are, family violence will never be tolerated. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE Mr PEARSON (Essendon) (15:13): I rise to grieve for the re-election of the Morrison government—this insipid, weak, clueless administration that has sleepwalked through the last 12 months and will no doubt sleepwalk through the next three years. You look at the recent GDP figures for our nation and you see that in the 12 months to 31 March 2019 the national economy grew by 1.8 per cent. If it was going any slower, it would be going out the door backwards. This is a sluggish economy because the government has no clear agenda, has got no idea as to what it is doing and is just sleepwalking its way through each day of government. This has a profound impact upon our state. It has a profound impact upon our nation when you have a government that has got no agenda and no clue and no ideas. You need to have a government that has got a clear view, a clear purpose and a clear mission and that is prepared to invest the vital funds needed to stimulate the economy and to provide the opportunity for the private sector to get in on the action. This mob, they are just taking a leaf out of the Napthine-Baillieu governments’ playbook of basically doing nothing, being asleep and hoping that they can just sort of coast their way through. That is not the way you create a great society; that is not the way you create a fair society. We have got rising rates of inequality right now in our community. This is a phenomenon that is occurring right across the Western world, so it is not a specific Australian issue, but we are seeing a hollowing out of the middle class and we are seeing people under increasing pressure to pay the bills, to try and find enough money to fund their entry into the housing market. Because the deal always was, always has been here in Australia, that if you work hard and you apply yourself and you have got modest habits and modest interests, you will get a house. Basically the long-term average, probably up until the 1990s, was that you could look at getting a house for, say, three or four times your gross annual income. Now if you look at Melbourne, it is more like 10 times your gross annual income. So people are being locked out. You are seeing more and more jobs that are being lost to automation. So the notion that you can have a good job, a comfortable job, a way in which you can try and provide for your family and just have the one job and be able to have recreation time to spend with your family on the weekend—or, if not, if you are working, to get penalty rates—that notion, that vision, that compact that has existed, is under siege, is under threat and is under sustained pressure. Now, the response from the federal government is to look at wanting to pass tax cuts for high-income earners. How on earth is that going to help the people working in the gig economy? How is that going to help the one in 15 households in the suburb of Flemington that is experiencing rental stress, according to the last census? It is not. This is a government that has no clear plans and no clear visions for trying to address these fundamental issues. I would draw the house’s attention to an outstanding book called Why Nations Fail. The thesis of Why Nations Fail, and it looks at a myriad of societies over thousands of years, relates to ensuring that you have, in order to survive, inclusive economic institutions and inclusive political institutions—that is, you need to make sure that you have got a robust democracy in place to ensure that people can have their say or feel that they have got the ability to have their say, and democracy is probably the most obvious form of that system of government, and that running concurrently with that you have inclusive economic institutions. You have got the opportunity to make sure that if people work hard and are disciplined and apply themselves, they have the opportunity of creating their own wealth so that they can create their own destiny and so that they are not stuck in servitude and have no capacity to get ahead. There was a recent article in the Australian Financial Review, I think earlier in the week, talking about the fact that more and more people have to work two or three or four jobs just to keep their head above water. Now, these are real challenges that our society is facing, and it is a challenge not just Australia is facing; the western world is facing it. But the way to tackle it is to have a bold vision. It is about

GRIEVANCE DEBATE Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2319 trying to understand that there is an increasing problem and that we need to try to address that, because if we do not look at addressing these things, then they will have a significant deleterious impact upon our community. You need to be prepared to do that hard work. It is about trying to work with the community and taking people with you. It is about welcoming new arrivals, people from a culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. I grieve for African-Australians who now face again the prospect of being victimised, blamed and demonised by the federal government across the next three years. Who could ever forget that shameful interference by Peter Dutton when he claimed that people in Melbourne are too frightened to go out because of African gangs? It was just appalling. This government has used these communities—my communities, people who I represent—and demonised them for their own base political purposes. They are conspicuously absent when it comes to providing more public housing, as has always been the case, when the federal government would provide the public housing and the state would run it. They have no interest in terms of trying to find a solution for a Somali family living in Flemington with six kids and two parents in a two-bedroom flat. They do not care about that—‘No, we’re not going to talk about that; we’re not interested in public housing’. They are not interested in investing in our schools. They are not interested in turning around and looking at some of these schools and saying, ‘How can we try and make sure that if your parents can’t even read and write in Somali, let alone English, you have an opportunity to do well? You’ve got smart kids who are poor who deserve a chance’. How do you try and engage with kids who might be disengaged when they are 15 or 16 to make sure that they get to go to TAFE or they have an opportunity to do the Victorian certificate of applied learning at school? Where is the federal government on these matters? Or what about the 16-year-old kid who has come into contact with the juvenile justice system? Where is the federal government trying to provide those kids with support and a pathway out? Silence, no interest. They do not care about these communities. They are only interested in these communities for one reason: to victimise them and to demonise them and to create fear and anxiety in the community. These communities, I am really lucky to have so many call my electorate their home. I am so fortunate to be afforded the opportunity of representing their interests in this place. A member interjected. Mr PEARSON: Thank you kindly. And they are outstanding representatives of our community. They are just continuing that great migration story that we have had in this nation since Arthur Calwell was immigration minister, where we have welcomed successive waves of migration to our shores, where we have looked at trying to provide that basic foundation of welcome, of respect, of encouragement to these new communities to come here to form part of our great community. If you look back, to some extent there have always been challenges whenever a new wave of immigration has arrived in our country. The Italians and the Greeks were victimised. The Turks and the Vietnamese were the subject of racial abuse at the time of their arrival. But over the great passage of time we have created something very special by creating that sense of welcome and by becoming a more diverse and multicultural and respectful society and community. I have no doubt that in the years to come the South Sudanese, the Somalis, the Eritreans, the Ethiopians and the Oromo communities— all of whom live in my community—will be treated in exactly the same way. And I look forward to the day when we have African-Australians in this place, on this side, representing the Labor Party in this institution and getting to the point when you walk into a meeting with a roomful of senior public servants or you walk into a room with senior figures from corporate Australia and there are African- Australians in that room and it is not commented upon; you do not even notice it. You just walk in there and you say, ‘Right, I’m having a meeting. Oh, there’s a person who’s got a different ethnic heritage to me’, but it is not noticed; it is not commented upon. It was not that long ago when it would be commented upon if you walked into a room and there was a senior person in business who was a

GRIEVANCE DEBATE 2320 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019 woman or there was a senior public servant who was a woman. Now it does not even get a mention, and nor should it. But that is what we have to get to. But do you know what? You cannot let the market solve all of these problems. You cannot just take a laissez-faire approach to inequality and think that it is going to be fixed, because it does not work that way. You need to have a strong and interventionist state that recognises that there are peculiar and distinct challenges facing different cohorts in our community, and the way to address that is to look at having targeted assistance—to try to work with these communities, to try and find a way of partnering with them, to understand their issues and concerns, to understand that they have got their own issues that are different to others. Many African-Australians who have come here have experienced trauma. Many of the South Sudanese who have come here have either seen and experienced trauma in South Sudan or have come through the refugee camps of Kenya and been exposed to that. We know that if you traumatise a child, it has a profound impact on the way in which they can lead a full and meaningful life. The solution is not to turn around and say, ‘White people are afraid to go out at night because of you’, because that is the message that was given by Peter Dutton. That is exactly the message that he wanted to give. You cannot treat people like that, but that is what this government has sought to do. They are only interested in race-based politics; they are only interested in demonising the new arrivals in our community. They are not prepared to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work that is required to create a just and equitable society. Supply-side economics is absolute bunkum. It makes no sense. If you provide tax cuts to rich people, they pocket it. They put it in their superannuation, they use it to buy another property or they use it to buy shares. They do not turn around and invest it in the economy. They do not spend it; they save it. You give a worker who is on 50 000 a year a tax cut and that worker will spend it. They will go out for dinner or they will take their kids to the zoo or they might buy some clothes for work or they might upgrade their phone. Because when you are on 50 000 a year, chances are you are going to be spending pretty much or close to 50 000 each and every year. This is why we have got such appalling and lazy economic growth—because this federal government has no vision for the nation. There is no strategy, there is no vision and we have got wage stagnation. The notion that you can tackle wage stagnation by giving senior associates at a law firm very large tax cuts or making the partners of the same law firms that bit wealthier is nonsense. It is nonsense. Do you know what? Part of the problem is that people like the Prime Minister spend far too much time, for example, up in Sydney fundraising with their rich mates. I note that in an article in the New Daily from earlier this year there was talk about a Mr Justin Hemmes, who hosted a cocktail party to raise campaign funds for the Prime Minister. This guy has been ripping off his workers. But do not worry: he rips off his workers but he will throw open his harbourside mansion for a $10 000 a head dinner for millionaires to defeat the Labor Party in the last federal election. Well, Mr Hemmes, congratulations, you won. You ripped off your workers and you won, and the workers have paid the price through your appalling behaviour. We in the Labor Party have been used to our successes and we have been used to a few defeats along the way, but we get up and we keep fighting. We are not going to toss in the towel, because we are on a sacred mission to provide a better and fairer society for working Australians. I and other members on this side of the house will continue to work over the next three years to defeat this lazy excuse of a government—a government that you cannot say lost its way because it never had it to begin with. It stumbled into office and it is just doing absolutely nothing to address the real root causes that are confronting working people. So I grieve for the people of Australia and for the people of Victoria for the re-election of this government. JOHN SETKA Mr T SMITH (Kew) (15:28): I grieve for the people of Victoria. I grieve for the lack of moral fortitude of this Labor government led by the Premier, who has steadfastly refused to call out John

GRIEVANCE DEBATE Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2321

Setka’s appalling litany of crimes over many years but more recently his pleading guilty to two very serious charges relating to family violence. Now, I take the Premier at his word, and indeed this government at their word, that he is committed to alleviating the scourge that is family violence, but the complete hypocrisy of the situation—it took the federal Labor leader to finally call out John Setka and move for his expulsion from the Australian Labor Party, where the Premier has only put out this very brief statement: Rosie Batty is a person of great courage who has fundamentally changed the way our country views and acts on family violence. She is rightly admired by all Australians. For the record, I completely agree with the Premier’s comments here.

The comments made about her by Mr Setka are disgraceful and his refusal to apologise for them is appalling. I agree with that too. They cannot be defended in any context and I support the actions that Anthony Albanese has taken. The question is, Premier, why did it take you so long to put out that relatively mild statement compared to other statements that have now been made by union leaders? On 23 May Mr Setka pled guilty to harassing women and breaching a court order. On 27 May we asked in question time about the Premier’s views of John Setka and him remaining a member of the Australian Labor Party. We also asked the Minister for Women for her views about Mr Setka and whether or not he should remain a member of the Australian Labor Party. They would not call out John Setka; they would not mention his name. This total hypocrisy must be called out, and members of the labour movement are calling out John Setka. Finally, Sally McManus has shown some courage on this matter and has called out John Setka and said that he is no longer fit to lead the CFMEU. At estimates on 31 May we revealed that Mr Setka had been appointed to a government board for the construction industry. On 4 June our leader, the Leader of the Opposition, continued to call out John Setka and his membership of the Australian Labor Party. The Premier at this point had still said nothing. It was not until 11 June, a few weeks after Mr Setka had pled guilty to those very, very serious charges, that Anthony Albanese finally came out and called for Mr Setka to be removed from the Australian Labor Party. Why? Because of allegations that Mr Setka had slandered Rosie Batty at a CFMEU meeting. Why not earlier when it became apparent that Mr Setka had done something very wrong—in fact very criminal—that he had indeed pleaded guilty to? Why no comment from this government that lauds itself and its record on family violence? No-one today in this debate from the government benches has done the decent thing and said, ‘Well, yes, Mr Setka has been a longstanding member of the Labor Party; he has been a longstanding member and a leader of the labour movement’. Not one Labor MP in this place today has said, ‘John Setka has no future in the Australian Labor Party’. I think that is an utter disgrace. Many Labor members come into this place and quite rightly attack various elements within the Liberal Party for some of the ridiculous and insensitive and intolerant things they have posted on social media. Do you know what we do on this side of the house? We call them out. We say, ‘It’s unacceptable, they should be investigated’, and in certain instances, ‘They should be removed from the Liberal Party’. I have said that many times. I have said it many times at the doors. I have said it many times in this chamber. But not so Labor. This vehement tribalism seems to excuse all manner of illegality because ‘Oh he’s one of us, he’s one of the boys. He’s one of us’—this really ugly, very old-fashioned, collectivist view, despite Mr Setka being a convicted felon who has been charged with 60 crimes and convicted of 40 of them—‘But don’t worry about that. He’s one of us. He’s one of the boys. He sticks up for the workers against the bosses. Therefore he’s beyond reproach’. Well, we on this side of the house do not believe in that; we actually believe in individual responsibility. Even if one of our own does the wrong thing, we call them out, and sometimes you

GRIEVANCE DEBATE 2322 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019 have got to cut them loose. That is very hard in politics—to say to allies and friends and people that you have served with or have been on the same side of politics with, ‘You’ve done the wrong thing and you should be called for it’. Because you have to provide moral leadership when you are governing a state or you are a major political party purporting to want to govern the country, the state or anywhere else, and Labor has failed this test. It has been a moral test and the Premier has failed it dramatically. The labour movement was so slow to come to terms with the gravity of Setka’s crimes, and they are very serious crimes, what Setka has done: using a carriage service to harass a woman—and we all know who we are talking about as well, let us just be honest—and then breaching a family violence order. Let us not forget that there were 30 charges—quite violent charges—that were laid on John Setka in this domestic incident, and they have been withdrawn. I am not going to run a commentary as to why that has occurred, but I think to all of us in this place who know something about the psychology of family violence that should be of great concern, because we all know what is going on there. Today the Electrical Trades Union (ETU) is threatening to audit federal and Victorian Labor MPs for any history of domestic violence allegations in retaliation for the ALP and unions moving against Victorian construction union boss John Setka. The Australian reported as of an hour ago: ETU Victorian secretary, Troy Gray— I have never had the pleasure of meeting Mr Gray— a close ally of Mr Setka— he must be a real charmer, this fella—

said today the union would conduct the audit of Labor MPs ‘to make sure they’re clean’— whatever that means— if they were going to be ‘judge and jury’ about Mr Setka’s conduct. Mr Setka has said he intends to plead guilty to harassment charges… et cetera— ‘If people are going to try and do a political hatchet job on a union official then we will be looking to see if people have skeletons in their closet,’ Mr Gray told The Australian. There have been a few audits that spring to mind in recent times. The last audit that was spoken of in the media was the audit that Mr Setka himself is now trying to do at the CFMEU headquarters. The Age reported that:

A meeting of the CFMMEU’s Victorian construction leadership endorsed a series of inflammatory motions on Monday including launching an investigation to target ‘cowardly’ leaks. Besides launching their investigation they also demanded that the union’s national office appoint an independent investigator to uncover leaks to the Age. That proposed probe would target members of the CFMMEU’s national executive while the union’s own probe would target its staff and even the union’s lawyers, Gordon Legal, with the Setka-led branch demanding access to records to see if they were involved in any of the leaks to the Age. That would involve a ‘forensic IT and phone audit of all employees, branch officials and national officers of the union, with access to the private documents’. Well, John Setka must be taking a leaf out of the Premier’s book. Do you remember the phone audit a couple of years ago when, to stem the torrent of leaks that was coming out of the then cabinet, the poor old Premier and his mate the Leader of the Government in the other place—who I have referred to on a number of occasions as the Cardinal Wolsey of the Victorian government, or indeed the Victorian Parliament, which he himself finds quite amusing—decided that enough was enough and they were going to start auditing everyone’s phones as well. Members interjecting.

GRIEVANCE DEBATE Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2323

Mr T SMITH: Yes, indeed. So we have now got the CFMEU investigating their own and the ETU threatening to investigate all Labor MPs. It would be fair to observe that it is not going so well for the comrades at the moment. There is much concern and angst amongst the comrades; they are not a happy family. Divorce is always difficult, but clearly the broad left CFMEU and those great law-abiding characters in that union are not happy with their leader; they are trying to get rid of him—and, frankly, good on them. I think he should go. I think John Setka should be never heard or seen from again. The man is a grub. And, frankly, quite why state Labor MPs and this Labor government cannot call him out is beyond me. Anthony Albanese—he is not the toughest bloke in the world, old jellyback up there, and he will not last long, but at least he has done the right thing. At least he has done the right thing, and he dragged the Premier of Victoria kicking and screaming. I do not know why this Premier will not call out these union brutes. I saw Peter Marshall in the vestibule last night, and I saw the Minister for Police and Emergency Services scurrying away relatively quickly as soon as she saw me, frankly. The fact that Peter Marshall still has not been censored in any way, shape or form by this Labor government is disgraceful. He is a brute; he is a bully. He threatened to put an axe into the head of Jane Garrett of the other place, and yet nothing from this Premier. Why won’t the Premier take on these bullies in his own movement? Why won’t he? What do they have on him—or is he just weak? I would not necessarily have described the Premier as a weak man, but in this instance he has shown a profound lack of moral fortitude to call out those in his own movement that have done the wrong thing. It will be revealed in the weeks to come the extent of Mr Setka’s crimes, because he will be sentenced. Obviously it is before the courts, and I will not say more on that matter. I suppose it comes down to money. As my friend the member for Ferntree Gully said earlier, the CFMMEU have donated literally millions of dollars to the Australian Labor Party, particularly here in Victoria, over recent years, and they will continue to do so because of the sweetheart deal that this Labor government did with campaign finance reform last year to ensure that the unions can still contribute. And, yes, the CFMMEU funds the Labor Party. Whereas Setka used to come after everyone’s preselection when he did not like them—he used to come after bosses too and he used to come after police officers; I believe he assaulted one of them once—he is now threatening to, I suppose, turn off the tap of the funds that fund the Labor Party. All I can say is from my perspective: well, I hope he does that, obviously. But the Labor Party should have the decency to say, ‘We don’t want your money whilst you’re the leader of this organisation, John Setka, because, John Setka, you are a grub, you are a crook, you sully the name of the Labor Party by your presence’. The fact that the Premier will still take their money, that the Premier will not do what Anthony Albanese has done and call out this shocking litany of crimes—very serious domestic violence crimes that this man has committed—just shows you that factionalism and a brutish culture of union organisers still very much pervades this Labor Party. He may try and put on the face of, I suppose, being a trendy hipster in his blazer and his tight jeans out there on the weekend in Fitzroy, having faux beers with Bill Shorten and all that sort of stuff— Members interjecting. Mr T SMITH: That was funny. I did actually say at the time that was nonsense, and it turned out to be so. In conclusion, the Premier needs to show leadership on this matter. The Premier needs to come out and unequivocally denounce John Setka—not use the weasel words he has been using for the past few weeks. He has got to show leadership within his own movement, but particularly within his own party, because no-one doubts all people of goodwill in this country are trying to eradicate domestic violence, but when you have a perpetrator in your own midst, in your own movement, and you do nothing about it, you just sound and look like a fraud. LIBERAL PARTY Ms COUZENS (Geelong) (15:43): I grieve for the people of Victoria who are subjected to homophobic, sexist and anti-religious slurs. And speaking of crooks and grubs, of concern is the report

GRIEVANCE DEBATE 2324 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019 in the Age on Tuesday that lewd, homophobic and anti-religious slurs appear to have been exchanged among Victorian Liberals at last week’s state council meeting. A series of messages were posted on an anonymous social media platform, with Liberal delegates who attended the event using derogatory and offensive terms. While the messages were published anonymously, they were written using the Liberals’ official state council hashtag and posted from Moonee Ponds, where the event was attended by hundreds of MPs and delegates on Saturday and Sunday. So the question I ask is: what message does this send to our community? It concerns me, and I know in my community of Geelong, for young LGBTIQ people this has a profound effect because when they hear these homophobic messages coming from our community leaders, it puts them back. I am gravely concerned about those attitudes and about what they have to endure as young people that are LGBTIQ and struggling with everyday life. They are struggling to keep themselves aware of what is going on around them. We know that suicide is a significant factor for young people, particularly LGBTIQ people, who are struggling. We need to be very aware of the comments that we make publicly as community leaders. Community leaders should be role models. They should not be making these statements that impact on people in such a negative way. I grieve also for women in our community who have to endure those sorts of sexist and racist comments. I know in my community of Geelong, the multicultural community of Geelong are severely impacted by these sorts of comments that come from our leaders—people who should know better, people who know the damage that they can cause. Making these sorts of comments is totally inappropriate. We know that mental health is impacted by what people say and what our community leaders say. They should be role models for people, not causing more and more difficulties and struggles for people who are battling already. I have heard young people’s stories about how they feel when they hear these sorts of homophobic comments and the impact that it has on them personally. They often have to deal with it at school and they have to deal with it at home, but to have to deal with your community leaders making those homophobic comments is very distressing for them. It is our responsibility as leaders to ensure that people feel a part of our community and that we have an inclusive community. I know in my community we find this sort of behaviour completely unacceptable, particularly when it comes from those who are meant to be community leaders and setting a good example. On the Liberal candidate for Bendigo West, it was interesting reading Hansard from back in 2014 when the member for Bendigo West said, and I quote:

It is with a deep sense of frustration with the never-ending discrimination within the ranks of the Liberal Party that I rise to grieve for the people of Bendigo, especially the people of Bendigo West, who have been exposed to the disgusting, vile, outrageous and inappropriate commentary of a Liberal Party member and a man who was the Liberal Party’s first choice as a candidate for Bendigo West at the November state election. The comments made by Jack Lyons were an affront to the people of Bendigo, to every woman, to every person from a different culture and to the people of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (GLBTIQ) communities. It is apparent that misogyny is alive and well in the ranks of the Liberal Party in Bendigo. It is well known that sexist jokes and misogynistic language help to reinforce gender stereotypes and normalise violent behaviour against women. I support what the member for Bendigo West said in her comments. We then move on to another Lyons that I have in my own community who made some pretty horrific comments that were reported in the Geelong Advertiser and were taken up by many women in the Geelong community. Former mayor Darryn Lyons came under fire from local MPs and female councillors for tweeting over the weekend, ‘Pollies are so big balled and dumb’. Slurs like this do not encourage women into leadership positions, clearly. As a woman, would you consider sitting at a table with someone who holds those views? The next issue was him wearing a T-shirt with a naked woman and some pretty grotesque comments on it at the Oktoberfest in Geelong. Women challenged that and

GRIEVANCE DEBATE Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2325 asked for an apology or asked him to explain himself, but he did not think he had done anything wrong. He thought it was just a joke and it was okay to do that. When we have young women in our community who, one would like to think, look up to our community leaders and expect to be respected, those sorts of comments are only damaging. We are encouraging young women to step up as community leaders, whether it be at a local government level or a state government level or a federal government level. We want young women to step up and be involved in politics. But when they see comments like that, the feedback I get from young women is, ‘Why would I want to do that? Why would I want to subject myself to that?’. I am sure that many women in this place can provide lots of examples of the sorts of sexist behaviours that they have had directed towards them over the years. This is a serious issue. While the Liberals continue to appease the extremists in their party and their politics of hate and divisiveness, this Labor government has put equality back on the agenda. We have created Australia’s first equality portfolio and first equality minister, with record resourcing of around $61 million compared with only $5 million under the previous Liberal government. We had the first ever Premier to march in a Pride march, and he continues to do so every year. We have committed ongoing funding to Pride festivals and events. I know in Geelong the Pride group there has had a Pride festival each year for the last couple of years, and this government has supported that. It actually promotes that support in our community and proves that we are an inclusive community when we allow these things to happen within our local communities. I am sure that Geelong is not the only regional centre that has these sorts of opportunities given to young people and older people, and LGBTIQ people, who have had some horrific experiences. They tell some terrible stories about what they have had to endure. But I am pleased to say that when I speak to those people now, although things are not perfect, they believe that things have improved massively, particularly in my community of Geelong. I am really proud to be part of the Andrews Labor government, a progressive government that is delivering for all Victorians so we are inclusive. We appointed the first ever gender and sexuality commissioner. We created a task force to advise the government on LGBTIQ issues, and that involves things like young people and the level of suicide amongst LGBTIQ young people. Dealing with those sorts of things is really, really important. We rolled out the first ever LGBTIQ community grants program, supporting organisations right across Victoria to do the important work that they do. And that is about supporting those people in their local communities and having that inclusive community that I spoke of. The Premier delivered a historic state apology to those convicted under the prejudiced laws against homosexual acts, another significant commitment by this government and again about inclusive communities. We now have adoption equity in Victoria. We are expanding our health system so that trans and gender diverse Victorians and their families can get the timely support that they need. We are investing in our next generation through the first ever LGBTIQ leadership program. But this is just the beginning, and we know that there is a lot more to do. There is a lot more to do in all our communities, but I am really proud to be part of a government that is getting on with it, including all Victorians and having that inclusive society that we need. We will not stop there, because there are so many more things that we can be doing to ensure that our LGBTIQ community feel that they are a part of our community and that women are no longer subjected to the sexist behaviours that we have seen time and time again in our communities. The government has acted on that. The Royal Commission into Family Violence, the putting in place of the preventative agency—all those things— dramatically impact on Victorians, and in particular women, and ensure that we change that culture that is in our community and change it for the better. Women are to be respected; women play a vital role in our community and should be respected for that. There is a lot that this government has done. When we talk about family violence, that is about women being respected. It is about the 227 recommendations made through the royal commission to ensure

BILLS 2326 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019 not only that women are protected from family violence—and the children of course—but also that we have the preventative agency that looks at changing that culture in our society and getting into the schools. We have programs in schools that are doing amazing work, but we also cop the criticism from those opposite around the sorts of programs that we put in place. I think that there is a lot more work to be done, but as a government I think we are a very progressive government. We have had a lot of firsts during our period in government, particularly in the last term—the first ever Royal Commission into Family Violence, which has never been done before, and areas like moving into treaty with the First Nations people. Again, there is a big focus on a whole range of things, including family violence, including the LGBTIQ community and making sure that we are addressing those issues. Suicide amongst young Aboriginal people we know is a growing concern, not just in Victoria but right across Australia. But everything we do leads to a more inclusive community, a community that respects everyone. It is so important that we continue down that track. I am sure that moving forward as a government we will introduce more legislation that continues to protect people, and sometimes that is what you have to do. It is the same with our gender equity bill. We need to introduce that gender equity bill to be a role model for the rest of industry to ensure that we do— Mr Battin: Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house. Quorum formed. Ms COUZENS: As I was saying, I think the gender equity bill is one of those areas that— (Time expired) Question agreed to. Bills ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TREATMENT AMENDMENT (CONSENT) BILL 2019 Second reading Debate resumed. Mr CARBINES (Ivanhoe) (15:59): I just wanted to conclude my remarks by following up on a couple of points made by some of the opposition speakers, particularly in relation to some of the stakeholder matters. In particular I just want to pick up on where the act requires consent to be provided in different circumstances. Under section 10 of the act, consent is required by a woman and her partner, if any, before a treatment procedure can be undertaken on a woman; and under section 16 of the act, consent is required to be provided by a donor before their gametes can be used. Where a woman and her spouse are accessing assisted reproductive treatment (ART) as a couple, consent is required under section 10 of the act, and it is this section of the act that we as a government are concerned with in the current amendments. The consent requirements in section 16 do not apply. In response to the queries that have been raised where a woman and her spouse are accessing assisted reproductive treatment and then separate, an embryo created from a spouse’s gametes cannot be used in a new treatment procedure without his renewed consent. That is because the standard medical practice requires informed consent before a medical procedure can be undertaken. This would include having to provide consent again if circumstances have changed since the consent was last provided. This would currently apply to de facto couples who separate or married couples who divorce. I think it is just important to pick up on those matters, particularly in relation to perhaps some of the concerns that have been raised by opposition speakers in their apparent consultations with Monash IVF and concerns that have been outlined by opposition speakers. I just wanted to clarify that in relation to the bill. More broadly can I just say, in summing up, that our government has a very strong track record both in the work that we have done under ART legislation to provide access to information to donor- conceived offspring in the previous term of Parliament—the very significant work that our

BILLS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2327 government has done in that space to provide that information and make it available to donor- conceived offspring—and in the significant commitments we have then made about public IVF services that were affirmed at the ballot box by Victorians, and a program will now be rolled out across this term. It is very significant to address the costs and the exclusion of people on lower incomes from IVF treatment. And now today again our government seeks to show leadership in not only constantly updating the work around ART legislation, but also in making sure that the rights and responsibilities of the offspring of donor-conceived people and the rights of women are respected. This constant evolving work in the ART legislation has been demonstrated by the reforms of the Andrews Labor government. I commend the bill to the house. Ms CUPPER (Mildura) (16:02): I rise today to support the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Amendment (Consent) Bill 2019. One of the hallmarks of good legislation, in my view, is that it responds to the modern world and brings the law into line with the expectations of a modern and progressive community. Apart from a small minority of people who one might describe as being out of touch, I believe our modern progressive community is about strengthening the rights of women. This legislation will enhance the rights of women in our community in one very meaningful way—by putting the control over access to reproductive treatment for women who are separated from their married partners back into the hands of those women alone. No longer will women who have been separated from their spouse have to seek their permission in order to access assisted reproductive treatment (ART). It is a telling indicator of the status of women in years gone by that this legislation effectively allowed an ex-spouse—which prior to the national same-sex marriage debate was always a man—to exercise control over what a woman could do with her reproductive system long after she had separated from that man. I am a feminist and a fierce advocate for women’s autonomy over their own bodies, and I am grateful for the technological advancement in reproductive science that now allows women who are single, who are in a same-sex partnership or marriage or who are partnered to be able to access high-quality reproductive services using donor sperm. There may be a number of reasons why a woman would need to access donor sperm while still married to an ex-partner. She may be unwilling to proceed with a divorce, her ex-partner may be unwilling to proceed with a divorce, she may not be able to afford divorce proceedings or she may have time-limited opportunities to access donor sperm before having the ability to divorce her ex-spouse. Regardless of the woman’s reason, this legislation will ensure that the woman alone is the one making the decision about her body and her process. It will allow more women to access reproductive technology without the stressors of dealing with an ex-spouse, who may seek to make that process impossible or difficult for no good reason, perhaps in some cases just to be cruel. It acknowledges that regardless of how a child came to be, the most important thing in a child’s life is love, and this will lead to more delivery of babies who are so wanted, so cherished and so loved and who will become happy, healthy kids and eventually the best adults we can hope for. I commend the work of Michael Gorton, AM, who has provided the interim report on assisted reproductive treatment in Victoria. Mr Gorton’s report was prepared following extensive consultations, which included approximately 40 meetings with 120 stakeholders, including individuals and groups of people with particular knowledge and areas of expertise; 191 survey responses via the Engage Victoria website; and the receipt of 40 formal submissions from service providers and professionals in the field, relevant regulators and recipients of ART, and donor- conceived people. This was an extensive consultative process that has informed this bill. It should be noted that this bill addresses two of Mr Gorton’s recommendations, but there are a total of 17 recommendations in the report. I want to make particular mention of recommendation 11, in which Mr Gorton recommends that the Victorian Assisted Reproductive Treatment Authority (VARTA) and the Patient Review Panel

BILLS 2328 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019 should work together with the LGBTIQ community to develop embedded regular inclusive practice and cultural competency training for assisted reproductive treatment industry members and staff. Mr Gorton’s rationale for this recommendation is that inclusive practice and cultural competency are integral parts of removing barriers to access for LGBTQ Victorians. I am so pleased to see this recommendation included in his report; and while it may not have a legislative component, I look forward to seeing VARTA working with organisations like Rainbow Families Victoria to regulate and require LGBTQ-inclusive practice. Assisted reproductive treatment is critically important to the LGBTQ community, and so it should go that the organisations working in this space are well equipped to work with the LGBTQ community to ensure their safety and inclusion. In making this point I give mind to the many rainbow families living in my electorate—and there are more than you may think, despite us being a long way away and traditionally fairly conservative. It is always my pleasure to participate in annual celebrations of our LGBTQ community, such as the annual Pride flag-raising event for the International Day Against Homophobia Biphobia and Transphobia, as well as joining with the many rainbow families represented in the Mildura Pride group. One of the key reasons I elected to speak to this bill today was to publicly acknowledge their presence and the hope that the attention this bill brings to the Gorton report will encourage active pursuit of LGBTQ-inclusive practice within the assisted reproductive treatment sector in Victoria. I now turn to the other aspect of this bill, which is the change to the Status of Children Act 1974 to remove a reference requiring counselling from a counsellor within the meaning of section 61 of the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act. Section 61 of the act has already been repealed and so the reference is redundant. This amendment will change the Status of Children Act to require that counselling be provided by a counsellor providing services on behalf of a registered ART provider or an independent counsellor who meets specified qualification criteria and has relevant experience and skills. While this amendment might seem like a strictly administrative one, it is of critical importance to the safety and wellbeing of people who are participating in assisted reproductive treatment and who are undertaking a surrogacy arrangement. Surrogacy is a huge commitment for all parties committing to that surrogacy arrangement. It is my belief that counselling is absolutely critical for all parties concerned, not just for the wellbeing of the parties but to also ensure that all parties are equally committed, feel safe and are fully aware of the emotional and mental impacts of a surrogacy arrangement. It goes without saying therefore that I fully support the move to amend the legislation to include the need for relevant counselling. I note that what that counselling looks like and who delivers it will be subject to the development of regulations after the passage of the bill through this house and the other place. The Gorton report notes that outside of Victoria, only New South Wales and Western Australian legislation sets out counselling requirements in respect of ART, and that counselling is not mandatory in these jurisdictions. Furthermore, Mr Gorton reported that a number of industry players indicated that mandatory counselling was unnecessary or undesirable. For example, the Fertility Society of Australia in their submission said that consideration should be given to removing the requirement for mandatory counselling for all people accessing ART, citing that there is no evidence that this mandatory counselling has produced different outcomes to all other states in Australia where this is not enforced. Similarly, Monash IVF in their submission say that counselling has moved away from its original intent to support people to explore the implications of ART, citing that clients are often well-informed on many aspects of treatment and view the counselling process as a tick-the-box exercise. In addition to feedback from service providers, individual respondents reported a number of concerns about mandatory counselling, including that counselling is not always available, despite it being a mandatory requirement; a large variance in the skills and capabilities of counsellors; pressure on counsellors to meet clinic targets; a perception that counsellors are not independent, owing to an ethical conflict between meeting the needs of the patient and meeting the needs of the business; and the

BILLS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2329 requirement for counsellors to undertake police checks on patients, causing damage to the therapeutic relationship and causing patients to view the counsellor more as a gatekeeper and less as a support. As stated, I strongly believe that counselling should be mandated, as is proposed in this bill, but I urge the government to take into account the many and varied pieces of feedback received from the public about counselling. The government must absolutely ensure that regulatory requirements look closely at how that counselling is delivered and by whom, noting that many respondents to the public consultation felt that peer support was of equal importance and benefit as formal counselling was. I would support the implementation of regulations that ensure that counsellors are not forced to achieve any targets related to the ART business, and that while they may be co-located with an ART business, they are not employed or otherwise beholden to that business. I close by once again stating my support for this bill, and I commend the government for initiating the Gorton Review of Assisted Reproductive Treatment and for pursuing Mr Gorton’s recommendations. I am happily supporting this bill in the house. Ms SPENCE (Yuroke) (16:11): I rise to make a contribution to the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Amendment (Consent) Bill 2019. This bill amends the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 with the purpose of allowing a married woman who is separated from her spouse but not divorced to access assisted reproductive treatment using donor sperm without requiring the consent of her spouse. Even though this objective is pretty clear and straightforward it does seem to be heard or, what I have noticed, read differently by different people. On 6 June the Premier put up a post on social media about this proposed legislation. I will just read the post. He said: You’ve separated from your husband, but you’re not divorced yet. You want to have a baby by yourself using donor sperm and IVF. Under our current laws, if a woman finds herself in this situation, she must get approval from her former partner to be able to access IVF treatment—even though it’s not his child, and it shouldn’t be his decision to make. It’s outdated. It’s wrong. And under new laws introduced in Parliament this week, it’s going to change. Pretty clear. Pretty straightforward. So I had a bit of a look though some of the thousands of comments that were posted in response to this, and whilst they were overwhelmingly supportive and some even surprised that this reform was necessary, there were also some other themes that came up in those comments. The most common of these was that it was the husband’s sperm that was being used and this would undoubtedly lead to child support cases and it was all terribly unfair. And of course this is not correct. And that was made clear. The amendment enables the use of donor sperm, not the spouse’s sperm; however, it did not really matter how many times this was corrected within this stream of posts, others continued to make this incorrect assertion. Another theme related to a woman accessing IVF without a husband. And I just want to read a sample of those comments: In my opinion, this law allows a woman to commit adultery. This law would further make our country morally bankrupt. This will encourage more unmarried mothers gain access to free welfare and thats not right at all. Come on Dan, Society can do better than that. Wtf, are you mad, too many single mothers already that taxpayers keep, & too many children don’t know who their father is now. Omg!!!! Should be for married couples only … Why would you want to go and have a baby on your own! Our moral compass is so out of whack! … nobody gives a f what women do with their bodies. They just have no business bringing someone into this world who will not be loved or taken care of. Single mothers are terrible for children. Not only is this current legislation offensive and outdated but quite frankly those comments are as well. As someone who spent many years raising my son on my own—and I was raised by my father on his own—I am incredibly disappointed that people would make these insulting and ignorant

BILLS 2330 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019 comments. In my experience it is not the number of parents that determines how a child is raised—be it one, two, three or even four where both birth parents have re-partnered—but how a parent takes on that role. In my view one committed and caring parent can be much better than two or more parents if that relationship is dysfunctional. As the member for Mildura said earlier, the most important thing in a child’s life is love. I also want to make some comments as someone who spent a long time receiving IVF treatment hopeful for a sibling for my son. I do this because I want people to understand that people who choose to go down this path do not do so lightly. I also do this with a fair touch of PTSD, because, as people probably know, there was not a successful outcome. Assisted reproductive technology—of which IVF is only one form—only ends in one of two ways: it is either the most rewarding process that enables you to achieve the wish of becoming a parent or it is the most devastating process that results in heartbreak, often several times over. In my case it was the latter. Undergoing IVF treatment is gruelling, but for those who are accessing it often it is the last resort to achieve parenthood. For those who do not know, I will tell you just a little bit about what is involved. Without going into all of the details, it involves lots of medications, lots of needles, lots of invasive procedures and lots of money. It is all-consuming. It dictates your thoughts, it dictates your day, it dictates your diary and it becomes your private preoccupation. The cycle of treatment can differ depending on what is most appropriate for each person, but for me it involved a regime of fertility medications, with tablets, nasal spray and daily injections. Because I am an absolute sook I could not give myself those injections so my husband had the terrible task of having to do the daily injections knowing that I hated it. Then there is testing undertaken via internal ultrasounds to check the ovaries and the egg production, and blood tests to check the hormone levels, followed by surgical egg retrieval. Following sperm production and insemination to create the embryos the transfer takes place and the waiting game begins. Depending on how many eggs are retrieved and how many embryos are achieved, some may be frozen. I was not a very good egg producer so it required a repeat of the full cycle. I cannot say how many cycles I had. I cannot say how many embryo transplants took place, because if I kept count of it, that would have been a weight that I did not want to carry around. For most people undergoing the treatment, the medication makes you feel pretty ordinary and the procedures make you feel pretty ordinary, but the focus has to remain on the endgame and remaining hopeful. But for us there came a time when that was not possible anymore and enough was enough. Whilst I do not remember every cycle—whether the transfer was successful or whether after a short time the pregnancy ended—I do vividly remember the last one, which was successful but resulted in a miscarriage after about 14 weeks. At that point we agreed that we just could not do it again. It was too much of a toll physically and mentally, so we called time on that. I tell this story to make the point, as I said earlier, that those undertaking this treatment do not do so lightly. This is not a walk in the park, and often, being the last resort, it ends, as I said before, in one of two ways: joy or devastation. For those that are going through this treatment, my thoughts and my understanding are with them. I do want to mention the great work of the Minister for Women, who penned a terrific opinion piece on Mother’s Day this year acknowledging the invisible group of women that do not have children but desperately want to and are undergoing IVF treatment. This was a great piece, and I encourage people to have a look at it if they missed it. I thank her for telling that story. I wish all of those who are undergoing this treatment and those that will be able to access this treatment with the passage of this legislation all the very best for a joyful outcome. The process to get that outcome is gruelling but the success makes it worth it. We should all be extra kind to those that are going through this. Knowing what is involved, I go back to some of the comments that I quoted above about why anyone would want to have a child on their own. The dedication to parenthood that these mothers have should never be questioned. What they are going through demonstrates their commitment to love and to parenthood. The bill removes an outdated barrier to achieving that parenthood. I commend the bill, and I hope it has a speedy passage.

BILLS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2331

Ms SHEED (Shepparton) (16:20): I rise to make a contribution on the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Amendment (Consent) Bill 2019. Before launching into what I want to say, I would really like to acknowledge the contribution just made by the member for Yuroke. Some of the most meaningful speeches are the speeches that members give from the heart and from their own experience, and I would like to acknowledge what a very significant contribution that was. I myself know I dodged that bullet, and I think we all appreciate what a difficult journey it can be for those who do need to engage in assisted reproductive technology. It is something no-one wants to have to go through, but often we are for various reasons put in situations where we might have to face it, particularly given that many of us want to start our reproductive lives a little bit later than used to be the case in our mothers’ and grandmothers’ generations. This bill was introduced into the house only two weeks ago, so there has not been a lot of time for consultation in relation to it. I was pleased to hear that the member for Lowan gave quite a detailed analysis of the bill and raised some of the concerns that have been perhaps just emailed to some of us in recent times. In relation to those particular issues that may be problems with this bill, I can only say that luckily there is an opportunity for them to be looked at between now and this bill presumably being passed in the other place, and I would urge the government to take on board some of those issues that are perhaps technicalities in some way but that might lead to some improvement in the bill. In a sense this is a bill that clearly sweeps away the last vestiges of the notion of ownership of women within marriage, and I believe it would be broadly supported by the Victorian community. I note that the government committed to taking this course during the 2018 election campaign, and the bill also follows a Federal Court ruling late last year which held that the requirement to seek the consent of one’s spouse in the circumstances of a case where the woman was separated from her spouse but not divorced and wanted to access assisted reproductive treatment using donor sperm discriminated against women on the basis of their marital status. We now have this legislation before this house. The purpose of the bill is to remove the requirement that a woman needs that consent from her spouse to access assisted reproductive treatment using donor sperm if she is separated but not divorced from her spouse. It also amends the Status of Children Act 1974 to ensure it operates consistently with the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act and to replace redundant references to a provision regarding counselling requirements and also relating to substitute parentage orders granted by a court for surrogacy arrangements. It is interesting in the context of this bill to reflect on the history of women’s rights and to see what has really been a very long and hard-fought battle to get to the position we find ourselves in today. While there have been very many milestones for women’s rights over the past 200 years, I want to refer to some of the major ones. The first women’s suffrage society in Australia, thanks in large part to the efforts of Annie Lowe and Henrietta Dugdale, was established in 1884. That was followed by a monster petition in 1891, where dedicated women took to the streets on foot in that year to collect signatures for a petition to present to the Parliament of Victoria seeking the right to vote. The result was an impressive 30 000 signatures. South Australia was the first Australian colony to give women the vote in 1895 and only the fourth place in the world to do so, following New Zealand 18 months earlier. South Australian women also had the right to stand for elections at that time, and it was the only place in the world where that was allowed to happen. In 1903 one of the first women to stand for election in the federal Parliament was Vida Goldstein. She was a suffragette, social reformist and fervent campaigner for equal property rights for spouses and the abolition of child labour. Those suffragettes were amazing people. They gave up many aspects of their life to pursue their demands for rights for women. Some died, some were imprisoned. When you look at what went on in England when women were pursuing their rights, some chained themselves to fences. They were beaten up, and some even went on hunger strikes and died. So this

BILLS 2332 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019 was an incredible commitment that led to unbelievable change in our society, which has led to a situation where we are now really just very accepting of and quite complacent about our rights. I think we do need to be reminded sometimes that we always need to be vigilant. Back in 1915 the Housewives Cooperative Association had 77 000 members. This is an amazing concept of what women were doing back then, and of course most women were in the home. The Country Women’s Association formed in 1922—a non-sectarian, non-party-political, not-for-profit group who were very much listened to by governments. To this day the doors of the Prime Minister are always open for the Country Women’s Association. The right to stand in Victorian elections for women came in 1924, and it was 1943 before the first woman was elected to the House of Representatives, Dame Enid Lyons. In 1956 the marriage bar was lifted. The situation had been that women working in education were not permitted to teach after they were married. They were considered just temporary employees who would of course go back to the home after they were married. Access to the contraceptive pill happened in 1961. For the first time women could prevent pregnancy by taking the contraceptive pill. Although initially it was available only to women with a prescription and a husband, the first contraceptive pill was also burdened with a 27.5 per cent luxury tax. Married women were no longer forced to relinquish their paid employment in the commonwealth public service in 1966. In 1967 a constitutional referendum recognised Indigenous men and women as Australian citizens. The first abortion rights were granted in 1969. A landmark Supreme Court ruling, the Menhennitt ruling, really opened the gate to the possibility of women being able to obtain lawful abortions. The Women’s Electoral Lobby was established in 1972. The right to equal pay was achieved in 1972. It took until 1972 for the contraceptive pill to become more widely available, and that was as a result of the Women’s Electoral Lobby pressuring the Labor government to take a different approach on contraceptives—abolish the luxury tax and put the pill on the national health scheme list. There is a sort of resonance here. So much happened in 1972 that really lifted women’s rights—child care benefits, single mothers benefits, paid maternity leave. Then 1975, a very important year, was the first year women—or men—could file for divorce on a no- fault basis. That was a very significant change and saw a massive increase in the number of divorces for quite a long time until it started to even out. Also in 1975 the first World Conference on Women was held by the United Nations and International Women’s Year was held. In 1975 rape in marriage was outlawed in South Australia, and eventually the other states followed. The first female High Court judge was appointed in 1987, and it took until 1990 to have the first female Premier of Victoria. All of these things are part of a journey towards the emancipation of women. In many ways it has been a very long journey, and there still remain many areas in our society where discrimination exists for many people, and not just women. Rules and attitudes do need to continue to change. The intent behind this bill is a worthy one, but I do urge the government to look at it more closely and attend to the technical matters that have been raised and to consult more widely with the groups that have raised those issues. In the end it is really a pathway to providing that opportunity to women who really want to conceive a child to do so and to removing this existing barrier that has been identified as needing to go. Ms WILLIAMS (Dandenong—Minister for Prevention of Family Violence, Minister for Women, Minister for Youth) (16:30): It is my pleasure to contribute to such an important bill that is before the house today and to hear the contributions of so many other speakers who have I think captured well the essence of what this bill does but also, as the previous speaker touched on, the history of progress that has led to us getting to this point. It is a history of progress though that I must say is sometimes

BILLS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2333 depressing in how slow it has been and sometimes astonishing in just how recent such important developments have been, so I want to thank the previous speakers for those contributions. To start with I also want to pay tribute to the thousands of Victorian women who are currently undergoing IVF treatment and other assisted reproductive treatments, because these women do not have children but are going through an almighty journey in order to be able to have children, and it is such a difficult, difficult journey. Apart from the fact that many women are dipping very deeply into savings in order to pay for these treatments, they are often enduring repeated disappointment, all in the hope of one day being able to have a child to call their own. They are putting themselves through countless medical procedures and heavy medications, marking days off on calendars and undergoing a process that is so very disruptive to normal life. I know this because this has been my journey. It is something that I have tried to be very open about in this place because I think it is really important that women speak about assisted reproductive treatment, and in particular IVF, because for too long the processes that women go through, the health concerns that women often have, fertility issues being one part of that, have been kind of put to the side as issues that cannot be spoken about or should not be spoken about. They are almost taboo in workplaces around our country. I have always believed that is a problem, and it seemed disingenuous to believe that was a problem but not be open about my own journey in my own workplace, which is this place. I do not want to dwell too much on the ins and outs of my own journey because I know there are so many others who have done it much tougher than I have, and indeed many people in this place who have undergone the same journey, and sometimes a much more difficult journey. It is not about me; it is about me being one voice among many of those who undertake this pathway and about reflecting on the fact that we should not be flippant when we think and talk about what this involves. Most women who come to receiving assisted reproductive treatments have already undergone a significant journey of pain. The start of the treatment is not the start of the journey; it is a part of the journey, and it comes on the back of an enormous amount of suffering for many. I really want to pay tribute to those women and couples, including same-sex couples as well, who go through this each and every day in this state at great personal cost, both financial and emotional—and I can personally vouch also for the physical cost of that and the cost of frequent disappointment. At its very heart this bill before us today is about fairness. It is about the fundamental right of every woman to exercise autonomy over her reproductive choices, as we have heard other speakers talk about. To be frank no woman should need the approval of a former partner to access IVF using her own eggs and donor sperm, and nor should a former partner be assumed as a parent to a child born of that process. Having to get permission from somebody who is no longer in your life, who is not actually a part of the prospective family that you are trying to create, just does not make sense. It is so very unfair to its core, and that is absolutely why we are abolishing this out-of-date rule that effectively allows men to control the reproductive rights of women, which I know most in this place would agree is not a fair outcome. Our government is making these important changes as a part of a suite of reforms and a process, which I will get to shortly, to ensure that it is easier and fairer for women to access IVF. We know that Victorian women have been held up from accessing assisted reproductive treatement due to the current wording in the act that we are seeking to change today. As I alluded to earlier, when it comes to fertility treatment timing is everything. Ticking off the days on the calendar is very real, but so is—to put a term we will all be familiar with—that sort of ‘biological clock is ticking’ reality of so many women. And as we know, divorce proceedings can take a great deal of time—if there are other complications in that divorce, it can take even longer still—and not all people have that time. That is the reality of fertility. Some women simply cannot afford to lose that precious time by having that fertility or assisted reproductive treatment process put on hold. That is why the changes that we are outlining in this bill today are so very important and for so many women will lead them to be able to undergo a process

BILLS 2334 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019 that is both very important to them and also very necessary in terms of the time frames of the effectiveness of the treatments that we are talking about. As I referred to earlier, this legislative change is just one of a suite of reforms we are undertaking to improve access to IVF here in the state of Victoria. We have heard from other speakers that around 13 000 women are accessing IVF each year in our state. But the journey to fulfil the wish of having a child winds its way, as I said, through a process, even before you get to the treatment, that is often quite difficult. But then once you hit that stage of requiring treatment, you are encountering an industry which is by its very nature very clinical. It is often profit-driven. That is the reality. It is expensive and too often it is overpromising and underdelivering, and the realities of that are not widely known. It is why we commissioned a landmark independent review of assisted reproductive treatment in Victoria, led by Michael Gorton, as we have heard, and the interim findings have already exposed some really serious shortcomings in the affordability and accessibility of treatment. I cannot tell you how many times I have sat in the waiting room of an IVF clinic and watched couples whisper to each other about how much money they have got left in their pool of resources to go around again, whether they have enough money to do another round, what that looks like, and watched the grief as another round has been unsuccessful or they were about to head into the finance department to pay for what might very well be their last round, their last-ditch effort to have a child. For many it will be the last opportunity they get to have a child, because there are not a lot of options in this country beyond that. That in a different context would lead me to talk about the struggle of adoption and how I would love to see more change made in Australia there, but to stick to the context of this bill, I really did want to focus on the fact that affordability and accessibility are a real issue. It is an issue that deserves to be confronted, it is an issue that we are confronting as a government and it is one thing I can say I am really proud of. I am really proud of the fact that both the former Minister for Health, now the Attorney-General, and our current Minister for Health, Jenny Mikakos, are leading work that will impact on thousands of women into the future, that will change the lives of so many couples— heterosexual and same-sex—and that will ultimately make what are now mainstream treatments so much fairer and more accessible to people across our community. To go back to the report in the time that is remaining to me, the interim report highlighted the corporatisation of the fertility industry, which I have alluded to, and it gave some really troubling examples of some clinical errors and some unethical practices that were taking place within that industry as well. The report found that only one in three IVF patients would have a child as a result of their treatment and, as I have alluded to, that is a much lower rate than many are led to believe. A part of that corporatisation, I think, of the processes meant that sometimes there is an inconsistency in the way the data is presented. One of the things that I want to just reference before my time runs out is the fact that so often when you go into that room and you ask your doctor what your chances of success are for a particular round, you are often told, or what I have often been told in the past, ‘Oh, 40 per cent’. Now that is a 40 per cent chance of falling pregnant. It is not a 40 per cent chance of having a live birth, and for most women success is holding a baby. It is not falling pregnant and losing the baby. I have had that happen. That is certainly not success. I just wanted to conclude by saying this suite of reforms are significant part of what is a really important initiative that this government is spearheading. I strongly commend it to the house. Dr READ (Brunswick) (16:40): I rise to speak on the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Amendment (Consent) Bill 2019. As you have heard, this allows separated but still married women to proceed with IVF or artificial insemination using donor sperm without requiring the consent of their former spouse. In 2019 it seems nonsensical that a woman would require the consent of a partner from whom they are separated to conceive, and therefore the Greens support and will vote for this bill. In fact the Federal Court found that this requirement contravened the commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984. This bill, however, does not address important systemic issues that make assisted reproductive technology too expensive for many who need it. These same issues also allow these

BILLS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2335 treatments to offer false hope to women that IVF can reliably forestall the effect on fertility of advancing age. I will now discuss some of the issues not addressed by the bill. The bill enacts just one out of 17 recommendations in an interim report released in October last year, the independent review of assisted reproductive treatment by the pre-eminent health lawyer, Mr Michael Gorton. We can but wonder why we are not seeing more of these recommendations enacted in legislation, particularly the closely related recommendation—this was recommendation 6 in the interim report:

... that a new provision be included in the Act to create a presumption that where a person has provided gametes— that is, eggs or sperm— for use by their partner ... consent is withdrawn in respect of the use of those gametes— or resulting embryos— following the separation of the couple. These 17 recommendations were included in the interim report because the Gorton review team was already confident that they were required. The first two recommendations to amend the act seem relatively urgent and justified. The first of these 17 recommendations would protect whistleblowers in the infertility industry, and the second would enable information-sharing between regulators, particularly allowing the Patient Review Panel to report potential breaches of the act to regulators. These would improve safety and quality of care and do not seem contentious. There is no reason to hold up on legislating for these. There are seven recommendations that would reduce unintended discrimination, resulting in barriers to access for some women and LGBTI individuals. I urge the government to adopt these recommendations and remove these barriers too, preferably not with one bill for each recommendation, as in this case. Nor do I see any need to wait for the health complaints commissioner to conclude its recently commenced inquiry into unscrupulous providers. Fertility services, or assisted reproductive technologies, have not been funded like other health care. Medicare subsidises treatments but generally covers a much lower proportion of the fee than in other aspects of health care, leaving patients facing large out-of-pocket fees. There is no public IVF service in Victoria. Couples may attend a public hospital reproductive services clinic, but IVF and related treatments are generally funded via the private system, subsidised by Medicare. So I applaud the government’s recently announced decision to spend $32 million towards improving access to fertility treatment. But to get the greatest benefit from this investment it is important that we consider the current systemic problems with assisted reproductive technologies. The main providers are now large listed companies operating in multiple countries. Australia-wide this industry generates more than $500 million in annual revenue. The specialists are often shareholders in the businesses. The resulting conflict of interest may act to promote profitable treatments, such as IVF, at the expense of simpler treatments, such as waiting or losing weight. This tension is present in all fields of private health care, but in this field there is no public alternative for Victorians to turn to. Thirty-two million dollars will not be enough to create an entire IVF service from scratch, with all the laboratory equipment and staff, so some blend of public and private care is likely to result from this amount of funding. It is better than nothing, but we do not want it to indiscriminately direct more women into private care. In private care there are no effective limits on the number of treatment cycles, each costing women thousands of dollars, nor are there limits on age or other predictors of success and failure, such as body mass index. Several European countries that provide fully funded public care do so for, say, two to three cycles, but also for women whose age and other risk factors indicate some likelihood of success. So a fully private system provides unlimited treatment at great cost to those who can pay, regardless

BILLS 2336 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019 of the likelihood of success. It can raise hopes, only for them to be ground down by repeated failure, as described so well by the member for Yuroke and the Minister for Women. But in such a system women who cannot pay but with a greater chance of success do not get treated. So our public service must be directed to those for whom it has the greatest chance of success, rather than raising unrealistic hope. The greatest cost of assisted reproductive technology is that many women end up becoming depressed because of dashed hopes and unrealistic expectations. Public funds should also be spent such that the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment is minimised. This is a vulnerable population open to exploitation. Simply subsiding private care without oversight will not be enough. In particular, we should not encourage the use of unproven tests or interventions, such as the use of AMH, or anti-mullerian hormone, which is an unreliable marker of infertility. Some providers are diagnosing infertility based on this test and then referring women into IVF. This is effectively manufacturing business, even if it is done with the best of intentions. Another additional procedure is called endometrial scratching, which is inserting an instrument into the uterus, scratching the endometrium. It is a non-standard extra procedure. These sorts of add-ons or non-standard procedures are often expensive. They are based on equivocal or no evidence. As evidence of lack of efficacy emerges, these procedures continue to be done and billed for. The rationale—that it might help and we should try everything—ignores the risk of side effects and the certainty of financial pain. Sharp business practices do not sit well with health care. Many cancer treatments, for example, cause infertility, and fertility preservation, freezing of eggs and sperm, is common in these cases. Melbourne IVF used to offer this for free to children, but more recently started to send them bills. For a period of time, I am told, they passed on details to debt collectors, although I gather this may now have stopped, fortunately. There is a dangerous myth that IVF can overcome the effect of age. Both Melbourne IVF and Monash IVF continue to encourage women to draw on superannuation funds to freeze eggs for the future. It is unwise to allow providers who stand to benefit to provide advice on the efficacy of this when the financial consequences are far-reaching and the patients are so vulnerable. Victoria has the Victorian Assisted Reproductive Treatment Authority, or VARTA—and I encourage members to look at its website—which oversees this industry, but has not been able to intervene sufficiently in these systemic issues. It may need to be strengthened or perhaps given more teeth. The UK agency, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, HEFA—which is an excellent website to look at—may be a useful model, and it uses a traffic light system to grade the evidence and justification for some of these add-on procedures. The Greens welcome the Gorton review to the Victorian government into IVF services and their commitment to ensuring public access, but we also ask that this government advocate for federal reform to Medicare so that it does not subsidise unlimited treatment cycles for women with very low chances of success and send out the wrong signal. We want to advocate also for a higher rebate that reduces the out-of-pocket gap faced by women who are subsidised. I want to acknowledge Colleen Hartland, who put some of these issues on the agenda in the other place back in 2016. To conclude, we need more of the Gorton review’s recommendations legislated sooner rather than later. We need advocacy to change the way Medicare subsidises infertility treatment so that it does more good and less harm, and we need public funding to be directed to evidence-based treatment for women with a reasonable chance of success so that we do not simply increase the problems with the way the infertility treatment industry operates. We support this bill and commend it to the house. Ms CONNOLLY (Tarneit) (16:50): Today I rise to speak with experience and with compassion on a topic that sits very close to my heart. I stand in support of the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Amendment (Consent) Bill 2019. Before I begin I must say that the member for Yuroke has invoked some very vivid memories that I too share about IVF and the IVF drugs that I took during my years of treatment, particularly the nasal spray. I must say to the member for Yuroke and put on record that

BILLS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2337

I too was a coward when it came to injecting myself with needles. My husband used to do it and then run in the other direction upon giving them to me. Currently we know women wanting to undergo IVF who are separated but not yet divorced are required to obtain the permission of their previous partner to use their own eggs. This is an unfair and outdated requirement without regard to an individual’s right to their own body. In the year 2019 I am glad to see this government doing something about it, because we know in the past year more than 13 000 women accessed assisted reproductive treatment in Victoria. That is a really big number: 13 000. The Andrews Labor government is committed to ensuring Victorians can start a family and know and experience the joys of parenthood. These amendments will ensure the existence of a law that reflects modern standards that guarantee women are not discriminated against based on their marital status. These amendments are long overdue. I first accessed IVF services some 11 years ago. I was in my late 20s, I was completely in love with my new husband and I was absolutely distraught at finding out that we would need to undergo IVF to conceive a child. It was a time when IVF was not generally spoken about. There was a sense of shame about having to do it and not being able to conceive in the way that we all grow up knowing how children, I guess, are conceived and made. In fact it was quite a taboo subject. Today, 11 years later, I now have three children who were all conceived through IVF. I have to say the community that I exist in today has a greater understanding of infertility and the growing demand for reproductive treatments that exist. Community expectations have evolved, and it is important that our legislative instruments keep up with these expectations. These amendments are designed to refine an act to ensure it aligns with community expectations and to totally transform the lives of women seeking these services. For so many women IVF is an incredibly emotional and intense journey, without the added stress of having to ask permission from an ex-partner. This is an unnecessary hurdle. It is also a decision that a woman is more than capable of making on her own. These amendments will give value to the idea that a woman’s autonomy is not, under any circumstances, within the control of another person. They symbolise the right for a woman to make her own decisions with regard to her own body despite her marital status. And let me tell you, as the member for Yuroke has pointed out, undergoing IVF is not a decision—ever—that someone undertakes lightly; it places a physical and emotional toll on a woman’s wellbeing. If she has made this decision, then I would suggest that there are exceptional reasons for it, such as age and time constraints. Some of the women that this bill will have the greatest impact on are women who have come to the point in their lives where IVF may be the last window of opportunity to become a mother. They could be in their late 30s or early 40s and would otherwise have to wait that extra year for their divorce to be completely finalised. We all know that relationships can be messy and that divorce proceedings can take some time. It may seem like only a year, but for these women of a particular age who desperately want to become a mother, time can be the most precious thing. I know when it comes to egg quality, as I learned 11 years ago, it all comes down to time—timing matters. The success of IVF relies heavily on the quality of the woman’s eggs. For women in a particular age group, waiting that extra year could potentially mean it is too late. Women should not be forced to take that chance. It is unfair, and these amendments are going to fix that. The case that was brought before the Federal Court on this issue also had similar circumstances. A woman separated from her ex-partner and was waiting for the 12-month period to be over before filing for divorce. She was in her mid-40s and there was a sense of urgency. Had she waited that extra year, after she had turned 46 years of age she would no longer have been able to receive the treatment. These amendments are going to ensure not only that women are able to receive IVF through a sperm donor without their ex-partner’s consent but that there is not a presumption of parenthood; her ex-partner will no longer be presumed to be the father or have any rights to the child. This will help clarify the complications that can potentially arise in these circumstances, because getting permission from

BILLS 2338 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019 somebody who is no longer in your life, who has no part in an individual’s prospective family, let us be honest, makes no sense. There is no place in our modern society to require women to seek the consent of a former spouse, especially when these same requirements do not apply to de facto relationships. Throughout my own IVF journey I was very grateful for the help that I received through counselling. Unfortunately I did not access counselling until undergoing the second treatment of IVF, after our first child was stillborn. The value in the support that I received was immeasurable. Having an experienced professional who can guide you through the many trials and hardships of IVF is so crucial. I can only wish that I had been able to access that during our first cycle. We hear of the two-thirds of unsuccessful IVF treatments and of others who suffer at the hands of dodgy clinics, causing significant financial, physical and emotional distress. This is why the landmark review into Victorian assisted reproductive services was commissioned. The amendments in this bill will ensure that if a surrogacy arrangement is commissioned without the assistance of a registered assisted reproductive treatment provider, couples are still required to receive counselling from someone with the appropriate qualifications. Ensuring both women and couples receive adequate counselling from someone who is skilled and experienced is vital. In addition to these amendments, I am absolutely delighted with the $32 million of funding that has been allocated to public IVF services, bulk-billed and subsidised for low-income Victorians. IVF can leave couples thousands and thousands of dollars out of pocket. The review’s interim report highlighted issues around the affordability of and access to IVF, and it is wonderful to see that this government is working towards subsidising and providing bulk-billed treatments for up to 4000 Victorians per year. This funding is fundamentally important because it provides easier access to those who need it but cannot afford it. The financial burden can be enormous on those seeking to be parents. I am so proud that we are working towards making IVF more affordable for low-income earners. Eleven years ago there was a joke about the IVF industry that it was considered the Treasure Island of any industry in the health profession: there was a lot of us doing it and it was very, very expensive. This funding is going to make a tremendous difference to the Victorians yearning to become parents that might not be able to afford it. The size of your bank account should not be a barrier to conceiving, birthing and raising a child. Working towards gender equality is a commitment this government has already begun delivering on, and the elimination of this outdated rule keeps us up to date with the values of our modern society and signifies a woman’s complete control over her own body. This ensures that Victorian women, regardless of their marital status, are not discriminated against. This also means that they are receiving the appropriate care and the counselling that they need. I commend the bill to the house. I would also like to say to the women in this place who are undergoing IVF and dreaming of parenthood and to the women across Victoria and this country who are undergoing IVF: best of luck. Ms HALL (Footscray) (16:59): Something Sally Warhaft said on radio many years ago resonated and has stayed with me. It stayed with me because it affected me and related to my circumstances at the time. Sally was talking about when you have a newborn. People talk to you about how challenging it is and how with a new baby often the first year is the most difficult—the ups and downs, not knowing what to do with the baby, how to cope when they are not sleeping—but Sally said that the reality is the hardest thing is to desperately want a baby and not be able to have one. Indeed there is nothing more heartbreaking. I have been through that, and I have felt what it is like to be on the IVF conveyor belt. It is a system that challenges you emotionally, physically and financially. To the 13 000 women who have sought treatment over the past year, I extend to you the solidarity of hope that comes with the journey, and I wish you all the very best. I have been disappointed today by

BILLS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2339 the contributions of those opposite who have argued that the rights of women should be sidelined while industry is consulted. They have taken off-topic political pot shots, wasting time in this place while we are trying to change the law to allow women to have control over their bodies and their reproductive choices. They are not proposing amendments, rather they are saying that the government should delay these important reforms to see what the sector thinks. Over the past few years we have learnt a lot about the IVF sector and some of their practices. We have been shocked by reports on Four Corners about some of the unscrupulous treatment of women and their partners who are desperate to have babies. I know whose side I am on. I am on the side of the women out there who want to have babies and whose desire to pursue their own reproductive choices should not be delayed one single minute by their ex-partner or those opposite. Of course we deliver on our commitments, and I am very proud to be part of a government that made the commitment to abolish this discriminatory law. The Andrews Labor government is committed to a range of reforms in this area, and I am very pleased that removing some of the financial barriers to parenthood is part of our changes. Going through IVF— the member for Dandenong spoke beautifully about this—is an incredibly expensive experience. I have friends who have gone through IVF processes where they are literally spending a house deposit. Each month you go through a process that is physically very difficult, but it is just unbelievably stressful when you are handing over your credit card every month to make payments, and at some point you run out of Medicare rebates. There are lots of people who face the very difficult decision of whether they have to cap the number of IVF cycles they can have even if they are young enough to have hope that it will be successful. I thank the member for Brunswick for his contribution. I am always interested in hearing his views as a medical professional on these matters, and certainly I do feel like this is a sector that has been exploitative for too long. The government’s review—I thank the former health minister for initiating this review—will be transformative in terms of reforms to this sector, because I know this government is committed to stamping out some of these unscrupulous practices. The $32 million commitment to make IVF accessible to people—as the member for Tarneit said, your income should not be a barrier to becoming a parent and experiencing that joy. We have heard troubling cases of breaches, clinical errors, inadequate communication with patients and unethical practices, so I look forward to hearing more about the final report and its recommendations. To save families the heartache of false hope the government has also asked the health complaints commissioner to investigate dangerous and unethical practices of IVF providers who are often providing services to patients who do not have a prospect of conceiving a child. I am not going to speak for too long on this, but I find it extraordinary that in this day and age there is a barrier to women being able to have self-determination in terms of their reproductive choices and that there is a distinction between whether you are married or de facto. That seems incredible to me. To conclude, I hope this bill has a speedy passage. To the women out there who have gone through the terrible experience of not only a separation but that desperate desire to have a baby, I wish you all the best. Ms SETTLE (Buninyong) (17:05): I rise also to speak in favour of the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Amendment (Consent) Bill 2019. I was compelled to speak on this bill when I looked at that original legislation. I find it extraordinary to see those words in front of me. I remember in 1985, as a young woman, I first read Margaret Atwood’s terrifying novel The Handmaid’s Tale, which of course is now a very popular series. Really, the thought of women’s reproductive rights in the hands of men is a truly dystopian future and full of fear. What worries me is that all of those things that my mother and the women before me fought for are being wound back around the world. We look at America with their current abortion laws in Georgia, and I think: what was my mother fighting for all of those years when we are here turning back the clock? As a woman, I quite literally find it offensive, the legislation, as it stands, and I absolutely commend this government for looking to amend it.

BILLS 2340 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019

Of course last year in November the Premier announced that a re-elected Andrews Labor government would abolish an outdated rule that allows men to control the reproductive rights of women, amending the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 to remove the requirement that women need the approval of their former partner to access IVF using her own eggs and donor sperm. Women’s reproductive rights have also been a cause of conflict, so the Andrews Labor government’s passing the safe access legislation was an incredibly important move by this government. Though I have not gone through reproductive services, I did actually come to motherhood very late. I was living in London and I had a fantastic career, and really children were not on my radar. I got to 37 and went, ‘Oh, I forgot to have kids’, and realised that it was something that I really, really wanted to do. Now, I was exceptionally lucky and I was able to conceive, and I had my first son at 37 and my second son at 39. I know that I was very lucky. The statistics show without question that from 35 our fertility starts to decrease. So time is absolutely of the essence to women. I have a very close girlfriend at the moment who is not going through IVF but going through that whole debate about, ‘I’ve got to meet someone. I’ve got to get on with it’. It is something that men just do not understand. When that biological clock gets ticking, it ticks pretty loudly. Sadly, what I have experienced is divorce. I am very good friends with my ex-husband now—we have a very good and friendly relationship. But I can tell you that that was not the case in the first six months. It was a pretty hairy ride while we both tried to work out how we were going to separate our lives. For me the thought that I may have met someone—I did not, but I may have—and wanted to go again, and that I would have had to go back to him in what was a really fraught emotional time to ask his consent; I mean, it beggars belief. My mother left my father when I was quite young and she met my stepdad, who was a lot younger than her and they did try to have a family. Interestingly enough they waited and waited and waited until the fabulous Gough Whitlam brought in the no-fault divorces. So I think we were one of the first families through the court systems, but I know Mum could have so easily have been in that position. She had an ex-husband and a new man. I am glad to say they are still together 45 years later, and I count him as my dad, so the thought that they would have had to go to another man to seek permission to have children is just extraordinary. So really, without question, this legislation has to be amended. Our government is committed to getting rid of this requirement, and that is exactly what we are doing because the choices that a woman makes about her body should not be determined by a former spouse. Having to seek permission from somebody who is not in your life and who is not part of any prospective family you wish to create is immoral and unethical. Frankly, it sounds like something that has been pulled from the history books, not current legislation—or even worse, dare I say, pulled from The Handmaid’s Tale. The sad reality for women, as I say, is that time is of the essence. When it comes to fertility treatment, timing really matters. I hear from the other side of the house that they want to talk about this longer and they feel that we are rushing it through. Well, I would ask them to look in the eye of a woman who is going through this at the moment and tell her, ‘Just wait. Just wait’. We cannot wait. Our biological clocks will not let us wait. As I said earlier, we know that a year can make a difference to the quality of eggs for women, so it really is something that is extremely dependent on time and, as someone who has been through the divorce courts, that is not a quick affair. So really having those two things linked is outrageous. As I said, I conceived my children at the ages of 37 and 39, and I was delighted when I went to my first doctor’s appointment to be told I was having a geriatric pregnancy—yes! The medical system recognises that fine timing, and these days we are finding that it is more and more common for women in their 40s, like me, to want to have children. They have been building their careers, they have been getting their life together and then they get to 40, their career is established and they are facing some of these big questions about fertility.

BILLS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2341

The bill amends the definition of a partner in the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 to ensure that a married woman is not required to obtain the consent of her spouse to access assisted reproductive treatment if she is separated from the spouse. We know that in the past year alone more than 13 000 women have accessed assisted reproductive treatment services in Victoria. This is why we made a $32 million commitment to public IVF services, bulk-billed and subsidised for low-income Victorians. We are a government that cares about families and those seeking to start a family and that is why we are making this amendment. Of course something that has always been incredibly important to me in all of these debates is how it affects women like me in the regions. I was delighted that we are ensuring that there are partnerships in place with regional health services to improve the affordability and accessibility for rural and regional Victorians. We want all Victorians seeking assisted reproductive treatment to be able to do so in a safe and supportive environment with accurate information so that they can make informed choices. To save families the heartache of false hope, the government has also asked the health complaints commissioner to investigate the dodgy, dangerous and unethical practices of some IVF providers with a report due. It is incredibly important for this bill to go through. We are doing a lot of work in this space and our objective has always been to make sure that people are not exploited and that we have arrangements that are fair, with good checks and balances in place. The interim report after this thorough review provides us with a guide to ensuring this outcome. I am proud to be part of a government with equal female representation. I am proud that I am part of a government that seeks to ensure discriminatory practices are no longer a part of Victoria. I am proud to be part of a government that chose to act on the scourge of family violence that impacts the lives of many women. I am proud to be part of a government that believes women’s reproductive rights should be protected. And I am very proud to support the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Amendment (Consent) Bill 2019. As I said earlier, let us never go into the dystopian nightmare that would be a man being in control of my reproductive rights. I commend this bill to the house in the strongest possible terms. Mr CARROLL (Niddrie—Minister for Crime Prevention, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice, Minister for Victim Support) (17:15): I move:

That the debate be now adjourned. Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day. SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2019 Second reading Debate resumed on motion of Mr SCOTT: That this bill be now read a second time. Mr ANGUS (Forest Hill) (17:16): I am pleased to rise this evening to make a brief contribution in relation to the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. This is a relatively straightforward bill. We can see from clause 1 the purpose of the bill. It states that the purpose of this act is to amend the Emergency Services Superannuation Act 1986, the State Employees Retirement Benefits Act 1979, the State Superannuation Act 1988 and the Transport Superannuation Act 1988 to improve the operation of the superannuation schemes under those acts. That is the short form as to what it does. The bill basically makes eight significant changes which I will come back to in a little while. I want to start off by looking at the back story in relation to this particular bill. What is the genesis of it? Where has it actually come from? As the Assistant Treasurer said in his second-reading speech that was incorporated into Hansard, there was a review undertaken in February 2017 to look at the Emergency Services Defined Benefit Scheme to make sure it was adequate. I just want to quote the terms of

BILLS 2342 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019 reference as recorded in the minister’s second-reading speech. It says the terms of reference for this review were to: one, review certain design elements of the Emergency Services Defined Benefit Scheme such as the maximum multiple, the calculation of death and disability benefits, the calculation of the resignation benefit and the feasibility of introducing a transition to retirement pension; and two, also review gender equity. That is where this bill has come from. It resulted in a report being done by Dr David Knox of Mercer Australia and Ms Robbie Campo of Circa Consulting, who undertook the review as outlined by the minister at the time. As a result of that, this amendment bill has come forward. It is also worth noting that it was an election commitment of the government that they would implement the recommendations from that particular report and that is what has happened. So it was taken to the election last year. In relation to some of the more specific matters regarding this particular bill, the bill amends the Emergency Services Superannuation Act 1986 in seven ways, and I just want to touch on those. Firstly, it provides that where a member of the Emergency Services Defined Benefit Scheme has reached their maximum benefit multiple, the employer shall pay contributions to an accumulation account in respect of the employee at 3 per cent in 2019–20, rising to 12 per cent by 2026–27. Secondly, it provides that a member’s superable salary is maintained following a salary reduction unless otherwise advised by the member. Thirdly, it provides that contributions payable for the financial year will be fixed and based upon the superable salary at the start of the financial year. Fourthly, it allows members to take a transition to retirement pension. Fifthly, it allows members on unpaid parental and carer’s leave to choose their level of contribution and therefore benefit accrual. Sixthly, it provides members with the opportunity to make higher ‘catch up’ contributions. Seventhly, it changes the method of calculating death benefits in respect of police recruits who do not have dependants. In addition to all that, the bill amends the Emergency Services Superannuation Act 1986, the State Superannuation Act 1988, the Transport Superannuation Act 1988 and the State Employees Retirement Benefits Act 1979 to provide that the late payment of interest provisions apply from the date a member becomes entitled to a benefit. At the moment that is not the case. There is a lag of some 14 days, I think it is, between the benefit becoming an entitlement and it being paid without any interest being paid, so that will correct that anomaly. I also want to make some general comments in relation to the bulk of the members of this particular fund, given that they are, in the majority, emergency services personnel. We have police, ambulance and fire services members. I just want to put on record some comments in relation to the work that those emergency services workers do. I think all in this place and all in the broader community would certainly take their hats off to the work that the police, the ambos and the fireys do in our broader community, because every day they go to work at the start of the shift and they do not know what is going to be coming during the course of that shift. It is a great credit to them. Certainly I and everyone here would express a great deal of gratitude to them for their courage, their commitment to their job and the way they approach the task and go about the important and very often dangerous work that they do for the broader community. That is something that none of us in here take for granted. Certainly on our side of the house we are very pleased to assist those members in any way we can and express our thanks for what they do for the broader community. I know that in my electorate of Forest Hill those services are always active, always willing to serve the community and certainly with the police, we have got divisional headquarters out there on Springvale Road in the new police station at Forest Hill and they are making a tremendous contribution to the local community, not only on the law and order reactive side but also on the proactive side looking after our community very well. Indeed in Vermont South I have got fire station 27 down there, and they are always out and about as well, looking after all sorts of issues that arise in the local area. And then we have the ambulance depot up on Burwood Highway in Burwood East. So there is lots of activity from emergency services out

BILLS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2343 my way, as I am sure there is for all members of this place. But, as I said, I certainly wanted to put that gratitude on record. It is interesting to look at the annual report of the ESSSuper fund, the Emergency Services & State Super fund. I have a copy of the 2018 annual report. I also want to put on record one of the very common misconceptions in relation to the membership of this particular fund. I particularly refer to page 6 of that report, and that talks about members of Parliament. It talks about members of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Fund. It states:

The Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Fund (PCSF) was established as a continuing fund on 1 December 1968 ... But the point that I really want to make out of that is that, and I quote: Membership of PCSF is compulsory for Members of Parliament who were elected prior to the closure of PCSF on 9 November 2004. ... PCSF was transferred into the Emergency Services Superannuation Scheme by Part 4AC of the Emergency Services Superannuation Act 1986 on 1 April 2014. So the point I am making there is that clearly anybody elected after that time is ineligible and is not a member of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Fund. I am not sure about you, Acting Speaker, but I certainly have people coming up to me in the community—and even branch members at times—as maybe you do, saying, ‘Well, at least you’ve got your pension’. Of course that is finished. Members interjecting. Mr ANGUS: I hear yesses from the other side of the chamber, and I am sure if there is anyone behind me they would be saying yes as well. It is one of the little known facts these days, I think, that everyone assumes all of us who serve in this place and have the honour to serve in this place get the parliamentary pension. Mr Pearson: And free food. Mr ANGUS: It is disorderly to take up interjections, but the interjection from the other side was a very witty one. The member said, ‘And free food’. Of course we do not get free food either—unless of course we happen to attend the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office briefings. The VAGO briefings are most informative, and a fairly modest fare of a few sandwiches and a cup of tea. But nevertheless— Mr Pearson interjected. Mr ANGUS: I don’t see you there much these days, Danny, after getting off the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC). You should still come along. I know it is disorderly, Acting Speaker, and I am sorry. But yes, that is right, we get very few of the perceived benefits than perhaps the broader community might think. So I want it to be very clearly on the record that anybody elected after that time is not entitled to that. We have just got accumulation of our superannuation funds like most other people in the broader community. So I think it is well worth noting that. Going further through this report, I note that on page 28 is the balance sheet—statement of financial position as at 30 June 2018—of the Emergency Services Superannuation Scheme. It just shows you what a very huge scheme this is. We have got total assets of $30 billion. We have got a deficiency there because there is an unfunded liability of almost $7 billion—a negative equity of $6.978 billion. So that is something that is a historical reality and something I know this government and previous governments have endeavoured to correct, and there is indeed a plan to address that deficiency so that there will be enough money to pay all the members of the fund, whether they be emergency services members or other members—indeed, some former members of this place and the other place that are members of this fund. But it is worth looking at that because on the first blush you think, ‘Well, it’s insolvent’. Basically it is, technically I suppose, but the reality is that, as I said, this government and

BILLS 2344 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019 previous governments have committed to restoring that deficiency over a period of time, and that was included in the budget papers again this year. This particular document, the annual report, is obviously a fully audited document that goes into all aspects of the financial reporting of the fund, as it is certainly required to do, and it is a comprehensive document in relation to that. It obviously has the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office audit report there on page 62, and then there is further specialised work from PwC on pages 64 and 65 and following in relation to looking at some actuarial matters and other issues relating to the value of the fund at 30 June 2018. That is obviously important work that needs to continue to be done to make sure that these financial statements reflect correctly the situation and allow for members to be able to see what is going on with their fund. So I commend that document as well. We will be looking forward to the next one coming out in the not-too-distant future. Talking about finances—the cost of this—I note that this particular initiative, as I said, was an election commitment. On page 116 of budget paper 3, table 1.21, under the output initiatives of the Department of Treasury and Finance we can see there that indeed it has got a line ‘Reforming emergency services superannuation’, and that has got in there the costs in the 2019–20 year of $11 million, the 2020–21 year of $11 million, the 2021–22 year of $19 million and the 2022–23 financial year of $19 million. So it is not like these reforms, as I outlined them, will come at no cost. They will come at a significant cost, but that has been put in the budget by the government and they have talked about that on page 117, where it talks about reforming emergency services superannuation:

Funding will be provided to implement a comprehensive package of reforms to improve the retirement benefits of police and emergency services personnel. This initiative contributes to the delivery of the Government’s election commitment as published in Labor’s Financial Statement 2018. This initiative contributes to the Department of Treasury and Finance’s Revenue Management and Administrative Services to Government output. So there it is. That has captured the dollar value of that. There is also the fact sheet that was prepared by the government prior to the election, and that again goes in there and fleshes out in some more detail some of the eight points that I touched on before. Just in relation to getting into some more detail, one of the matters that I particularly want to touch on is the issue of the transition to retirement pension. That is an improvement to the fund, which will enable members who find themselves in that position, perhaps towards the end of their career, who want to start drawing down on their superannuation but do not want to be disadvantaged to be able to enter into that sort of phase and that sort of process so that they can then still maintain their employment and yet be able to draw back down on some of their superannuation benefits. So they are another couple of the reforms in relation to some of the other things in flexibility of salary so that members who want to perhaps cut down on their hours, perhaps step back a little bit from their heavy responsibilities towards the end of their careers, will not be unduly disadvantaged by doing that in terms of their superannuation outcomes. There are a number of commonsense provisions within those seven matters that I raised before. One there that I touched on just in passing was the change in the method of calculating death benefits in respect of police recruits who do not have dependants. I guess that is a relatively small but nevertheless important provision. That is one that hopefully would never have to be used. It is very infrequent, but nevertheless it is an important situation there dealt with in this particular bill as well. It also provides, as I think I touched on before, the opportunity for members to make higher catch-up contributions if they are in that position where they need to be doing that. There are provisions in there for that, and that is clearly outlined in the particular bill. Just in summary, as I said, this is the result of an independent review that was done. The government instigated that a couple of years ago. That resulted in a range of recommendations, and those

BILLS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2345 recommendations have been captured and essentially reflected in the bill that is before the house. I have talked about the costings in relation to this, knowing that like many reforms this will not come free of course; there will be a significant cost to it, but that is often the nature of making improvements such as this. Just in conclusion— Mr Pearson interjected. Mr ANGUS: Well, if the member for Essendon wants me to keep going, I suppose I can get up and look at some more details from the annual report. I am thinking of others, the member for Essendon, rather than— Mr Pearson interjected. Mr ANGUS: Perhaps, as I said, I will start to conclude now so that the member for Essendon can have ample time to make sure he gets his contribution in tonight, before stumps, in case we do not get back to this bill tomorrow, which I suspect we will not, given the government wants to look at the budget tomorrow as well. As I said, it is an important reform, and the opposition will not be opposing this. We could have had more to say on it in relation to aspects of it, but I think I have covered all the key points. We will not be opposing the bill. Mr DIMOPOULOS (Oakleigh) (17:32): It is indeed a pleasure to speak on this important bill, the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. To be fair, it is probably not one of those bills that captures a lot of public or even parliamentary attention, but it is a very important bill for a number of reasons. Firstly, superannuation, when it affects you, and it affects all Australians and Victorians, is very, very important. And number two, the cohort we are talking about is a very deserving cohort that currently have to deal with a bunch of inequalities and artificial barriers to realising their full entitlements under what is a national superannuation scheme. This bill, as the Assistant Treasurer said in his second-reading speech, seeks to remove the cap so to speak so that where a member of the emergency services defined benefit scheme—the ESDB—has reached the maximum benefit multiple, the employer shall pay contributions to an accumulation account in respect of the employee at 3 per cent in 2019–20, rising to 12 per cent by 2026–27. That is very important because to this point if someone worked beyond 30 years, the employer could not pay any more superannuation as the employee had reached the cap. Of course these days we expect, because of improvements in the way people work, including in the emergency services, people to work longer than 30 years. There are many paramedics and others and police working into their 40th years, so that is a really important change for the equity of the scheme. There are whole bunch of other very important changes; for example, providing that a member’s superable salary is maintained following a salary reduction unless otherwise advised by the member; providing that contributions payable for the financial year will be fixed and based upon the superable salary at the start of the financial year; and allowing members to take a transition to retirement pension. There is a whole range of really important changes that affect amongst the most important workers in Victoria, or in any society. I will talk a bit about why they are important in a moment. One of the reforms we are trying to institute through this bill that took my interest is the differential treatment we apply to police recruits who have dependents and those who do not. Currently police recruits are entitled to a death benefit paid in respect of recruits with dependents. Those that have no dependents have a far lower payout than those police recruits with dependents. We believe the distinction relating to the presence or absence of dependents only applies to police recruits and therefore it is inconsistent with the provision of benefits to other emergency services personnel, not to mention the fact that whether you have dependents or not in this day and age, in my view, should not matter for matters of superannuation. I just want to make couple of comments in relation to this proud government’s investment—or should I say this government’s proud investment in emergency services.

BILLS 2346 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019

Members interjecting. Mr DIMOPOULOS: We are a proud government. I will take up the interjections because we have got a lot to be proud of. But this government does a lot when it comes to emergency services and that cohort of the Victorian community is deserving, so I am not saying that it is without merit. It is absolutely with merit. If I just take each of them very briefly: for example, ambulance paramedics. We have heard it often from this side of the house that we ended the war on paramedics when we achieved office in 2014. We instituted a mechanism by which they got better pay and conditions through a work value case. We also invested in more paramedics so we did not see the ramping that was occurring under the previous Liberal government at hospitals around Melbourne. That was a public benefit, a public outcome, for the people of Victoria, but also very much a benefit for paramedics who had a very short life span in the job because it was so extraordinarily stressful. It is still stressful but we have made huge investments. And of course we have got the police and our biggest ever investment in Victoria Police’s history— 3135 additional police and a whole range of other technological supports and the supports the force needs to do the job properly protecting the front line. The third element is obviously the firefighters. Obviously we debated the Firefighters’ Presumptive Rights Compensation and Fire Services Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2019 last sitting week in this chamber. There are huge investments in fire services, both financial but also in policy reform— huge investments. This is an area for us which is absolutely aligned with our values, (a) because they are our workers, they are our employees as a state; and (b) because they are on the front line of what keeps us safe as the Victorian community. And they deserve every investment we make to ensure that they can do their job in a safe manner and are rewarded appropriately for that service. This is not to mention that the very reason we are talking about superannuation is because another Labor government—a proud Labor government, I am sure it was too—the government of Hawke and Keating in the 1980s established a national superannuation scheme. It is a proud Labor legacy but for a very deserving cohort, and I am very pleased to be speaking on this bill. I commend the Assistant Treasurer for the work in bringing this bill to the chamber, and I am pleased that the opposition will not be opposing the bill. I wish it a speedy passage. Mr D O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (17:39): The member for Essendon was having a go at the member for Forest Hill for not taking up his full allotted time of 30 minutes, and the member for Oakleigh could not even do seven. I was caught hopping because I was waiting. I thought I had another 3 minutes. The member for Oakleigh does acknowledge that we on this side are not opposing the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, and I thank the previous speakers, particularly the member for Forest Hill. When it comes to financial matters such as this, I will always defer to the member for Forest Hill. He is, dare I say it, the best in the chamber on this sort of stuff. Members interjecting. Mr D O’BRIEN: I knew that would get a rise from those opposite, but this is a reasonably technical piece of legislation for a simple country boy like me, and the member for Forest Hill has done well to explain it. Likewise I acknowledge the contribution of the member for Oakleigh. I do also acknowledge that this was an election commitment of the government, and this is now being reflected in this legislation. Indeed I had a quick look at a fact sheet from the Labor Party at the election, and it appears that this legislation actually has a few more points in it than what were committed to at the election, which generally would be cause for concern and something that the opposition would have a very, very close look at. But in this circumstance I think the additions are all reasonable, partly as a result of the review that was undertaken by Dr David Knox of Mercer Australia and Ms Robbie Campo of Circa Consulting Services to review the emergency services defined benefit scheme.

BILLS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2347

We are not opposing it, but those opposite would be surprised if at some point I did not make a few political comments with respect to the union movement. As I did a little bit of research for this legislation, of course the very first item that came up when I did a Google search on ‘emergency services superannuation scheme’ was a link from the UFU—the United Firefighters Union. Surprise, surprise. It was a memo to UFU members from November last year headed ‘Andrews government promises improvements to Emergency Services Superannuation Scheme’, with the full details and a link to a fact sheet. So this is just another little minor one where this government will do anything to appease Peter Marshall and make sure that he is happy with what the government is up to. We are seeing that play out in other sectors at the moment, where there is considerable consternation within the labour movement with respect to the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union and a very different part of the union movement, and it will be interesting to see how that plays out. We cannot get the Premier to say the name ‘Peter Marshall’ and we certainly cannot get him to say the name ‘John Setka’. It will be interesting to see how that plays out for those opposite, because slavishly supporting anything that certain unions do is not always in the best interest of Victorians. I do not think this legislation is the case, but I did find it amusing that the first thing that I saw when I did google it was a statement from the UFU. Having said that, I do want to pay tribute to our emergency services workers. Irrespective of the politics and the involvement of unions, our emergency services workers do a wonderful job right around our state, whether they are firefighters, ambulance officers—and I acknowledge the presence of the member for Melton and his past history as well—or the police in particular. I note there are aspects of this legislation with respect to changing the method of calculating death benefits for police recruits who do not have dependents. That is one aspect of this that is going to support our police officers. I think we need to do more to support our police officers, and it is not just always about more staff and more money. One of the things that I face in my electorate of Gippsland South is that, particularly during the week, it is a relatively low crime area, and yet we have a very, very thin blue line. One of the reasons we have a very thin blue line is, as I acknowledged, that it is a fairly low crime area, so we do not need huge volumes of police on the beat. But what does put pressure on our officers is the fact that when someone is taking leave, when someone is away on a WorkCover issue or when someone is off on training, they are very rarely, if ever, replaced. So the notional numbers that support our communities and keep crime down in the communities of Gippsland are very rarely the actual numbers, and that is a concern for me. As I talk to my local police officers too, the other people they would like to talk with—and it is not necessarily within the purview of this chamber—are the courts. We can do more in the Parliament to change our laws to support our police to ensure that when they catch the crooks those people are punished accordingly. It is a very regular retort that I hear from local police officers about how they go out, they catch someone and a couple of days later they are back on the streets—or they catch someone and they should go away for a long time, but indeed they— Mr Angus: It is a revolving door. Mr D O’BRIEN: It is a revolving door, as the member for Forest Hill says. So there are many more ways that we can support our emergency services, not just with money and not just with entitlements. I do pick up the words that the member for Forest Hill said before about defined benefit schemes with respect to politicians. I sometimes think there was no point John Howard getting rid of the very generous scheme in 2004 under pressure from Mark Latham because everyone still thinks that we get a very healthy pension when we retire, which of course—for any of us who were elected after 2004— we do not. And for the record—I place it on record—I do not believe we should. I think we are well paid, and the superannuation that we do get is good. Yes, a few of my colleagues have just fainted in their offices. But no, I do not believe it is defendable. My point is, I guess, that our emergency services are actually very lucky to have this defined benefits scheme, and they will be even luckier once this legislation passes, because this will improve it further

BILLS 2348 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019 for a number of them. I note the comment in the minister’s second-reading speech, particularly with respect to the cap, and the maximum benefit of 8.4 times their final average salary. That cap being reached, there are no further accruals. I accept the argument that that can sometimes mean that experienced staff will leave earlier just to maximise their superannuation. I do note a typo in the second-reading speech, which says ‘may result inexperienced staff retiring prematurely’—I think it is ‘in experienced’ staff retiring prematurely. But that is something to be lauded—that we do need those experienced staff. It is an issue in other areas of government business—I am not necessarily referring to the emergency services—where sometimes we offer generous either superannuation or redundancy arrangements and often we lose the best and most experienced people, and that is not necessarily good for the administration of government in this state. Likewise that applies to the emergency services, so if this does help some of those more experienced people stay on and support younger people coming through in our emergency services, then that is a good thing. I will leave my comments there. I have outlined that the opposition is certainly not opposing this legislation, and I look forward to its passage. Mr PEARSON (Essendon) (17:48): I am delighted to make a contribution on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. As you very eloquently put it, Acting Speaker Dimopoulos, when you spoke on this bill a few moments ago, the bill relates to the emergency services defined benefit scheme. Defined benefit schemes have been around for a significant period of time, and they tend to work fairly well when you have got a pool of recipients who are being serviced by a comparable pool of their successors. So where you have got a set of circumstances where you have got, in the case of Parliament, for example, succeeding members of similar size in number to their predecessors, it is like replacing like, and those schemes tend to be more sustainable. The old state superannuation defined benefit schemes, which were abolished and abandoned by the Kennett government in about 1993, were far more challenging, because you had a large pool that was being replaced by a small pool as the public sector grew smaller, so there were some obvious challenges there. Interestingly the earliest defined benefit scheme that I know of was one that was instituted by the United States government at the end of the American Civil War for former soldiers of the Union. It is important to note that the American Civil War was waged between 1861 and 1865. Mr D O’Brien interjected. Mr PEARSON: If the Romans had the capacity to levy a defined benefit scheme, I am sure that they most certainly would have, member for Gippsland South. But in this case the American Civil War ended in 1865. Now the question, Acting Speaker, for you is: in what year did this scheme close? In what year did this scheme pay its final benefit? Bear in mind that the American Civil War wrapped up in, I think, May of 1865. The scheme closed in 1990, Acting Speaker, if you can believe that. I am not quite sure how this came to be. I can only assume that some Union soldier perhaps married a much, much younger woman very much later on in life and that she lived to a ripe old age. But 1990 was the year that that defined benefit scheme closed, some 125 years after the final shot was fired in the American Civil War—very interesting indeed. I was quite attracted to the transition-to-retirement provisions as I actually think that it is a really important area of focus. I was told recently that for many men in particular retiring is a really profoundly disturbing experience, and that many men will die within 18 months of retiring. For those of us whose parents have worked in manual labour, such as my parents and my in-laws, their retiring at the earliest opportunity is really important. If you spend 50 years on the tools, you are really going to want to retire at 65.

BILLS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2349

I do note that there was a study done in America of 2956 people as part of the healthy retirement study, which was funded by the National Institute on Aging. It looked at people who retired who were healthy when they retired and those who were unhealthy—it was two-thirds healthy, one-third unhealthy. It was a longitudinal study, so for 18 years they did it. They found that where they delayed retirement, the healthy cohort had an 11 per cent lower all-cause mortality risk, and for the unhealthy cohort it was 9 per cent. Now, I am not suggesting for a moment or advocating a view that we should all work longer because, as I have indicated, for those people we know who work in manual labour, that is simply not an option if your body has given out. But where we can find a way to try to smooth that passage into retirement, I think it makes sense. So having provisions in place where you have got experienced officers being able to go from five days to four days to three days I think is actually a really good idea, rather than just going full pelt one moment and then you are gone and you are retired. I think the evidence would show that it is a really profound change and it can be a shock to the system. I think it is important that people have that opportunity to pursue things. I do believe you use it or you lose it. I think if you have got that capacity to continue working and if you have got that capacity to contribute and you want to contribute, then that is a good thing. I think the industrial environment and superannuation should reflect that, and that is a really important initiative. I appreciate that it is a technical bill, and I know that the member for Forest Hill loves going into the technicalities of these matters—I know he and I have a shared love of and interest in budget paper 5 in every set of budget papers. Mr Angus interjected. Mr PEARSON: It is my all-time favourite budget paper. They are all different budget papers, they have different purposes, but budget paper 5 is always my go-to on budget day, as it is, I am sure, for the member for Forest Hill. It is an important bill. I do want to place on record my profound appreciation for the work of our emergency services workers. I commend the bill to the house. Mr McGHIE (Melton) (17:54): I rise to offer my support for the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. The Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 contains several enhancements to the emergency services defined benefit scheme, referred to as the ESDB scheme. These proposed enhancements to the ESDB scheme were committed to by the government prior to the 2018 election. Our emergency services workers are world-class and as such deserve a superannuation scheme that is going to look after them and their families. Superannuation is important because it is intended to support individuals throughout their retirement. It is generally accepted that you need 66 to 80 per cent of your preretirement income to continue your current standard of living. Having enough super may affect not just the lifestyle we lead in our later years but also the health care and aged-care options available to us. The key benefit of the proposed reform is a change that will mean emergency services workers who have reached their maximum benefit multiple will receive additional superannuation contributions. Under the current scheme emergency services workers who reach their maximum benefit, typically after 30 years service, stop receiving any superannuation contribution from their employer. This means that long-serving emergency services workers receive an effective cut to the benefits they receive equivalent to their employer’s previous contribution. It is clearly unfair that the longest serving emergency services workers receive fewer benefits than others for the work that they do. The reduction in benefits accruing to them also means that long-serving emergency services workers are forced to choose whether they leave their service in order to supplement their retirement benefits or stay and accept a reduction in benefits. As the former secretary of the ambulance union and having in excess of 4500 members, I understand how important it is to support all of our emergency service workers. As part of my previous role I had been involved in several negotiations regarding the emergency services defined benefit (ESDB)

BILLS 2350 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019 scheme. That was along with Police Association Victoria and the United Firefighters Union, and I am proud to say we worked closely together to achieve some greater benefits for our members. In my opinion the benefits of the scheme are improved to coincide with the changing demographics of the workforce. When the scheme commenced in 1988 there were only three female paramedics in Victoria. Currently 49 per cent of the ambulance workforce is female, which amounts to around 2000 females. Women face distinctive challenges when it comes to retirement savings. Time out of the workforce to raise children, earning less or running a single-parent household can make it challenging to build a reasonable amount of super. Also women tend to live longer than men, making it even more essential that they accumulate enough superannuation to last through retirement. The amendments in this bill will assist these workers in being able to raise a family and return to work in a more secure position. That is why I believe that the amendments to this bill are important. I am proud to be part of the Andrews Labor government, and I am proud that we are keeping our promises—this amendment being one of them. The background of this particular bill is that in February 2017 Dr David Knox of Mercer and Ms Robbie Campo of Circa Consulting were engaged to undertake a review of certain aspects of the ESDB scheme, as instructed by the government. The terms of reference for the review were that the design elements of the ESDB scheme, such as the maximum multiple, the calculation of death and disability benefits, the calculation of the resignation benefit, the feasibility of introducing a transition to retirement pension and gender equality were all reviewed. In response to the review, prior to the 2018 election the government committed to a series of reforms to the ESDB scheme. This bill implements the government’s response to this review. Specifically, the Superannuation Legislation Bill 2019 will amend the Emergency Services Superannuation Act 1988 to improve the benefits provided to members of the emergency services defined benefit scheme, the main points being that where a member of the ESDB scheme has reached the maximum benefit multiple, the employer shall pay contributions to an accumulation account in respect of the employee at 3 per cent in 2019–20, rising to 12 per cent by 2026–27; providing that a member’s superable salary is maintained following a salary reduction, unless otherwise advised by the member; providing that contributions payable for the financial year will be fixed and based upon the superable salary at the start of the financial year; allowing members to take a transition to retirement pension; and allowing members on unpaid parental and carer’s leave to choose their level of contribution. It will provide members with the opportunity to make higher catch-up contributions. It will also change the method of calculating death benefits in respect of police recruits who do not have dependants, and it also provides that late payment of interest provisions apply from the date a member becomes entitled to a benefit. Currently under the ESDB scheme member and employer contributions vary every time a member’s superable salary changes, even if it is only by small amounts. This increases the administrative effort required by both employers and the scheme. Therefore it is proposed to fix contributions at the start of the financial year based on salaries at the time, unless the member changes their contribution rate time fraction. This and the previous proposal are interdependent, as it would be problematic to fix the contribution amount for the financial year and then allow a member’s superable salary to decrease. The changes to the way that members’ final average salary is calculated means that members may step down into a lower paid role due to burn-out, post-traumatic stress or any other reason without fear that this will reduce their superannuation benefit, and we have seen right through the ambulance services that many members have stayed in positions that they have not wanted to stay in. They have been in those roles—in senior management roles, in team management roles, in intensive care roles—where they have burnt out after a lengthy period but have had to stay there because of the fact that their superannuation would have been drastically affected. Another aspect is the transition to retirement pension. Commonwealth superannuation laws were changed in mid-2000 to enable super funds to offer transition to retirement pensions, otherwise known as TTRPs. The TTRPs offer members who have reached their preservation age the opportunity to

BILLS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2351 access their superannuation benefits prior to completely retiring from the workforce. TTRPs can assist those wanting to transition into retirement by reducing their working hours, as they allow individuals to draw down on their super to support their reduced salary income. This amendment also allows more flexibility for families and individuals. Members on unpaid sick leave can choose their level of notional contribution. When they resume work the accumulated unpaid contributions plus interest are either recovered via higher member contributions or deducted from a member’s final benefit. Currently members on unpaid parental leave are not able to choose a higher contribution and accrual rate. More flexible contribution arrangements that apply to unpaid sick leave are proposed to be extended to members on unpaid parental and carer’s leave. Furthermore, the ESDB allows members to make additional catch-up contributions where their average contribution rate is less than 7 per cent. Members whose average contribution rate is less than 7 per cent are able to contribute 8 per cent of their salary in order to accrue the same benefit multiple that they would have attained had they contributed at 7 per cent over their entire period of membership. This catch-up provision is valuable for members who may not have been able to contribute 7 per cent. This could be due to the cost of raising a family, a period of unpaid leave or other common life events. Now, turning specifically to how this bill supports police recruits, police recruits are not members of the ESDB scheme. They only become members when they are sworn in. The death benefit paid in respect of police recruits without dependants is significantly lower than that paid to a recruit with dependants. This distinction relating to the presence or absence of the dependants only applies to police recruits, and it is inconsistent with the provision of death benefits to other emergency services employees. It is proposed that this distinction is removed and that the death benefit paid in respect to police recruits without dependents is increased. With demographics shifting toward an aging population, reductions in personal saving rates and a trend toward increasing household debt, the anticipated increase in age pension payments would potentially place an unaffordable strain on the Australian economy. We need to ensure that we are doing all we can to put into place policies and supports to ensure that everyone under our care is receiving the best possible superannuation policies to support their retirement. Again, our emergency services workers are world-class and as such deserve a superannuation scheme that is going to look after them and their families. This bill is another example of how the Andrews Labor government is supporting our hardworking emergency services workers. It is for these reasons that I offer my support for the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, and I look forward to its speedy passage. Mr TAK (Clarinda) (18:04): I am very proud to rise today to speak on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. This is a very important bill because every day our dedicated police and emergency workers put their lives on the line for us. On behalf of the people of Clarinda I would like to say a deep and heartfelt thankyou to all the police and emergency services workers that have devoted themselves to caring for and protecting our community. We know that this often comes at great cost. The national survey undertaken by Beyond Blue found that one in three emergency services workers has high or very high psychological distress. This is compared to one in eight of all adults in Australia. The Andrews Labor government, through the 2019–20 budget, is delivering on a key election commitment to support emergency workers through early intervention by providing them with access to urgent mental health treatment as soon as they identify a problem. This bill here today delivers on further commitment—namely, delivering several enhancements to the emergency services defined benefit scheme, also known as the ESDB scheme. These enhancements were also committed to by the government prior to the 2018 election. This bill sets out a comprehensive package of reforms to improve the retirement of our hardworking police and emergency services personnel. As mentioned by the honourable member for Melton, in February 2017 Dr David Knox and Ms Robbie Campo were engaged to undertake a review of certain aspects of the ESDB scheme. It was a comprehensive review. The relevant unions were consulted. The Emergency Services

BILLS 2352 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019

Superannuation Scheme and the scheme actuary were also consulted, as well as the employers. In response to the review, prior to the 2018 election the government committed to a series of reforms to the ESDB scheme. This bill implements the government’s response to the review as outlined in that important election commitment. What do the reforms look like? The reforms include additional superannuation guarantee contributions once the maximum benefit multiple is attained. What does this mean? Essentially where a member of the ESDB scheme has reached the maximum benefit multiple, the employer shall pay contributions to an accumulation account in respect of the employee at 3 per cent in 2019–20, rising to 12 per cent by 2026–27. Other reforms include providing that a member’s superable salary is maintained following a salary reduction unless otherwise advised by the member and allowing a member to take a transition to retirement pension. The reforms here under this bill will allow members to take a transition to retirement pension. This is a timely and appropriate measure, especially considering the intense and demanding nature of police and emergency services work, both physically and mentally. Other reforms under the bill include providing members with the opportunity to make higher catch- up contributions and allowing members on unpaid parental and carer’s leave to choose their level of contribution after the benefit accrues. This is a great reform which helps to provide more flexibility for those on unpaid parental and carer’s leave so that in such circumstances members can choose their level of notional contribution. Then upon returning to work the accumulated unpaid contributions plus interest are either recovered via higher member contributions or are deducted from the final benefit. Essentially these will provide more flexible contribution arrangements which apply to unpaid sick leave and will be extended to members on unpaid parental leave and carer’s leave. We all know that flexibility during parental leave, especially for new parents, can be very helpful and important. And of course flexibility is important for those who may have to take time off to care for a family member or during a family emergency; every little bit helps during a family emergency. There are some really positive reforms here. As well as ensuring a fitting retirement for these hardworking Victorians, this investment will encourage police and emergency workers to continue their careers with these new arrangements for parents and carers, which is a really positive development. Lastly, I should also touch on the reforms to death benefits for police recruits. As already mentioned by a previous speaker, this is another important reform. As it stands police recruits are not members of the ESDB scheme, rather they become members once they are sworn in. Also, the death benefit paid in respect of recruits without dependents is far lower than that paid to a police recruit with dependents. Labor will remove the current difference by increasing the death benefit paid in respect of police recruits without dependents. This government is fully committed to supporting the state’s police and emergency services workers and recognising the amazing contribution that they make to our community. This bill here today is just another example. I mentioned earlier the recent budget allocation. That allocation will pilot cover for reasonable medical expenses for current and former emergency workers and volunteers who are awaiting the outcome of compensation claims for work-related mental health injuries. This pilot is a critical component of the government's package of emergency workers mental health reforms, including a Victoria Police early intervention and prevention fund and the establishment of a specialist network of clinicians and a centre for excellence for emergency workers’ mental health. There is a comprehensive package of reforms happening here, and rightfully so. Police and emergency services workers devote themselves to caring for communities across our state. They deserve that same care in return, and that is what this bill delivers. Again on behalf of the people of Clarinda, a sincere, heartfelt thank you to all the police and emergency services workers that have devoted themselves to caring for the Clarinda community and caring for our community in the south-east and all across our wonderful state. We recognise and appreciate your

BILLS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2353 service to the community and acknowledge that too often this comes at great cost. Thank you once again. I commend the bill to the house. Mr CHEESEMAN (South Barwon) (18:12): Tonight I rise to speak on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, but before I actually talk about the particulars of this bill I want to put on record my profound thanks on behalf of my community for the fantastic emergency services workers that serve our community and keep us all safe. Emergency services workers are really, in my view, profound servants of our communities, and the Andrews Labor government has recognised this from the very moment we were first elected in 2014. We have made massive investments into each of the emergency services. We have put in place profound reforms to give our firefighters, police officers and ambulance paramedics all of the resources they need to be able to do the job they do in keeping us all safe. I can recall in the lead-up to the 2014 election when the Napthine government was industrially at war with our ambulance officers, our paramedics and our firefighters. I can recall the very powerful statements that the then opposition leader, now the Premier, made to those workers that if we were given the great gift of government, we would end those wars against those emergency services workers. Indeed that happened in a very quick way and in a very meaningful way, and I am very proud to be associated with a government that delivered on that. In terms of the nature of the work that our emergency services workers do, they get exposed to a whole lot of challenging and difficult things in their workplaces and that can lead to broken minds and broken bodies, and we as a government have very clearly recognised that. We are doing everything that can be done to support our fantastic emergency services workers. Part of the reforms that we are putting in place is a commitment that we took to the Victorian community in the lead-up to the state election last year to put in place some reform to build the defined benefit scheme that has served our emergency services workers for a long time now—a scheme that recognises the particular difficulties that emergency services workers have. Our profound obligation as a government and as a community is to ensure that we have strong superannuation arrangements in place recognising the profound work that our emergency services workers do. I am very proud actually that amongst the government we have a career firefighter in the member for Frankston, we have a career ambulance officer in the member for Melton and we have a career police officer in the form of the member for Bayswater. I have heard many contributions that they have made not just in the chamber but in various conversations with their colleagues and with the services that they have worked with, and they have brought those stories back to our caucus and they have kept us informed about the various things that we need to do. When I contrast that against the record of previous Liberal governments—I do wish to note that of course the Kennett government did in a very profound way go after many who worked within the Victorian public sector—they closed many of the defined benefit schemes that recognised that in certain occupations people would take a lower rate of pay to have a very strong superannuation scheme, so I very much want to acknowledge their track record. I also want to acknowledge the horrendous attacks made by the Baillieu and Napthine governments, particularly against the ambulance officers and firefighters of this state. The cuts that were made and the industrial war that they waged on the men and women of those two emergency services agencies, I think, was an appalling attack. It was very disappointing, it was very damaging, and I know from talking to many people that they will never be forgiven for that appalling attack. This government will continue in a very strong way to make the investments in our emergency services to build a modern fire service, a modern ambulance service and a modern police service that will continue to serve and protect our state. I have had the great fortune in my adult life to get to know many emergency service workers. I have had the great privilege of hearing their stories, and I think this particular amendment, this particular reform, recognises in a very strong way that our emergency

MOTIONS 2354 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019 service workers need to have strong superannuation arrangements in place that recognise the valued contribution that they make to our community in protecting us and keeping us all safe. So I am very proud to speak on this. I am very proud to say that the Andrews Labor government does have career firefighters, career ambulance people and career police officers amongst its ranks, providing us with good advice about the reforms that we need to put in place to continue to maintain fantastic emergency services. It is with great pleasure that I commend this bill to the house. I look forward to continuing to advocate on behalf of our emergency service workers to build modern agencies that keep us safe and that recognise the important contribution that they make to our community and our society. Ms HORNE (Williamstown—Minister for Ports and Freight, Minister for Public Transport) (18:22): I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day. Motions BUDGET PAPERS 2019–20 Debated resumed on motion of Mr DONNELLAN: That the house takes note of the 2019–20 budget papers. Mr HIBBINS (Prahran) (18:23): With the short time I have got available, when I left off previously I was talking about school funding, and in the time since my last contribution the school funding deal has been signed. But what I would point out, as I commented at the time, is that the federal Liberal bad deal won out over the state government’s bad deal. The current bad deal will make sure that the public school system is still underfunded—even until 2028 under this deal that has been signed. What the state government was putting on the table was that public schools would be fully funded, but in 2028. Public school students and public schools cannot wait another decade, or off into the never- never, for their schools to be fully funded. This is the Gonski deal that was set out years ago. We are still not seeing those public schools fully funded, which is what we need to do. I would urge the state government and the federal government to bring forward the full funding of our public schools to at least around 2023. That is what needs to happen. Our schools cannot wait. To conclude, this entire budget was really the Premier’s missed moment to put the environment and our climate at the heart of the budget. Instead we are going to have coal burning for decades, the waste crisis continuing, the environment continuing to decline and homelessness and the public housing waiting list continuing to rise. It is not good enough. Ms CONNOLLY (Tarneit) (18:24): Well, how good is Victoria? The budget is a representation of the commitment the government has made to the Victorian people. In November the people of Victoria put their faith in us and our plan for the future of this state, and we have just outlined how we are going to implement it. For my electorate of Tarneit I am very happy to say that this budget delivers for you. Whether it is improvements in health, education, public transport or roads, this budget sets out an outline for achieving these goals. I am so excited to hear about the initial $100 million investment that this government has allocated to fund the Western Rail Plan. This funding will lay the groundwork for the much-needed electrification of the Wyndham Vale line. Separating Tarneit and Wyndham Vale stations from the regional V/Line services and expanding metro services to replace them means more services running more often with greater carriage capacity. Having metro services also means we will be able to build more stations along the newly electrified—or soon to be electrified—Wyndham Vale line in our booming western suburbs. If I could be thankful for anything else, it would be that Hoppers will finally lose the crossing when the Old Geelong Road level crossing gets removed. It is my community’s worst nightmare when it

MOTIONS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2355 comes to peak hour congestion—22 500 commuters use these roads surrounding this level crossing, and the gates spend up to 36 per cent of peak hour closed. I can tell you that after many mornings campaigning at Hoppers Crossing station during the election campaign last year, this level crossing was on the lips of every resident. The removal of this level crossing will be life changing for the residents of my electorate and those of our neighbours over in Werribee and Altona. How can I talk about these fantastic investments in our public transport network and not mention Tarneit station and the 400 car parks we are set to receive? In spite of the federal election result, this Labor government remains committed to building those extra parking spaces at Tarneit station, one of the busiest V/Line stations in the state, with an average of 2300 commuters a day using that station. Combined with the Western Rail Plan, this will make sure that Tarneit station is fairly equipped to handle the growing population demands of the outer west on our rail network. The Andrews Labor government’s announcement of funding of $214 million for the construction of seven early parenting centres, one of which will be in Wyndham, is an incredibly welcome announcement in my community. In addition, the government has funded $23.7 million to deliver sleep support services to parents of newborns to cope with the late-night disruptions. The Wyndham Early Parenting Centre will benefit up to 690 families are year. With 100 babies now being born every single week in Wyndham, services like these have never been more important. Tarneit in particular is home to an ever-growing number of young parents, and these services will be indispensable to many as they adjust to their stressful but deeply rewarding lives as parents. I am ecstatic to see the government make record investments into our public health system: $64.4 million will fund our nurse-to-patient ratios, employing up to 540 new nurses and giving Victorians the best possible care. On a matter that is exceptionally close to my heart, the $6 million in funding for reproductive health services for couples undertaking IVF will be life-changing for the 13 000 women undertaking IVF in the past year. As someone who has experienced firsthand the trials of undergoing IVF, I know how difficult it can be and I know the world of difference this funding will make for those people wanting to be parents. The Andrews Labor government recognises that the first 1000 days of childhood are extremely formative and can set up children for their futures. The benefits of early childhood education can last decades into their future, and that is why we are investing an incredible $822 million into ensuring that three-year-old children can access kinder for at least 5 hours a week, and soon 15 hours a week, over the next 10 years. We know that learning starts young and when these three-year-olds benefit from access to kinder those benefits will last well until they are after 33 years of age. They last for a lifetime, and I commend this government. As a mother of two school-aged children, my youngest just started prep this year, I understand the importance of education and the desire that every parent has to send their child to a great school, which is why I am delighted to see this government commit an astounding $850 million over the next eight years to construct 100 schools across Victoria. In this term, 45 of those 100 schools will be built, and I am pleased to say that the Wyndham municipality that I represent wins from this commitment. Because let us not sugar-coat it: we need more schools across our local community to accommodate the 100 kids being born every week. Of those 45 schools being delivered over the next four years, seven will be built in Wyndham. For Tarneit this means three new primary schools—Dohertys Creek P–9, which opened this year; Davis Creek Primary School, which is set to open next year; and Truganina South East Primary School, which will open in 2021. I have visited the Grange P–12 College many times, and I have to say congratulations to principal David Smillie for his absolute dedication and strong advocacy for this school. I am enthusiastic about the additional $9.5 million that has been allocated for the Grange P–12 College in Hoppers Crossing. This money will go towards upgrading old classrooms and their science facilities, turning them into state-of-the-art learning facilities. It is important that we continue to build more schools in the outer west. We all know it. For the students of the Grange, this investment will make a big difference

MOTIONS 2356 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019 because we know that improving learning facilities leads to better academic outcomes and every student in the outer west deserves no less. It is also an achievement to see $58 million spent on expanding the school breakfast clubs program. I am sure all of us here can agree that breakfast is the most important meal of the day, and making sure that our kids get the best start to their day is so important for getting them to engage with their learning. On a brief note, I will take the time to commend the $300 000 that has been given to the Grange Reserve to upgrade the lights at the soccer field. This is going to allow the Hoppers Crossing Soccer Club to schedule night games for the first time, increasing capacity for match playing at this growing club. As it stands, the club has a really long wait list of kids and adults who are eager to play and every opportunity for people to get active in Wyndham is incredibly important, because when you consider their health statistics, they are lower and a lot worse off than the average Victorian. Upgrading our sporting facilities is therefore a sound strategy to help encourage an active and healthy community. It is also fitting that I applaud the government’s plans to create new open spaces and parklands, from the Lawrie Emmins Reserve in Laverton North to Skeleton Creek in Hoppers Crossing. This $8 million investment is a step in the right direction, providing Wyndham residents with 15 hectares of parklands, playgrounds and sporting areas. The people in Tarneit deserve clean, open parklands, whether it is for kids to play or for adults to go and have a morning jog. It is for this reason I praise our government’s investment into creating more open green spaces for the Tarneit community. Since I am talking about health, I have to say: how life-changing is the $322 million going towards free dental? It is going to benefit all government schools by 2022. This is the biggest investment in public dental care made by any government, and the difference it makes will change lives for the better because if kids do not get their dental health right, the long-term impacts on their health can be devastating. We are talking about all kinds of oral diseases and disorders, with tooth pain, infections and tooth losses being the most common. The financial impacts on families cannot be understated. What this budget does is give about $400 per child a year so that families are less likely to incur unexpected costs associated with dental operations. My community cannot wait to see those dental vans rolled out across Wyndham. Another health boost is the $5 million being allocated to building a dog park in Wyndham. I have no doubt that our growing population in the outer west brings a lot of pets with it. I make no bones as a dog lover myself: these parks will bring opportunities for us to get out with our dogs, go for walks and get active in Wyndham. I am also pleased to see the government is investing in preventative justice measures. Approximately $50 million is going to be spent on reducing recidivism in the Corrections budget. A couple of weeks ago I spent a Friday night locked up in the Old Melbourne Gaol as part of Whitelion’s annual Bail Out fundraiser. About 150 people attended, including the honourable member for Narre Warren North. We were able to listen to people who had spent time incarcerated in prison and did not have access to support programs like the one that Whitelion provides. If they had, they may not have ended up back in the justice system and the lives might have travelled on a very different path. These stories were harrowing and tragic, and this is why programs like those run by Whitelion that support the most vulnerable and at-risk people are essential for our community. It is also heartening to see the Andrews Labor government support our multicultural communities in Wyndham, with funding allocated towards major cultural celebrations: $80 000 has been funded for Wyndham celebrations of Holi and Diwali. These events are some of the biggest celebrations in Wyndham and attract people from all over Victoria. With a growing population, a growing number of aged-care facilities for the ageing population is going to be required, and that is why $14.5 million is going to purchase land for two new facilities that specialise in aged care for Indian Victorians, one of which will be built in the west. These facilities

MOTIONS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2357 will offer specialised care and employ workers who speak Indian languages. This is an excellent opportunity for those who work in construction and in aged care. For Tarneit residents, it is also a vital piece of long-term infrastructure for our growing and ageing population. There you have it, Acting Speaker. It is a fantastic budget, and I feel very honoured to be able to commend it to this house. Ms VALLENCE (Evelyn) (18:36): I rise to speak on the take-note motion in relation to the budget papers. This budget is built on a gamble. Victorian people deserve better. This budget is reliant on income that may never materialise and on expenditure estimates that consistently blowout. It is a budget that continues the high-spending, big-taxing modus operandi that this Labor government is addicted to. The Premier notes this budget has, and I quote, ‘a series of tax changes that we think strikes the right balance’. In reality what this translates to is that the Labor government will add or increase taxes to pay for unfunded election promises and financial incompetence. This budget is a gamble because it was built on a hope that Bill Shorten would win the federal election and funnel billions of commonwealth dollars into the state coffers, off the back of the astonishing act by the Premier to shamefully use millions of Victorian taxpayer dollars on political advertising in a vain attempt to try help his federal Labor comrades. Take the $2 billion promise made by Bill Shorten to help this government pay for Melbourne Metro, a contribution to an existing state program that has a budget that has blown out—a very strange commitment, given only a year before, the Premier rejected $850 million from the federal coalition to help fund this project. With Bill Shorten losing the unlosable election, the gamble was lost and the state government found itself in a pickle to suddenly have to find money to fill the budget’s black hole. This reckless gamble has cost all Victorians, with net debt projected to balloon out to $22.8 billion in the 2019–20 financial year and then more than double to $54.9 billion in four years time, with no plan as to how this debt will be repaid—simply unacceptable. One of the greatest gambles is the government’s outrageous raid of the Transport Accident Commission of $2.9 billion, at a time when the lives lost road toll is at a 14-year high— 50 per cent more deaths on Victorian roads than at this time last year. You would think if there was ever a time to allow the TAC to invest in critical safety measures to help make roads safer, it is now. For industry—my shadow portfolio of responsibility—there are further gambles and oversights in this budget. For example, the government admitted the West Gate Tunnel project was unlikely to meet the 92 per cent local steel content requirement, impacting our steel industry simply because the government has been lazy and not monitoring the contract in respect of the Victorian Industry Participation Policy. Further in this budget, LaunchVic—which helps new, innovative business ideas get off the ground— has been cut by half; and with only one year of funding included in the budget papers it is unclear what activities will be cut and whether the Labor government is committed to LaunchVic into the future. It is a bad budget. And what does it mean for my constituents in the electorate of Evelyn? For years leading up to the 2018 state election I engaged with my community and listened to what the community said was needed locally. For years, only the Liberals fought for funding to be allocated for the development of the Esther Park pavilion, home of the Mooroolbark Soccer Club. At the 2014 and the 2018 state elections the Liberals committed millions of dollars in funding to build female-friendly sport facilities that provided adequate change rooms and associated amenities at Mooroolbark Soccer Club. I was proud to attend almost every senior home match—men’s and women’s—to run a petition for funding, which finally saw the government acknowledge their delinquency so far on this important issue. I congratulate Mick Ashworth and all the committee for years of work to achieve the result of getting the pavilion redeveloped and new synthetic pitches laid. An issue particularly close to my heart that I am extremely passionate about is the condition of Yarra Ranges Special Developmental School in Mount Evelyn. With dilapidated portables, unstable floors, a

MOTIONS 2358 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019 whole section of the school cordoned off because of an unsafe level of mould contamination, the school has been left by this government in a disgraceful condition. Numerous communications to the Minister for Education over the past few years from both the school and parents fell on deaf ears—he never replied to them. While the minister was off making millions of dollars of pledges to a number of schools in his own electorate of Monbulk, this school community had been forgotten by him and the Labor government. I felt deeply for the staff, educators, carers, and most of all the students of Yarra Ranges Special Developmental School and their families, for having to endure such unbearable conditions. Working hard with the school and the parent-led council, I raised the profile of the school’s predicament in the community and media. The then shadow education minister, the member for Kew, accompanied me to visit the school, not once but twice, which just goes to show how committed the Liberals are about special developmental schools and also how appalled the member for Kew was by the condition of this school and how seriously the Liberal-Nationals took this issue. I was absolutely thrilled to pledge $5 million to upgrade the school. It was a relief that after being embarrassed into it, the minister finally acted and matched the pledge—of sorts—but with only $3.4 million, which has severely fallen short of what is needed and what would have been delivered by a Liberal-Nationals government. I am relieved for the school that some works, at least, will be able to be done to start fixing the mess. I pay tribute to principal Janet Taylor and the determined and brilliant Emma Withers, who has three children at this school, as well as all the parents, kids and staff. With around 125 kids at the Yarra Ranges SDS with varying levels of disability and special needs, all the students enrich the lives of everyone they come into contact with. And I can assure you, Acting Speaker, I have never heard our national anthem sung with as much gusto as by the beautiful students of the Yarra Ranges SDS. The kids and families at this school absolutely deserve better from this government, and I will continue to fight for additional funding so that the school classrooms can all be fixed. During the election campaign the Liberal-Nationals committed to removing the rail level crossings at Lilydale and Mooroolbark before 2022 and increasing car parking capacity at both stations. Well, after five years of inaction and empty promises, the Labor government still has these two very dangerous and congested crossings in the early planning stages—still, after two elections and five years. Despite the promises made all the way back in 2014, with red shirts volunteers waving signs calling for their removal, not one sod has been turned at either Mooroolbark or Lilydale rail crossings. These projects have been stuck in limbo for years and cause both the Mooroolbark and Lilydale communities major congestion during peak times, especially when parents are trying to take their children to or pick them up from surrounding local schools. The budget papers provide no assurances as to when these crossings will be removed and if that will occur in this term of government. The people of the outer east in Evelyn deserve their fair share of investment and attention, not to be relegated to a never-never planning list. On key road safety measures, this government has entirely let down the residents of the Evelyn electorate—again. The Labor government’s refusal to provide any funding to upgrade and improve the safety of Maroondah Highway at Killara Road and Station Street in Coldstream is yet another example of Labor’s disregard for vital road infrastructure in the outer east and country townships. During the election, I committed, with the backing of my good friend the then shadow minister for roads, the member for Croydon, to providing $4.4 million to install traffic lights at this dangerous intersection. Not only would these traffic lights improve the safety of the Maroondah Highway and Killara Road, Coldstream, intersection, which sees thousands of cars and earthmoving trucks travel on it on a daily basis, they would have allowed local residents to safely travel to and from their homes and also allowed the dedicated CFA volunteers of the Coldstream Fire Brigade to safely navigate the intersection at times of emergency. I pay tribute to the determination of local residents, small businesses, the Coldstream Voice community group—particularly Kevin Ryan—and the Coldstream CFA, led by captain Sean Bethell,

MOTIONS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2359 who have all advocated for many years for traffic lights to make Killara Road and Maroondah Highway safer. Kevin Ryan did a mound of work in the community, gaining over a thousand signatures to a petition to fix this intersection. Despite the ignorance of this government, we carried on our fight and, with relief, obtained the support of my good friend the Honourable Tony Smith, MP, federal member for Casey, who announced funding of $20 million in commonwealth funds to install traffic lights at Killara Road and Station Street as well as duplicate the Maroondah Highway along this stretch of the Coldstream estate, to just get this job done and make this road safer. It is disappointing but unsurprising that this state Labor government has not yet accepted this funding. Just like the $4 billion on offer for the east–west link, the Andrews government is refusing $20 million for Maroondah Highway and Killara Road in Coldstream. It is available but not included in this state budget. I will continue to fight hard for the Coldstream community to get this available federal funding accepted by the state government and for this important project to get delivered. Another failure with this budget is that the urgent need for safety upgrades to Warburton Highway in Seville East continues to be ignored by the Minister for Roads and this Labor government. Earlier this year I wrote to the Minister for Roads requesting that urgent action be taken and funding be allocated in this budget for the dangerous stretch of road in Seville East along Warburton Highway that includes Peters, Joyce, Sunnyside and Douthie roads. Despite now over 20 reported accidents and a recent fatality on this stretch of road, the minister has not had the decency to respond to me or the residents of the Seville East Traffic Safety Group that have written to her. I wish to pay tribute to the efforts of Joel and Lisa Supple, Claire Knowles, Andrew Sands and many others. We will continue to campaign together on this very important need to make a safer Warburton Highway in Seville East. And in yet another kick to the CFA and the amazing volunteers who put their lives on the line to protect our community in times of emergency, this budget cuts $40 million from the CFA capital asset budget—fewer fire stations to be refurbished, fewer trucks and equipment that our volunteers urgently need to keep our communities safe. There are many CFA brigades in the Evelyn electorate that will suffer the impacts of this massive budget cut. The Coldstream CFA, for example, was promised a new station years and years ago. Indeed a year ago they were told plans were being developed. Well, now it seems it is on ice. Again, this government has persisted with its anti-volunteer agenda and continues to treat the CFA with disdain. The volunteer firefighters of Coldstream and right throughout Evelyn who put their lives on the line in times of fire emergency and road trauma deserve better. This was a bad budget for Victoria, and it crystallises the limited vision that this Labor government has for Victoria. What sort of Victoria do we want to live in? A Victoria where inner-city metro projects are funded at the expense of neglecting the most dangerous and dilapidated highways and local country roads in the outer suburbs and country townships; where the essence of our community, the volunteer firefighters, are disrespected and stripped of the resources to support what they need to exercise their duties; where the state government refuses to put politics aside to work together with the federal government to deliver the essential infrastructure that Victorians depend on—roads, schools and community and sporting facilities; where the government overextends and blows the budget, thereby condemning Victorians to drown in debt for decades to come? No, the Victorians— Mr Taylor interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Edbrooke): Order! The member will resume his seat if he would like to interject. Ms VALLENCE: As I was saying: what sort of Victoria do we want to live in? One where this government disregards Victorians? No. The Victorians of the Evelyn electorate deserve better. I will be their voice, unlike this government. I will keep listening to them and what matters to them locally and continue fighting for them for better outcomes for the Evelyn electorate that I proudly represent. Ms RICHARDS (Cranbourne) (18:50): I am delighted today to speak on the 2019–20 budget and highlight the impact it is going to have on the community that I serve.

MOTIONS 2360 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019

A member interjected. Ms RICHARDS: It is okay. I can do this. It is all right. Thank you. There are several elements of this budget that I would like to highlight. I would especially like to start with the impact that the new dental vans program is going to have on the schools in the community that I serve, because this is a game changer. We know that oral ill health is one the largest causes of avoidable hospital admissions for children, and we know that this is going to make a significant change to the communities that we all serve, but especially those communities that absolutely need access to good dental care. Many years ago I worked in a recruitment role, and many of the people that I saw applying for jobs were unable to get work because of their oral ill health. Many of them were missing teeth. The type of change that we are making with the dental vans will make such a huge difference to people who are looking for employment down the track. This is a game changer that will make a difference to intergenerational poverty. And those who are looking for work, those who are looking for employment, are often damaged by the childhood they had where they were unable, because of poverty, to get access to good health. I was delighted with this commitment back in November, and I was even happier when the Premier of the state, the Minister for Health, my good friend the member for Bass and I visited Clyde Primary School, because there it was announced that we will deliver a fleet of 250 vans with an investment of $321 million. The Smile Squad arrived in my neighbourhood on that Sunday only a few weeks ago, and we could not stop smiling. It is an investment in our kids’ health and in the future, and it will free up existing public dental programs so that more adults can get faster dental care. It is starting in term 3 this year, and I was delighted that the care was commencing in Cranbourne, Box Hill, Wodonga and South Barwon. These will be the first areas to benefit. A couple of Sundays ago I was fortunate to distribute free dental packs consisting of toothbrush, toothpaste and a brochure to help families understand how to make the most of the opportunity to prevent oral ill health. Staying on health, I am so pleased that the 2019 Labor budget has planned for the construction and expansion of 10 community hospitals across our state, including a new community hospital in Cranbourne. I am delighted to assure the community that there is already $2 million in the budget allocation for a community hospital in our area, and this is a welcome first step—establishing a hospital which, once complete, will provide care to families closer to home. Of course this hospital will be on a greenfield site and is eagerly awaited by the community. It was with extraordinary pride that I announced that the first stages of this community hospital would be delivered in this budget. But I am conscious that we are of course part of the thriving south-east. Acting Speaker Edbrooke, I have never forgotten the smile on your face when it was announced that we were going to refurbish Frankston Hospital. You did not stop smiling the whole time we spoke about how there were going to be 11 storeys— Members interjecting. Ms RICHARDS: I cannot help but remember your response knowing that there were going to be care facilities close to the Frankston community. Of course with the area booming with young families I am very conscious that we are also going to be building a new emergency department devoted to children and their families at Casey Hospital—because Casey and Cranbourne are booming with young families. At a time that can be very difficult it is so important that families get critical services to help to adjust to life with a new baby or young family. Many teachers and principals have highlighted the need for governments to support families at a very stressful time. This budget delivered on our election commitment to help families get better access to parent help, with our government’s delivery of seven new parenting centres across the state, including one in Casey. I know too well that bringing a newborn home is a precious time, but although it has been a while for me I do remember too well how stressful

MOTIONS Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2361 and challenging this is for so many people, including me. Sleep and settling is one of the biggest challenges facing new parents, with about one in two facing problems, but while this is a common problem it can lead to far greater issues, including postnatal depression, isolation and stress. It can even lead to issues with children’s behaviour and mental and physical development. Typically these problems often happen in the middle of the night. I am so proud that this government recognises there is a solution that will help sleep-deprived, stressed parents in the south-east. I am only halfway through my contribution and I have not even left health. What is incredibly important is our commitment to topnotch tertiary health close to home. However, I cannot finish any contribution on health without recognising the important role that nurse-to-patient ratios will play in our community. I was delighted and so relieved that this budget delivered stronger nurse and midwife- to-patient ratios. More than 500 nurses and midwives will be hired as part of further improvements to the Safe Patient Care (Nurse to Patient and Midwife to Patient Ratios) Act 2015. I would like to take a moment to pay credit to the many nurses who campaigned long and hard. I would particularly like to acknowledge local nurses Hannah Spanswick and Liz Barton. These women have been fighting for justice for nurses for a long time, and I would like to take a moment to recognise them and the many other nurses from the Australian Nursing & Midwifery Federation who have been campaigning tirelessly for the sake of the many nurses who come behind them. This was a hard-fought battle, and I would like to recognise that there were many hours when the nurses sat in this chamber, and if you will indulge me, I would like to recognise Lisa Fitzpatrick from the ANMF, Pip Carew and Rachel Halse for the formidable work on behalf of thousands of our hardworking nurses. But also those nurses who toil away, night after night, will be so pleased that nurse and midwife-to-patient ratios are properly funded in this budget. Again, with your indulgence, I will recognise—as I did yesterday—my brother, my sister, my niece, my sister-in-law, my recently departed mother-in-law and my dear friends. You all work hard and we see what you do, and you want to give the best that you can. You worked with the previous Minister for Health and this has been delivered by the current Minister for Health, and you deserve credit for this budget outcome. A stronger nurse and midwife-to-patient ratio is all about justice and fairness for patients and nurses. Cranbourne is a young community with optimistic families. For so many people the focus is not just on their own family but on the future of their children, and I am so pleased that Labor has committed to building new schools in Cranbourne. The list is long, but this community is well-deserving. With a massive $1.8 billion investment across the state, this year’s budget includes funding to build three brand-new schools for kids in Cranbourne. Labor has committed to funding $671 million in funding 100 new schools across the state over the next eight years, and this includes new schools like Botanic Ridge in the south of the electorate and Casey Fields Five Ways primary school. But there is also our much-anticipated Cranbourne West secondary college, and—wait for it—Labor will build a brand- new special development school in Cranbourne. There are many highlights in this budget, but having a place for children to attend school locally is something I am most especially proud of and something that will make a huge difference to Cranbourne families. But wait, there is more. For those who care about education, rest assured our older schools are also well looked after, because every school deserves to be well resourced. There was an odd contribution in the debate from the member for Hastings on Wednesday, 5 June, about Cranbourne South Primary School, and I am delighted to assure the house that our commitment to this school is rock solid. I was only elected in November, but already have had a meeting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am required under sessional orders to interrupt business. The member may continue her speech when the matter is next before the house. Business interrupted under sessional orders.

ADJOURNMENT 2362 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019

Adjournment The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is:

That the house now adjourns. KOONUNG CREEK RESERVE Mr T SMITH (Kew) (19:00): (813) My adjournment matter this evening is for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, and the action I seek from the Minister for Transport Infrastructure is to protect Koonung Creek Reserve from annihilation throughout the construction of Labor’s North East Link Project. Koonung Creek Reserve will be unnecessarily devastated by the North East Link Project. Open space will be destroyed permanently, with other impacts lasting for the seven-year expected duration of the project. Residents will lose 83 per cent of parkland during construction and 19 per cent permanently. This is far too high a price for locals to pay. This will be devastating to the community of North Balwyn, which Koonung Creek Reserve is so important a part of, particularly for those residents with pets. Constituents who live near the Koonung Creek Reserve will see their views of vegetation and parkland being replaced for years on end by machinery, construction materials and stockpiles. The community holds the reserve in high regard, and the area is significant from a biodiversity and environmental perspective. This natural habitat should be protected and enhanced for future generations. I have had significant correspondence from the residents of North Balwyn and Kew East with regard to not only Koonung Creek Reserve but also Freeway Golf Course and the Boroondara Tennis Centre, and also from residents that live near Belle Vue Primary School. Belle Vue Primary School is very, very close to the existing Eastern Freeway, but with its expected expansion throughout this project I am very concerned about noise and pollution at that primary school. But my adjournment matter tonight is about Koonung Creek Reserve. It is a fantastic local park. It is frequented constantly by locals from both my electorate and the electorate of Box Hill, and it would be a terrible shame for that important local asset to be destroyed because of the proposed expansion of the Eastern Freeway, which is part of the broader North East Link Project. I am supportive of a North East Link Project, but I am certainly not supportive of destroying this important park that has played such an important role in the lives of many constituents, particularly those who play sport and walk their dogs. BEVERIDGE PRIMARY SCHOOL Ms GREEN (Yan Yean) (19:02): (814) My adjournment matter tonight is for the Minister for Education. The Beveridge community was delighted to see in this year’s budget that the funding for the completion of the new Beveridge Primary School campus in Mandalay Estate would be provided. This came on top of $19.7 million to build this new school on Ambrosia Way in last year’s state budget. This new campus will help meet the needs of this growing community and joins a very inadequate campus, which is over 100 years old and has had great difficulty in fitting in all the children. The school leadership is determined at this point in time to have a joint campus and distribute the students across both of these campuses. This has caused quite some confusion in the community. I am seeking the minister’s support to ensure there is a community consultation session so that the community will be fully cognisant of how this dual campus will work. I should have said at an earlier point that the community were also very pleased to see $600 000 provided for the existing campus late last year under the planned maintenance program. I urge the minister to have his department consult with the community so that they have certainty in how this fabulous new school will operate under the leadership of a brilliant principal, Steve Fernando, and the existing staff at Beveridge primary. MOYHU RECREATION RESERVE Mr McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (19:04): (815) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, and the action I seek is that the minister’s office make

ADJOURNMENT Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2363 direct contact with the Moyhu Recreation Reserve committee to discuss their infrastructure needs. Moyhu is a small community to the south of Wangaratta on the Wangaratta-Whitfield Road in the heart of the magnificent King Valley. The recreation reserve is on Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning land, and it is the sporting and community hub of this small community. Adjacent to the reserve on the western side is an unmade road, what we call a ‘paper road’—one that is there on a title but does not really exist. Clearly the road is marked, but has not been formed. In fact my understanding is that it is just fenced off into the neighbouring paddocks. The recreation committee want to acquire that land and join it onto the reserve for future expansion. The committee wrote to the department nearly six months ago and are yet to receive a response. I seek that the minister’s office make contact and find a time to meet with the group to further discuss possible options going forward for the Moyhu Recreation Reserve. OAKLEIGH ELECTORATE PRIMARY SCHOOLS Mr DIMOPOULOS (Oakleigh) (19:05): (816) I wish to raise a matter for the Minister for Education. The action I seek is that the minister again visit three schools in my community—Carnegie Primary School, Hughesdale Primary School and Amsleigh Park Primary School—to open the major upgrades which were promised, funded and delivered by this Labor government. The current level of investment in Victorian schools is extraordinary. Over the last four years in my electorate alone this government has delivered $56 million for local schools, including those that my community access just outside my electorate—more than 10 times that of the Liberal Party when they were last in government for the same schools. That is not counting the announcements in this year’s budget, which will see upgrades at Huntingdale Primary School, Murrumbeena Primary School and Glen Huntly Primary School. The stark contrast of our investment in schools compared to that of those on the other side comes as no surprise when you hear statements like that of the member for Kew, who I recall standing up in this place last year to declare that, ‘Labor is completely obsessed with bricks and mortar’. He was right; we are. We are because they failed to invest in our schools when they were last in government. We are because Victoria’s population is growing and we need to keep up the pace of investment. And most of all we are because we care about seeing good local schools for Victorian communities. The Education State is not a slogan for us; it is a mission statement that we are committed to seeing become a reality. That is why we invested a record $3.8 billion in Victorian schools in our last term of government. And that is why this year’s budget continues that trend—building 15 new schools, upgrading 42 more and planning for the next stage of upgrades at a further 32 schools. The Minister for Education is the most outstanding education minister, I would say, in the history of the Victorian Parliament and government. He is extraordinary not only because he gives all our communities a look-in but because he is committed to his task, he remembers principals and teachers he meets, he remembers the school building programs. It is extraordinary the knowledge and the memory he has, because education is something that he is passionate about. This is not just an investment in bricks and mortar. It is about ensuring that we have 21st-century schools to provide the best learning environment for our kids. The upgrades at Carnegie primary, Hughesdale primary and Amsleigh Park primary will make a massive difference to these local communities in my electorate, and I look forward to the minister again visiting these schools. FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE TRACK SIGNAGE Mr HODGETT (Croydon) (19:08): (817) I wish to raise a matter with the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events, and the matter I raise is to request funding support for Four Wheel Drive Victoria to provide four-wheel drive recreational track classification signage. Four Wheel Drive Victoria has been the peak representative body for all Victorian four-wheel drivers since 1975. I am informed that there are 79 four-wheel drive clubs across Victoria. This afternoon I met with Colin

ADJOURNMENT 2364 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019

Oates, vice-president of Four Wheel Drive Victoria, and Wayne Hevey, chief executive officer of Four Wheel Drive Victoria, who having met with the member for Eildon came to me to explore access to funding through the Regional Tourism Infrastructure Fund or similar funding opportunities. Specifically Four Wheel Drive Victoria is seeking approximately $30 000 for signage for a pilot program in the Murrindindi district. The four-wheel drive recreational track classification is a new classification system for four-wheel drive tracks on public land across Victoria. Four-wheel driving is a popular recreational activity on roads and tracks across Victoria’s national parks, reserves and state forests. The classification will enable visitors to understand the nature of a track before beginning their journey. It will allow them to plan their trip for enjoyment, safety and comfort. The four-wheel drive advisory group and representatives from Parks Victoria, the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning and Four Wheel Drive Victoria are working together to develop and implement the system. A standard four-level colour-coded system will indicate the degree of difficulty of four-wheel drive tracks and routes. Previsit and targeted information will be made available for four-wheel drive visitors via brochures, websites and four-wheel drive clubs and associations. It is like our ski run signage—I know Hansard will not pick it up, but I will show it for the benefit of you, Deputy Speaker—easy, medium, difficult and very difficult runs. There will be six criteria used to classify tracks: standard symbols and signage, terrain and track conditions, vehicle suitability, recovery equipment, driver training and experience, and weather variations. Standard symbols and signage will be used to depict easy to very difficult tracks. The terrain and track conditions will aim to provide a general description of the likely terrain and have limited subjective comments such as ‘boggy’ or ‘rutted’ as these can be interpreted differently by individuals. The suitability of a vehicle relates to high/low range capability, ground clearance and tyres. The recovery equipment is advisory only, in line with tourism adventure activity standards and is not mandatory—et cetera. A trial of the system is currently underway in the Bunyip State Forest. The system will be rolled out across the state once finalised over the coming year. Minister, I am happy to pass on the contact details for Colin and Wayne, and you may wish to meet with them to discuss this further. Equally I am happy to provide further information to you. I advocate for the minister’s support for $30 000 in funding for a pilot program in Murrindindi to provide four- wheel drive recreational track classification signage. MICKLEHAM PRIMARY SCHOOL Ms SPENCE (Yuroke) (19:11): (818) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Education, and the action I seek is for the minister to provide me with an update on the facilities at Mickleham Primary School. Mickleham primary has a tight-knit school community, serving both families living in rural areas as well as those in new housing developments on Melbourne’s fringe. In recent years local population growth has greatly increased the number of enrolments at the school, placing pressure on the school’s infrastructure. I have been working with the school community in relation to these matters, and I am pleased that to date a number of necessary improvements have been made to support the school’s growing population. Recently I again met with the principal, Sue Crispe, to tour the school, and it remains the case that there is a definite need for more facilities, in particular, administration rooms, staff toilets and a multipurpose space. I would greatly appreciate any information that the minister can provide to me on behalf of the Mickleham Primary School community regarding the school’s facilities, and I look forward to sharing his response. MILDURA OLDER IRRIGATION AREA Ms CUPPER (Mildura) (19:12): (819) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Planning, and the action I seek is for the minister to visit Mildura to meet with me, tour the Mildura older irrigation area and meet with stakeholders who are affected by the MOIA incorporated document. As a growing regional city surrounded by irrigated horticulture, there are regulations in place to protect

ADJOURNMENT Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2365 valuable horticultural land that surrounds Mildura. This is known as the Mildura Older Irrigation Area Incorporated Document, or the MOIA. The overall intent of the MOIA—to protect the horticultural land that is served by the irrigation networks in the Mildura district—is a good one, but all good planning regulations sometimes need to be reviewed and adapted to keep up with the times. In the case of the MOIA, there are a number of landholders around Mildura who have land that is absolutely unviable for horticulture—for example, it may have had all irrigation infrastructure removed or it may have had soil degradation to the extent that any attempts to repair the soil would be economically unviable. In some cases the land parcel is so small that it would be absurd for a neighbouring farm to purchase the land. Many of these landholders purchased the land with the intent of building dwellings for their retirement or for their family members, understanding that the land was not viable for horticulture. In some cases the land was purchased prior to the creation of the MOIA incorporated document. In separate but related circumstances, some allotments within the MOIA have been the subject of planning applications for the construction of industrial solar farms. At least two planning applications for such farms have been refused by Mildura Rural City Council, but in both cases the council’s decision is being challenged in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. What both of these situations point to is the need for a review of the MOIA planning document with a view to allowing more flexibility in some cases and less flexibility in other cases, in line with community expectations. The community wants more flexibility in allowing construction of dwellings where the land for the proposed dwelling is clearly no longer suitable for horticulture and falls within prescribed allotment sizes that are only suitable for dwelling construction. The community wants less flexibility in the use of MOIA for non-horticultural pursuits other than dwelling construction, and this could include a ban on the construction of industrial solar facilities on MOIA land—something that is deeply unpopular. This would take into account the fact that if a parcel of land is big enough for an industrial solar farm, it is big enough for horticulture. With the MOIA in mind, I would like to request that the minister accept my invitation to visit Mildura to meet with me, to tour the MOIA area and to meet with stakeholders who are affected by the incorporated document. DAREBIN-YARRA TRAIL LINK Ms THEOPHANOUS (Northcote) (19:14): (820) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Roads, and the action that I seek is for the minister to provide an update on the progress being made to deliver the Farm Road link connecting Alphington to the Darebin-Yarra Trail and to do what she can to expedite its delivery. In April 2018 the spectacular Darebin-Yarra Trail link was opened to the public with an $18 million investment from the Andrews Labor government. The impressive new trail provides access to hundreds of kilometres of Melbourne’s beautiful shared trails and, vitally, it connects communities together. I pause here to acknowledge the many local residents and groups who for years fought for this piece of infrastructure. I also commend the member for Narre Warren North, the previous Minister for Roads and Road Safety, for his leadership in bringing the project to completion. However, Alphington residents seeking to access the Darebin-Yarra Trail, which runs right though their suburb, still do not have any practical way to get onto it. Residents must go either through Sparks Reserve in Ivanhoe or via Willsmere-Chandler Park in Kew East. For many this means travelling along the busy Heidelberg Road. This is neither safe nor convenient, particularly for the many children who use the trail to get to school. In 2017 the Andrews government, in recognition of these local concerns, committed to building a new link to give cyclists and pedestrians in Alphington a direct, safe and smooth connection to the Darebin-Yarra Trail. Since then the community has been patiently awaiting the construction of the link. I understand VicRoads is currently investigating design options to connect Alphington with the trail but that unexpected complications have meant that the time line has been drawn out.

ADJOURNMENT 2366 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 19 June 2019

Minister, this link may seem a small project in the scheme of larger infrastructure projects across the state, but I assure you its completion will make a huge difference to many in my community and connect others using the trail to the beauty that is Alphington. I am determined to make sure this link is built, and as the minister responsible for this project I ask that you provide an update and initiate action to ensure progress on the project is made. BLACK SPUR, MAROONDAH HIGHWAY Ms McLEISH (Eildon) (19:16): (821) My adjournment matter tonight is for the Minister for Roads in the other place, and the action I seek is for her to ensure that safety improvements on the section of the Maroondah Highway known as the Black Spur are undertaken. This is a really beautiful section of road. It attracts a lot of tourists but also a lot of locals, and for way too long there have been issues with cars running off the road either into gutters or over the edge. It has been a real issue. There are very limited prevention measures in place. Locals certainly understand the nature of the road—the twists, the turns, the steep sides. There are concerns that in some places the road is actually too narrow and should not actually be called a highway. It is a very busy road. It has got local traffic, cars, trucks, buses, lots of tourist traffic and people with boats as well. The road surface itself is good and it is well maintained, but the edges are very questionable on the Marysville side particularly. On the Healesville side the edges are much better, but on the Marysville side they are particularly deep gutters. Two things actually happen. The first is the cars, trucks or different vehicles run off the road and go over the side and they require rescue operations. If they are in the very steep section, they actually require ropes and specialists. In recent weeks when I was driving over the Black Spur I noticed in three different places there was tape for several metres because vehicles had run off the road. The other thing is that wheels actually get stuck in the deep, unsealed gutters, so you will have two wheels of a vehicle stuck and they need a tow truck to get out. During these incidents—and there are many—the road is closed and there is no easy way around. In fact it is a long way around. If you are going from Marysville to Coldstream, it might be 40 minutes, but if you have to go via Yea, you will easily add an hour. These incidents happen way too frequently but it is hard to gather data, because if there are no fatalities VicRoads do not really keep that data. The tow truck drivers from different companies have different amounts of data. Locals are keen to see an alternative road option so they do not have to detour incredibly to get home, and many of them ring my office with solutions and ideas about how they could do that. Also, trees often come down and traffic is blocked. The issue is that the road needs different treatments to prevent the run-offs, which is the most serious problem because we have had trucks that have rolled over and things like that. The government seem very keen to do treatments in areas that perhaps are flat but are not so keen to address issues here. I was disappointed with a recent VicRoads response where they said that they are going to tell everyone what to do. I would like to have them ask people what to do. MORNINGTON PENINSULA BUS SERVICES Mr BRAYNE (Nepean) (19:19): (822) My adjournment matter is to the Minister for Public Transport. The action I seek is that the minister visit me and meet with the CEO of the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council, John Baker. The Andrews Labor government has invested heavily in public transport throughout the state, including removing level crossings, getting on with the job of building Melbourne Metro and investing in new services. People in Nepean, my electorate, rely on public transport, particularly buses, to get around the electorate and to connect to Melbourne via Frankston. I know this better than anyone. I have been catching buses since I was 12 years old. My school at the time actually did not have a private bus service, so I and many of the other kids had to hop on the beautiful 782 bus service, which took me from Flinders Christian Community College in Tyabb to Balnarring via Hastings. I also caught this bus many mornings, asking for a 2-hour concession—which I recall was $1.60—and receiving my Metcard in return. The cost and the card were different back

ADJOURNMENT Wednesday, 19 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2367 then. The bus service, though, remains the same. I also was quite lazy and did not get my licence until I was 21, which means I caught buses on the Mornington Peninsula for 10 years of my life. I know these buses just about as well as anyone. I would welcome a conversation with the minister and the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council on how we can make our peninsula better connected. RESPONSES Mr WYNNE (Richmond—Minister for Housing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Planning) (19:21): The member for Kew raised a matter for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure indicating his concerns in relation to the North East Link and its potential impact on the Koonung Creek Reserve, and I will make sure that the minister is aware of that matter. The member for Yan Yean raised a matter for the Minister for Education, seeking that the minister visit the Beveridge Primary School campus at Mandalay. The new campus there is part of the twinning of education facilities, and I will make sure that the minister is aware of that. The member for Ovens Valley raised a matter for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, seeking that the minister meet with the Moyhu Recreation Reserve committee, particularly pertaining to their request to acquire land for the reserve for its future expansion. I will make sure the minister is aware of that matter. The member for Oakleigh raised a matter for the Minister for Education, seeking the minister’s support for a visit to three beautiful schools in his electorate, which of course he is immensely proud of, and I will make sure that the minister is aware of that matter. The member for Croydon raised a matter for the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events, seeking some funding support for Four Wheel Drive Victoria in the amount of $30 000 to support a government pilot program to assist off-road track classifications—that is in the Murrindindi area. The member for Yuroke raised a matter for the Minister for Education, seeking an update on the Mickleham Primary School facilities that she is of course, not surprisingly, advocating as always very strongly for. I will come back to the member for Mildura in a moment. The member for Northcote raised a matter for the Minister for Roads, seeking an update on the link between the Darebin-Yarra Trail and Alphington, a most important link and one that I know she has been advocating for, and I will make sure that matter is brought to the minister’s attention. The member for Eildon raised a matter for the Minister for Roads relating to the need for improvements to safety on the Black Spur. All of us have travelled over that, and I think that her advocacy in that matter is well-placed. The member for Nepean raised a matter for the Minister for Public Transport to visit his electorate—as I look forward to doing as well over the break—to meet with the CEO of the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council to discuss the transport needs of his community, particularly as they pertain to the bus network itself. Just very, very quickly, the member for Mildura has raised a matter for my attention in relation to the Mildura incorporated document, which of course is a document that has been a guiding planning instrument for the Mildura area. She has put to me that this matter needs some further refreshment and indeed probably some refinement. In that respect I think it would be helpful in my understanding that I take the opportunity to visit with the member. I commit to her that over the period between now and the next sitting week I will make time to come to Mildura to get a firsthand visitation with her to understand what are potentially some of the quite knotty conflicts between agriculture, rural land and the need for appropriate development in her area. I commit to doing that with her. That is it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The house now stands adjourned until tomorrow. House adjourned 7.25 p.m.