PARLIAMENT OF

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

(HANSARD)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

FIFTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT

FIRST SESSION

WEDNESDAY, 3 FEBRUARY 2021

hansard.parliament.vic.gov.au

By authority of the Victorian Government Printer

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

The ministry

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joint committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heads of parliamentary departments

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

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

Member Region Party Member Region Party

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

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

Party abbreviations

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

CONTENTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS Acknowledgement of country ...... 111 Legislative Council regional sitting ...... 111 PAPERS Papers ...... 111 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Notices ...... 111 COMMITTEES Economy and Infrastructure Committee ...... 111 Membership ...... 111 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Sessional orders ...... 111 MEMBERS STATEMENTS Metropolitan train services ...... 112 Wyndham citizenship ceremony ...... 113 Small business support ...... 113 Kangaroo control ...... 113 Small business support ...... 113 Australia Day awards ...... 114 Infant loss remembrance ...... 114 Duck hunting ...... 114 Bairnsdale Secondary College ...... 114 Australia Day awards ...... 115 Eastern Victoria Region TAFE ...... 115 LGBTIQ community ...... 115 Grace Tame and Detective Sergeant Kevin Carson ...... 115 Shepparton region employment ...... 116 Mansfield Autism Statewide Services ...... 116 Mental health funding ...... 116 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Multipurpose taxi program ...... 117 MOTIONS Independent oversight agency funding ...... 132 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Bail reform ...... 138 Firearms licensing...... 139 Ministers statements: Skills for Victoria’s Growing Economy ...... 140 Bail reform ...... 140 COVID-19 ...... 141 Ministers statements: justice system ...... 142 Kindergarten funding ...... 143 Early childhood funding ...... 144 Ministers statements: veterans capital works grants ...... 145 Kindergarten funding ...... 145 Duck hunting ...... 146 Ministers statements: small business digital adaptation program ...... 147 Written responses ...... 147 CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS ...... 147 Western Metropolitan Region ...... 148 ...... 148 Western Victoria Region ...... 148 Southern Metropolitan Region ...... 148 Eastern Victoria Region ...... 149 Western Metropolitan Region ...... 149 Western Metropolitan Region ...... 149 Northern Victoria Region ...... 149 Northern Victoria Region ...... 149 Eastern Metropolitan Region...... 150 MOTIONS Independent oversight agency funding ...... 150 COVID-19 ...... 161 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS High-capacity metro trains ...... 180 STATEMENTS ON REPORTS, PAPERS AND PETITIONS Environment and Planning Committee ...... 183 Inquiry into Nuclear Prohibition ...... 183 Department of Premier and Cabinet ...... 184 Report 2019–20 ...... 184 Public Accounts and Estimates Committee ...... 185 Inquiry into the Victorian Government’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic ...... 185 Department of Treasury and Finance ...... 186 Budget papers 2020–21 ...... 186 Auditor-General ...... 187 Systems and Support for Principal Performance ...... 187 ADJOURNMENT West Gate Tunnel ...... 188 Napier Street, White Hills, bus stop ...... 188 Voluntary assisted dying ...... 189 Peter–Bell streets, Preston, traffic management ...... 189 Driver education ...... 190 Wild horse control ...... 190 Youth mental health services...... 191 train services ...... 192 Responses ...... 192 WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES Panmure quarry ...... 194 Post-secondary education and training ...... 194 COVID-19 ...... 195 Bendigo showgrounds redevelopment ...... 195

ANNOUNCEMENTS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 111

Wednesday, 3 February 2021

The PRESIDENT (Hon. N Elasmar) took the chair at 9.36 am and read the prayer. Announcements ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY The PRESIDENT (09:37): On behalf of the Victorian state Parliament I acknowledge the Aboriginal peoples, the traditional custodians of this land which has served as a significant meeting place of the First People of Victoria. I acknowledge and pay respect to the elders of the Aboriginal nations in Victoria past, present and emerging and welcome any elders and members of the Aboriginal communities who may visit or participate in the events or proceedings of the Parliament. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL REGIONAL SITTING The PRESIDENT (09:38): On 6 February 2020 the house resolved to hold a regional sitting in north-east Victoria in the later part of last year. An amendment to that resolution on 2 June 2020 changed the timing of the sitting to be by 30 June 2021. The resolution further required that I, along with the Clerk, consult with various local councils and parliamentary staff to choose an appropriate date and specific location for the regional sitting to occur. I am pleased to report that we will hold a regional sitting in Bright on Thursday, 29 April 2021. Members will be updated further in coming weeks as preparations continue. Papers PAPERS Tabled by Clerk: Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008—10th Report to Parliament on the State of Emergency, under section 198(8A) of the Act. Business of the house NOTICES Notice of intention to make a statement given. Committees ECONOMY AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE Membership Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (09:40): I move, by leave:

That Ms Watt be a participating member of the Standing Committee on the Economy and Infrastructure. Motion agreed to. Business of the house SESSIONAL ORDERS Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (09:40): I move, by leave:

That until the end of the session, unless otherwise ordered by the Council: (1) The following changes to sessional orders be adopted, to come into operation with immediate effect: MEMBERS STATEMENTS 112 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021

1. Time limits—General Business Sessional Order 8 be rescinded and replaced with the following: General Business (Standing Order 5.07) Total time 90 minutes Mover/Sponsor 20 minutes Lead speakers 10 minutes Remaining speakers 10 minutes Mover/Sponsor, in reply 5 minutes 2. Time limits—Statements on reports, papers and petitions Sessional Order 6 be rescinded and replaced with the following: Statements on reports, papers and petitions (Standing Order 9.10) Total time 30 minutes (a Member with the call at the expiration of the total time will be permitted to complete their contribution) Each Member 5 minutes 3. Committee of the whole—time limits Sessional Order 18 be rescinded. (2) The foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders or practices of the Council, will have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders or practices of the Council. (3) The Clerk is empowered to renumber the sessional orders and correct any internal references as a consequence of this resolution. Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (09:41): I will make a couple of comments and say that the opposition supports this and notes the collaborative way this was discussed at the Procedure Committee and was arrived at, noting the motion from Mr Hayes that initiated this process. I want to put on record that I think that this is a fair solution for all parties and will actually see the non-government hour and a half for each debate roll more smoothly into the future. Motion agreed to. The PRESIDENT: Members, this will be in effect from today. Members statements METROPOLITAN TRAIN SERVICES Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (09:42): I want to again today reiterate the confusion and chaos that is existing on our public transport system with the changes brought in by the new timetable. The new timetable has serious problems with it: longer travel times— 2 and 3 minutes on each trip for many people—and that is aside from those who are now forced to change trains. If you are on the Pakenham line or the Cranbourne line and want to come out of the city in the afternoon, it will take you longer. If you were coming from our station here at Parliament, you may well choose to take a train back to Richmond and change. But all of that is a lesser service, with longer time and more inconvenience for somebody on their way home from work on a normal workday. And those on the Frankston line are facing the loss of access to the city loop, for the first time since the city loop opened in January 1981. For 40 years people coming up the Frankston line have been able to access the city loop, and that has now stopped dead, stone cold, under , despite what he said and what members along that line—Labor members—said in 2014 in particular where they promised they would not cut access to the city loop and attacked the opposition for our policies and our proposals for the city loop and other train changes. One of the key things they promised was access to the city loop would stay. Now they have breached that promise and people coming up from Frankston will no longer be able to access the city loop, after 40 years. I say it is a lesser service— (Time expired) MEMBERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 113

WYNDHAM CITIZENSHIP CEREMONY Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (09:44): I had the pleasure of attending Wyndham’s Australia Day citizenship ceremony on 26 January. Sarah Connolly, MP, member for Tarneit, and Joanne Ryan, MP, member for Lalor, alongside the mayor, Cr Adele Hegedich, and other Wyndham councillors were also present. I love to see new people become part of Victoria’s multiculturalism. Every time I attend a citizenship ceremony I get reminded of how important that moment was for me years ago when I got my citizenship. Australia is filled with opportunities. Let us make the most of them. I welcome the new Australian citizens, and I wish them the very best of luck. SMALL BUSINESS SUPPORT Ms VAGHELA: On another note, I was delighted to attend the Clear Biz business networking event in Point Cook at the Seasons 5 resort. Through this event Ash Jindal and Yuvraj Verma from Clear Biz have given a great opportunity to small businesses to network and support each other. These types of support systems are vital when it comes to unprecedented times of pandemic. Small businesses are the backbone of the Victorian economy. The impact of COVID-19 has been immense on everyone, but the small business community is recovering in full force and my best wishes are with them. I urge all business owners to visit Business Victoria’s website to see the different types of support available for businesses. I request all Victorians to support our local businesses for products and services. KANGAROO CONTROL Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (09:45): Right now hardworking volunteers from wildlife shelters and sanctuaries are rescuing and rehabilitating orphaned, injured and displaced wildlife. On the other hand, during a quiet Christmas Eve announcement the Victorian government extended the ways that kangaroos can be brutally killed in our state by allowing a program to shoot up to nearly 100 000 kangaroos, which includes for human consumption for the first time. Before this they could only be killed in Victoria for pet food following a trial which, incidentally, a leaked government report found to be a total failure. This cruel program even allows for orphaned joeys left behind when their mothers are taken by a bullet to be bludgeoned to death. This casual announcement that sanctions 100 000 deaths proves once again Nietzsche’s maxim that ‘Man is the cruellest animal’. Our state’s wildlife has barely recovered from the catastrophic bushfires just one year ago. Wildlife needs our support to survive and thrive more than ever, yet this government wants to put our kangaroos at risk of being shot to extinction. Following the announcement thousands upon thousands of Victorians wrote to the new Minister for Agriculture to reverse this decision, and I am one of them. If they are serious about their so-called commitment to wildlife and biodiversity, they will halt this program immediately. SMALL BUSINESS SUPPORT Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (09:47): I spent much time over the period of the break speaking with traders and small business people, especially in Glen Waverley and Mount Waverley, in my electorate. And you will not be surprised to learn that after such a dreadful year for small businesses last year, they are still doing it incredibly tough. I spoke with traders in a whole range of different sectors of small business. But in particular traders who work in large shopping centres told me that what they had hoped for at the Christmas period, which was a significant uptick in custom, did not occur, and so again they are looking for further easing of restrictions and also further support from the government. In my discussions over the break I told the many small business people that I was speaking with that I would raise their matters in Parliament and once more implore the Minister for Small Business in this chamber and the Treasurer in the other chamber, as I have done on many other occasions, to continue to ensure that the plight of hardworking small business people who make up the backbone of our economy is at the forefront of their minds. It was not, quite frankly, when they were fashioning both their COVID restrictions last year and then also the so-called road map out of those COVID restrictions. This year promises to be a better year in the state of Victoria than last year. MEMBERS STATEMENTS 114 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021

How could it possibly be worse? But nonetheless small businesses and small business people in my electorate continue to do it tough. The government needs to do more to support them. AUSTRALIA DAY AWARDS Mr ERDOGAN (Southern Metropolitan) (09:48): I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and congratulate those in my electorate who were inducted into the Order of Australia on Australia Day this year. I am so proud to represent a region in which 49 of those who call home were inducted. In particular I would like to acknowledge two notable constituents. I would first like to congratulate Rabbi Dr John Simon Levi, AC, for being awarded the highest civilian honour in recognition of his eminent service to Judaism, interfaith understanding and education. His longstanding contribution to the Jewish community and to his two notable institutions located in my electorate—Temple Beth Israel and King David School—is well deserving of such recognition. I would also like to congratulate Professor the Honourable John Thwaites, AM, for being recognised for his significant service to the environment and to the people of Victoria. Professor Thwaites was the member for Albert Park between 1992 and 2007 and served as Deputy Premier from 1999 until 2007. Since his retirement from Parliament he has made a significant contribution to the cause of environmental sustainability through his work at Monash University and in the private sector. Although he is no longer in Parliament, John is passionate about giving something back by mentoring future leaders. I have seen this firsthand as part of his work with the McKinnon Institute as well as in the support he has generously offered me as a new member of Parliament. As their representative in this place, I want to join in acknowledging the contribution that Rabbi Levi, Professor Thwaites and all the inductees from Southern Metropolitan Region have made and thank them for their service to our state and our nation. INFANT LOSS REMEMBRANCE Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (09:50): Today marks four years since we lost our little boy when he was stillborn. I just say to people out there that they are not alone. 15 October may be International Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day, but everyone’s remembrance day for their own children is when it is. DUCK HUNTING Mr BOURMAN: On another note, I need to thank Mr Meddick for his latest poll. His latest poll has actually proved—if you believe his previous polls—that duck hunting is getting a bit of a resurgence. Previous polls spruiked by Mr Meddick and the anti-duck-hunting crew have said that, I think, 75 per cent of Victorians are opposed to duck hunting, and yet the latest one says that 58 per cent are opposed to duck hunting. So I would like to think I had something to do with it, but I think the devil is always in the details. BAIRNSDALE SECONDARY COLLEGE Ms GARRETT (Eastern Victoria) (09:51): I am delighted to rise today. I know my colleague for Eastern Victoria Region Ms Shing is here, and on behalf of both of us I once again congratulate the parents, teachers and students at Bairnsdale Secondary College, who have received over $8 million in funding from the Andrews Labor government. This has been a very hard fought campaign and it has been a long time coming, and I know Ms Shing and I give each other a knowing look. It has been a huge campaign, from particularly the community and the parents at that wonderful school but also Ms Shing and me. So now the school is able to complete the full design and documentation for the second stage of its master plan, and that, in very exciting news, will include a brand new science building to complement the science program. Of course as part of that we will be encouraging more and more girls to participate in STEM, because we want to turn around that 16 per cent and make it a 56 per cent figure. Ms Maxwell interjected. MEMBERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 115

Ms GARRETT: Well, yes, I plucked that one out, but I would like to see more girls doing STEM than boys in the years ahead—or 50-50 will do. But this of course was made possible by the Andrews Labor government’s Infrastructure Planning and Acceleration Fund, which is part of a multibillion- dollar response to the issues created—the havoc wreaked, really—by the pandemic. I know just how delighted the students are, and the principal, the parent community and the broader community, and I congratulate everyone involved. AUSTRALIA DAY AWARDS Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (09:53): Today I would like to recognise some of the inspiring local residents in my region who have gone above and beyond in serving their community and their fellow citizens. Christine Ellis, Anupa Shah, David Winter, Yvonne Giltinan and Dr Elaine Ong have been rightly recognised by their local councils as citizens of the year for their generosity, passion, courage and the sense of justice that they demonstrate through their everyday lives. These incredible community members are the backbone of local organisations that support disadvantaged families, women fleeing domestic violence, people experiencing homelessness and many others. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to these individuals: your selflessness and your hard work do not go unnoticed. EASTERN VICTORIA REGION TAFE Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (09:53): I rise today to congratulate all of the students of free TAFE across Gippsland in particular. We have seen a record level of interest across Gippsland TAFE, which complements very neatly the work that we have done to invest in infrastructure across the region, including a new campus at Morwell, which is going gangbusters in the construction of a skills and training centre as well as a health and wellbeing centre for the purposes of finding and sourcing and resourcing the very best facilities to make sure that locals can learn, gain valuable practical experience and placements, find jobs closer to home and remain in the region. LGBTIQ COMMUNITY Ms SHING: On another matter, I wish to acknowledge all of the people in my LGBTIQ communities who will be finding this week particularly tough. We have come a long way and we have got a long way to go, but I hope in the course of this week and the weeks and months to come that we can gather the resolve that we need and that we can come together to support those who need to be supported and need to be cared for and need to know that they are loved exactly as they are. I hope that we can continue to work on bringing our allies along with us and on making sure that we are the very best community and Parliament that we can be to reflect our communities within the LGBTIQ space. GRACE TAME AND DETECTIVE SERGEANT KEVIN CARSON Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (09:55): I rise to speak about Tasmanian survivor and our new Australian of the Year, Grace Tame, and also about Detective Sergeant Carson of the Ballarat area, who received this year’s Victoria Police medal. The two have something very important in common: their fight to reduce sexual crimes against children, which is one of the sole purposes of Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party. I am sure you have all heard Grace’s harrowing story—losing her virginity at just 15 years old to her paedophile schoolteacher. Grace now dedicates much of her time to ensuring that this does not happen to other vulnerable children by using her name and her story. For nearly 29 years Detective Sergeant Carson has investigated sexual offences committed against children, including a high number of high-profile cases in Ballarat. He has worked tirelessly with victims and families to provide ongoing support and assistance because, as we know, sexual assault can and does have lifelong consequences. Detective Sergeant Carson has served for more than 46 years. MEMBERS STATEMENTS 116 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021

On behalf of Derryn Hinch, myself and my colleague, Ms Maxwell, thank you, Grace and Detective Sergeant Carson. It just goes to show you that not all heroes wear capes. SHEPPARTON REGION EMPLOYMENT Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (09:56): In December last year I travelled to Shepparton to join the Minister for Education, , to tour Greater Shepparton Secondary College, a $119 million investment by the Andrews Labor government into regional education. I was pleased to hear that 90 per cent of workers on site were actually locals, and I want to extend my appreciation to the 800 people who were employed to help realise this essential project. On another matter I also took the opportunity to meet with Agriculture Victoria during my visit to Shepparton to promote seasonal fruit picking and packing. I visited two farms to discuss the challenges they faced with the harvest season. After a year of financial hardship it was a delight to hear that farms all across Victoria who needed them had seasonal farm workers. This gave many the opportunity not only to be employed over the summer but to make friends and earn money and at the same time help the local economy. I want to extend my appreciation to the people of Shepparton, the workers at the Greater Shepparton Secondary College project and Agriculture Victoria for having me. MANSFIELD AUTISM STATEWIDE SERVICES Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (09:58): My members statement is to the speak about Mansfield Autism Statewide Services, MASS, which provides assistance for 300 families from across Victoria. Since 1968 this service has provided a wraparound model of care to support children with autism and their families by building skills and independence through a strength-based approach. MASS has exciting plans to transform a 40-hectare farm just outside of Mansfield into a tranquil facility for children and teenagers with autism called Operation Gamechanger. When completed the site will include two new schools, accommodation and a therapeutic program. The residential complex and onsite family camp will give 100 families a year the chance to holiday together in a safe environment designed to cater for their children’s needs. MASS are now on a journey to raise $24 million to bring the plans for this farm to reality and need $16 million in government support. With intense demand for autism services in Victoria, sometimes families wait two years to access some programs. I send Mansfield Autism Statewide Services every good wish for this important project. MENTAL HEALTH FUNDING Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (09:59): I rise to make a members statement today in regard to a recent announcement by the Minister for Mental Health, James Merlino, of $2 million to ensure people with eating disorders get the care they need. Now, eating disorders are a serious mental illness that have the highest mortality rate of any psychiatric illness. Many people experiencing an eating disorder suffer from depression and anxiety, with rates for anorexia 32 times higher than the general population. There is a new $6.3 million unit based in Eastern Metropolitan Region at Box Hill Hospital, which is part of Eastern Health, and this will boost the number of beds within the area to meet the needs of individuals and families, to ensure that their needs are met. The $2 million in new funding for Victorians with eating disorders comes following a significant increase in eating disorder presentations since the pandemic, with child and youth mental health services in the metropolitan area experiencing the highest. I am very grateful for this additional funding, and I look forward to seeing that investment rolled out to people across the Eastern Metropolitan Region and beyond. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 117

Production of documents MULTIPURPOSE TAXI PROGRAM Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (10:00): I move:

That this house, in accordance with standing order 11.01, requires the Leader of the Government to table in the Council, within 28 calendar days of the house agreeing to this resolution, all documents detailing the design of the multipurpose taxi program trial, including but not limited to all documents: (1) detailing the way in which trial participants were recruited, contacted and selected; (2) detailing the results of the trial; (3) detailing risk assessments conducted for the trial; (4) relating to the impact assessments, both financial or otherwise, conducted for the trial; and (5) relating to the consideration given to unintended consequences to services provided in the broader disability sector, in particular services provided by wheelchair accessible vehicles. Today I want to talk about the multipurpose taxi program and the deceptive way this has been awarded to Uber. The multipurpose taxi program supports the transport needs of people with severe and permanent disabilities by offering subsidised passenger vehicle fares to eligible members. The total cost of the scheme is in excess of $70 million annually across approximately 5 million trips. The multipurpose taxi program subsidy covers 50 per cent of the cost of trips up to the value of $60 per trip, with a cap of $2180 per eligible participant in each financial year. The decision to allow Uber to service work under the multipurpose taxi program scheme puts the rights, the welfare and the security of our most vulnerable citizens in jeopardy for at least the following reasons. The decision to allow Uber to carry multipurpose taxi work comes from a trial which was conducted in Geelong during the height of the pandemic lockdown from 22 March 2020 to 31 May 2020, which covered the service of only 170 trips. We are talking about 17 people who did 10 trips over nearly three months. In the same period Geelong taxis serviced thousands. During the period of the trial more than 90 per cent of the registered commercial passenger vehicles (CPVs) were parked and the number of passenger trips were markedly reduced, obviously. Although the trial was hailed as a success by Uber, it is questionable how the data was collected and how under these extreme and atypical circumstances it could in any way reflect the normal operating conditions, particularly with such a small sample size. We must also note that Uber paid for this trial. The trial simply lacks integrity, casting significant doubt over the merit of the conclusions. It has drawn and raises questions about whether proper due diligence and risk assessments were conducted, other than to say that the trial was a success. Commercial Passenger Vehicles Victoria (CPVV) have not shared any supporting details on the reports about outcomes or findings. It is imperative that the trial results are released along with the associated risk and financial impact assessments for industry-wide consideration. Unlike taxis, which have to date exclusively serviced the transport needs of the aged, the incapacitated and the disabled through the multipurpose taxi program, Uber vehicles do not have fixed tamper-proof cameras or fixed GPS tracking devices to ensure the safety of vulnerable passengers. We hear time and time again that Uber drivers have taken advantage of vulnerable passengers by simply turning off the app on their phone. What recourse would a disabled passenger have in these events without the evidence provided from a tamper-proof camera and GPS tracking to ensure successful prosecution against any wrongdoing? Known lack of enforcement and consequences generates a lack of compliance. The safety of our most vulnerable citizens should be paramount when authorising who is able to provide them with transport services and under what conditions. It should be mandatory for vehicles operating services under the multipurpose taxi program to be fitted with cameras and fixed GPS tracking to reduce the likelihood of predatory behaviour against our most vulnerable transport users and most importantly to provide irrefutable evidence as needed to support any claims of wrongdoing. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 118 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021

There have been numerous cases to date where police have been called in to investigate potential criminal activity of Uber drivers. Rather than the local arm of the Uber business fully cooperating with the police in such matters, Uber choose to obstruct the course of justice by referring all queries and warrants to Uber’s international head office offshore. This increases the workload and the cost of police investigations around many cases not worthy of follow-up. Should we allow a corporate entity who shows complete disregard for our legal process by hindering their progress to hold a business of trust in the transport of our most vulnerable citizens? Uber’s dynamic pricing will leave many disadvantaged people paying more. The lack of pricing control over Uber’s services means that vulnerable people will be out of pocket and potentially see part of their multipurpose taxi program allocation eaten up by Uber’s predatory surge pricing. Likewise, it exposes the scheme’s taxpayer funding to an unnecessary expense. To protect vulnerable travellers and ensure that the taxpayer-funded program is best utilised, should we not insist on the application of set fares rates for multipurpose taxi program subsidised work, as is applied to the taxi industry? It is well known and was reported in September 2019 on A Current Affair that Uber uses underhanded tactics to dupe customers into thinking that an Uber ride is cheaper than a taxi. A Current Affair outed Uber for quoting comparative taxi fares at amounts far higher than they would normally be outside of the Uber app. There are clear concerns now over a passenger who may not have the capacity to navigate these decisions well and will react when confronted with the fake and misleading price comparisons. We must protect our vulnerable citizens from such blatant deception. Commonly many Uber drivers find themselves to be underinsured or not covered at all in the event of an accident. Whereas taxis have commercial vehicle insurance coverage, Uber drivers many times rely on standard compulsory third-party protections. In many cases private vehicle policies do not cover accidents where the vehicle is being used for commercial purposes or where the vehicle owner did not declare prior that the vehicle is being used commercially. This leaves wide open the potential for travelling passengers to fall short of proper and comprehensive insurance coverage. Uber has shown that it will go to great lengths spending up big on high-priced lawyers to say that it is not responsible for its drivers. If a special needs passenger is injured or, worse, abused or attacked, the victim will have no recourse. It must be mandated that Uber drivers and vehicles carry appropriate insurance and public liability coverage to protect both the driver and the rider. Uber driver partners are not insured with WorkCover. The risk of personal injury associated with lifting collapsible wheelchairs into cars and assisting vulnerable passengers with their physical needs to board and disembark the vehicle is very real. In past events of this nature Uber has historically dismissed any responsibility towards its drivers. This raises significant concerns about the exploitation of Uber drivers and the context of delivering services under the multipurpose taxi scheme and introduces increased potential for workplace injuries. It must be mandated that proper WorkCover insurance is carried by all commercial passenger vehicles. Changes to the multipurpose taxi program scheme have opened it up to the potential for major rorting and vulnerable people being taken advantage of. The requirement for multipurpose taxi card holders is that they present their card in the vehicle during the trip in order to legitimately claim the travel subsidy through the program. When using taxis the multipurpose taxi program card holders are required to present their card to the driver on the commencement of each trip and to assess the subsidy payment on conclusion. However, when using the Uber app, cardholders are only required to enter their card details once, and when setting up their Uber account all the information is saved for all their future trips. It is not uncommon for people other than the account holder to make bookings through someone else’s individual Uber account. One can foresee how easily public funds may be misused as well as this introducing the potential for vulnerable multipurpose taxi program participants to be exploited. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 119

It is of significant public importance to consider the debate of the use of a taxpayer-funded scheme which supports offshore operations of a multinational giant that does not pay taxes locally. How can a government seriously endorse the use of taxpayers dollars to subsidise travel costs charged by Uber, which skims 30 per cent of the fare in commissions and then swiftly channels those funds offshore to tax-dodging operations? I question the integrity of a taxpayer-funded subsidy program which chooses to support this sort of corporate behaviour rather than ensuring that the taxpayers dollars support the local economy. The multipurpose taxi program costs the taxpayer upwards of $70 million annually. It is an outrage that 30 per cent of every subsidy dollar going to Uber will now go directly offshore. Just think about what that really means. What it means is that 30 per cent of all the money that should be going into our local communities, supporting our local businesses is going to go to the billionaire shareholders in Silicon Valley—congratulations. Uber is cherrypicking the work within the disability sector at the expense of those heavily invested through the operation of wheelchair-accessible vehicles. The consequences of this will see WAV services decline, which will impact on those severely disabled passengers who use WAVs as their sole mode of transport. It is of great public importance that the impact of the expansion of the multipurpose taxi scheme to include Uber is considered across the entire disability sector, including wheelchair and other special needs users, so we get the balance right. To date no consideration has been given to this matter. It costs $90 000 to put a wheelchair-capable taxi on the road and thousands every year to keep it there. It is a specialist area requiring detailed driver training and ongoing compliance costs, which means that with Uber for many operators this investment will no longer be viable, forcing them off the road and leaving wheelchair users on the kerb. In many country areas this also means wiping out the regulated taxi service, leaving communities stranded. Uber’s business model does not include investment in vehicles—it relies on a transient and casual workforce to provide their own cars. Uber is simply not interested in providing services to wheelchair users, and the financial investment required to put a WAV on the road makes the proposition unviable for the driver partners. Should we allow Uber access to our government-subsidised program without it first displaying a tangible commitment to providing services across the entire disability sector, as does the taxi industry? For many regional taxi services the multipurpose taxi program is the backbone of the business, accounting for up to 50 per cent of the trips conducted. This decision to expand the multipurpose taxi program to include Uber and the reduction in revenue associated with increased competition for the multipurpose taxi program work will impact the delivery of WAV services. There is no doubt about that. The sheer commercial investment for specialised wheelchair-accessible vehicles and associated operating costs see WAV services often run at a loss. The financial viability of operating WAVs is only possible through regular sedan work in other sections of the business, which cross-subsidises the specialised area of transport. The potential reduction of multipurpose taxi work and associated revenue across the fleet will leave in question for many operators the commercial viability of offering WAV services. Wheelchair users will be most impacted should networks choose to discontinue their services. This is a critical point requiring urgent consideration. I find it shocking that through the pandemic, when we were looking to raise support for the taxi industry, it was all around trying to keep their wheelchair vehicles available. We cannot say we did not know. In 2020 when the Victorian government designed the $22.7 million COVID-19 industry support package for the commercial passenger vehicle industry it did so with the needs of wheelchair users at the forefront of considerations. The subsidy provided to booking service providers to ensure they were able to continue operating services for our most vulnerable and needy citizens was exclusive to BSPs who operated wheelchair-accessible vehicles. This ensured that those passengers who had no other means of transport were not left standing during the pandemic. The decision to expand the PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 120 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021 multipurpose taxi program to services provided by Uber will have devastating consequences that will seriously jeopardise the commercial viability of offering WAV services. This will leave stranded our most needy transport users. The Parliament must intervene and demand an impact assessment on WAV service delivery and other flow-on effects should this decision proceed. Uber is an organisation that has defied regulatory responsibility at every turn, from operating illegally, denying its drivers rights under workplace laws, refusing to provide answers to the Australian Tax Office, hindering local police investigations by redirecting inquiries to their offices offshore and even dodging questions at the parliamentary inquiry and when we did the research into the support package for the taxi industry here. This company has continually failed the character test, and yet again this is being supported by the industry regulator, the cheerleader, who itself is shrouded in a veil of accusations. Both organisations are before the courts facing serious allegations which, if proven, seriously raise the issues of appropriateness of the decision to expand the multipurpose taxi program to include Uber services. Under CPVV’s own rules and regulations Uber may not comply with the requirement to be a fit and proper entity to be registered as a booking service provider, let alone a fit and proper entity to provide transport services to our most vulnerable citizens. With access to a taxpayer-funded scheme, the decision by the CPVV to include Uber in the multipurpose taxi program scheme must be reviewed at the uppermost level of public scrutiny. Uber is currently before the Supreme Court in two separate cases where it is alleged that, prior to legislation passed in 2017 which introduced a low-cost CPV licence, they conspired with others—that is, their driver partners—against the incumbent taxi and hire car operators to cause harm. This allowed Uber to penetrate the market unlawfully and gain a significant unfair advantage over others in the industry. This case was brought by the taxi and hire car operators and ex-licence owners in Victoria, Western Australia, Queensland and through a class action represented by Maurice Blackburn. The other thing being brought by the taxi industry is by GoCatch, through Corrs Chambers Westgarth, who are claiming harm from the impact on the commercial viability of their operation at the time of Uber’s services outside the existing legislative and regulatory requirements. It is a questionable decision to allow Uber access to publicly funded subsidy programs when they have a history of a complete disregard of the law. The CPVV is itself being scrutinised to determine whether there may be evidence to bring a case against it for misfeasance in public office. The Victorian taxi families represented by Corrs Chambers Westgarth have fought for 3½ years in the Supreme Court to obtain discovery documents that may support this claim. Victorian taxi families were successful in the initial case against the CPVV demanding relevant documents and were further successful in broadening their claims following an appeal by the CPVV, which was lost. The appeal ruling, as recently handed down, instructed the CPVV to hand over the required documents as requested, and 80 per cent of the cost was awarded to the Victorian taxi families for their legal costs. Should there be found significant evidence, a case may be brought against the regulator for misfeasance in public office, which may claim that the regulator was recklessly indifferent to the harm that they may have caused to the incumbent industry by failing to uphold a statutory obligation to enforce legislation and regulations against Uber at the time of its unlawful operations. This may amount to an abuse of public trust and would bring into question the decision to allow Uber to provide services under the multipurpose taxi scheme without a proper risk and financial impact assessment of the associated and broader consequences for the industry and disability services. I just want to say a little bit about the trial itself. The trial was done down in Geelong. They probably picked the worst area in Victoria, because Geelong has one of the best taxi services in Victoria. With Geelong taxis, before anybody can actually do a multipurpose taxi job they have to have done at least 50 shifts. Not only do they have to have done 50 shifts, they have to have done a one-day course on how to deal with people with the very many consequences of disabilities, mental health issues. This is the standard that is set down there. Where has the regulator actually measured the performance of 170 bookings against an organisation that has been kicking goals for years? There has been no comparison. This is a reward for Uber. They PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 121 are not interested in doing wheelchair work. What they are interested in is getting propped up, and the regulator have done their best to do them that favour. This is a disgraceful decision. This questions the safety of the services. To the argument that some sections have put up that the taxi industry has not been able to service the demand, I say prove it. We have had thousands of cars sitting around looking for jobs. To those people who want to make those claims: let us see the data that backs that up, because it ain’t there. I just want to say this one more time: 30 per cent of the money which is supposed to be going back into our local communities to support small business is going to end up in Silicon Valley. That is something we should think very hard about. This contradicts the government’s stated position about protecting workers in the gig economy. They are rewarding the worst behaved gig economy company on the planet. Uber is a Trojan Horse to bring the gig economy in, and I say no. I think I will leave it at that. Mr MELHEM (Western Metropolitan) (10:20): I rise to speak on the motion moved by Mr Barton. I would emphasise just again that I spoke on a similar motion I think a few weeks ago, and I just want to acknowledge Mr Barton’s commitment to the industry and advocacy for the taxi industry. I think since he came to this place he has continued his efforts to represent the constituents for whom he ran a platform to come into this place, and I just want to commend him on his advocacy for the industry. The government will be supporting the motion to provide the documentation which is sought, and that will be obviously subject to a normal process of confidentiality and cabinet in confidence and various other caveats. But as far as the government are concerned we are happy to make documentation about the trials available to Mr Barton and the Council in order to share our work to deliver more choices for people with disability across Victoria. As I said, this is subject to some privacy matters, but I think that is something we are happy to share with Mr Barton and the Council, so obviously we will not be opposing the motion. But I just have a couple of areas I want to touch on about this particular motion and the government’s commitment. In 2017 we committed to expanding the multipurpose taxi program (MPTP) to all commercial passenger vehicles. That commitment was given by this government and we want to see this commitment through. We can always have a debate about the status of the taxi industry and the commercial vehicle industry, whether Uber should have been here in the first place and various other operations. We all have views on that and I have got my own view on that, but times have moved on. Whether we like it or not, technology has taken over. Changes have occurred worldwide in relation to your traditional taxi industry, as we know, and with the new technology and app technology we have got companies like Uber and I think there are a few other operators—I have forgotten their names. I do not actually use them—I still use the old taxis and I use some of their apps—but there are many of them. So the fact of life is people have voted with their feet, and basically these operators are now competing with the traditional taxi industry and operators. I do not think that will change going forward, but it has caused a lot of problems over the years and we are all mindful of that. These matters have been subject to debate in this house for a number of years, and I think the government’s response to that over the years has been a very good response, although some people will say it was not good enough. The government has put in place a compensation package to try and alleviate some of the pain caused by the changes. There is always an argument about whether or not the compensation package was adequate. That is always going to be debated, and I do not think we will ever get an agreement on it. We all have our own views, but certainly it is important to acknowledge the Andrews Labor government’s actions as a result of these changes I talked about earlier. Not all the changes were initiated by this government. Some of the changes started occurring way before the Andrews Labor government came into office in 2014, and significant reform and changes occurred prior to that. In the 2010–14 period a major reform was commissioned by the former government and, as a result of that, taxi licence values plummeted. But at least the Andrews government have recognised that, and we took action to put a compensation package in place to make PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 122 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021 sure we compensated the industry and make sure we softened the impact. There is always going to be a debate about whether or not that was adequate. I believe the government has done the right thing, and the compensation package I think should be commended. But going back to this particular motion in relation to multipurpose taxis, that is where the government have taken a strong interest to make sure we have a viable industry. Two things: one is to give the ability to operators to make a living out of it; and most importantly, to make sure citizens who have disability are able to access transport to be able to go from point A to point B—whether they are going to a doctor or going to conduct normal business like a normal person—and can get on with their lives. So it is really to provide that service and make sure we do not lose that as a result of the entry of new players in the industry and, someone might call it, the demise of the traditional taxi industry over the years, so we do not leave our most vulnerable people exposed and basically leave them in the cold, if you like. That is why the Andrews Labor government in 2017 committed to increase the number of players and investments in the industry and support the industry to make sure we do have a good service. As part of that, the government looked at the cost of each commercial passenger vehicle trip taken by an MPTP member and that was increased up to $60. Basically that is where the state government subsidy comes in. So that has been increased as well to make sure we make it affordable for the individuals that are using the service but also to make sure that the people who are operating these vehicles or services are able to earn a reasonable living. The expansion of the multipurpose taxi program was planned to go beyond taxis to all commercial passenger vehicles that meet the MPTP requirements. That is what I think was Mr Barton’s concern in relation to companies like Uber and various other operators coming into the market and then competing with your traditional taxi industry and a fully dedicated part of the taxi industry where they have the disability access. As a result of that, the service providers needed to make sure that they met the necessary requirements. So service providers needed to have an MPTP service offering in place, including a payment system, a technology platform that can integrate with the Commercial Passenger Vehicles Victoria system and the ability for the CPVV to monitor the capability within a controlled environment. My understanding is Net-Cabs and one of their companies, trading as Oiii, completed a successful trial in 2018 and are now offering MPTP services to members in metro Melbourne. A trial with Uber was conducted in the Geelong area for three months in March 2020, and this included a trialling of an MPTP service offering developed by Uber. I heard Mr Barton talking about—and it was a good point—whether the trial was picked in the best place. I am not sure about how that was picked. Do you go to the best-case scenario or the worst-case scenario or somewhere between or do both? My understanding is, as a result of that trial, if there are any concerns about that, the paperwork and the documentation of the trial would be made available. In my understanding a committee was set up with I think Mr Barton and Mr Dimopoulos. That committee— A member interjected. Mr MELHEM: It was a committee to monitor that, but I think that is an area that might be the subject of some further discussions. It is important to have what I used to call in my previous life continuous improvement. We can always improve on things, and I think that is the aim. I think that is where Mr Barton is coming from, and that is something I will always support. There are two stakeholders for that service, and we need to make sure that both come out winning out of this. It is basically the operators of the service—they need to be able to earn a decent living—and also the people who are utilising the service. They are able to sort of make it affordable and safe—they are the two conditions: affordable and safe. We need to make sure that has occurred. As a result of getting the documentation, Mr Barton should not have any further concern in relation to that. I am sure the government will be— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, member. Your time has expired. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 123

Mr MELHEM: Have I done 20 minutes already? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We changed the orders this morning. Yes, 20 minutes—you were the lead government speaker. The clock has expired. Mr MELHEM: I think the clock is wrong. I am happy to sit down. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry. Your time was 10 minutes as lead speaker, so your time has expired. Mr MELHEM: With that, I conclude my contribution. Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (10:31): I am pleased to rise and make a contribution to motion 470 that Mr Barton has brought to the house. It is a documents motion under standing order 11.01, and it requires the Leader of the Government to bring to the chamber the documents and background on the multipurpose taxi program trial. This is the Geelong-based trial. It seeks documents about the way the trial participants were recruited and contacted, the results of the trial, the risk assessments, the impact assessments and a range of other factors around this trial. I should indicate first off that we strongly support this motion. We would routinely support a documents motion of this kind because transparency is important in respect of these matters. But in particular in this case there are significant questions over the trial. I have nothing for or against Uber, and I have a good relationship with the Uber firm. I am happy to talk to them on their matters and to ensure that they get a very fair shake in their role in the transport sector here. But it is true to say that this government has been very close to Uber—the Andrews Labor government—and has given them a rails run with respect to the taxi licensing arrangements that were put in place two to three years ago. The impact on those longstanding licence-holders has been severe, and this is another step in this matter here. Traditionally the multipurpose taxi program has been for disabled people or people who have mobility challenges that are medically documented, and there is a subsidy that is provided. That is now being opened to Uber, and this trial is in fact, as I understand it, part of the basis of that. But there are genuine questions about the quality of the trial and the way it was conducted. It is my understanding that Uber were in charge of the trial and conducted the trial or laid the parameters and paid for it and so forth. That does call into question the independence of the trial. I am happy to be educated by Uber differently, but I would have preferred such trial was conducted in an independent and arms-length manner. There are real issues too with the matters of competitive neutrality when taxidrivers are required to have a series of training and other requirements which Uber drivers are not, and indeed for the multipurpose taxi program taxis are required to be fitted out in a particular way, which is not the case with Uber. Opening it in an uneven way does not seem to advance or support the principles of competitive neutrality. I would have thought that the government would have wanted an even-handed approach to this and would have wanted an approach that actually ensured that those who are billing for these services are providing services at a particular standard that ensures the recipients of the services are able to get the service that is really required for those who have got disabilities or other mobility issues. So let us distil this down. It is a straightforward motion, a documents motion. We will support it, and it is my view that these documents should be in the public domain—it is in the public interest that they are. Notwithstanding that, there have been criticisms of the trial, and some of those criticisms may be allayed by these documents coming into the public domain. It can only build trust and confidence, these documents being examined by the broader community and those in the industry and sector to see what is going on here. I should make another point, a further point about the government’s behaviour with respect to documents motions. This government has been shocking in its provision of documents, and the clear PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 124 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021 direction of the chamber that documents be provided over a significant front has not been honoured by this government. I draw particular attention to the public health and wellbeing briefs that have been sought by this chamber through documents motions. The government has not provided one of them— none whatsoever. So despite the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 clearly stating that transparency and accountability and the proportionality principles that are in the act require proper consultation but also proper information for the community and proper explanation of decision- making, the government has chosen not to release those briefs, not to release the background documents or working documents on which those health decisions are made under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act. And that is despite, as I say, the chamber directly ordering the release of those documents both retrospectively and with a motion late last year prospectively so that when the orders are made the government is meant to bring to the house in swift order the documents, and they are not doing that. I think the community can infer why the government is refusing to provide these documents, and I can outline for the house here today that my office also has freedom-of-information requests for these briefs, a battery of them, and the government is fighting tooth and nail at VCAT to prevent the release of each and every one of those— Mr Leane: You do not need to support the motion, you are already on top of it. Mr DAVIS: I am making a more general point here. I have indicated I am supporting this particular motion— Mr Leane: You could have saved Mr Barton a bit of time in the chamber because you are already in the process. Mr DAVIS: No, no. I am making a more general point about the government’s tardiness in providing documents to the chamber which are ordered by the chamber. The member can infer and other members can infer why the government might be so tardy and resistant in providing such documents. They might, for example, be embarrassing. In the case of public health orders they might show that some of the scientific basis that is claimed, some of the medical basis that is claimed, is lacking. It might be inadequate. Mr Leane: You are starting to channel Craig Kelly a bit. Mr DAVIS: No, I am actually wanting to see it. I am actually in a slightly different position to you, Mr Leane, on this. I am very happy to say as a former health minister I have seen these orders and I have seen the battery of information that has been and ought to be provided behind them. Why on earth would the government want to resist releasing that information despite the fact that the community is entitled to see it both under the orders in this chamber and under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act, which has at its heart actually accountability and transparency—principles which the government is flouting? But on this particular motion, as I said, we will support it wholeheartedly. We wish Mr Barton well in getting these documents, and we are hopeful that the government will actually follow through with the release of these documents in a timely way. Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (10:39): I rise to make a contribution on this motion as well, and just before I commence I just want to acknowledge Mr Barton as a very strong and strident advocate for the taxi industry. I note that one of the first committees that I served on upon coming to this place was the Economy and Infrastructure Committee. As part of that we were on the taxi inquiry at that time as well, and it was very revealing. I learned a lot on that inquiry but also listened to the many families who came and gave evidence at that inquiry to talk about their experiences as taxidrivers. Part of that was also their experiences in working in an industry that had been radically changed by the entry of another provider such as Uber—those rideshare providers. So I just want to commend Mr Barton for his advocacy. He is a strong and strident advocate for the people who work in that sector, and I commend him for his dedication to causes all things taxis. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 125

I understand why Mr Barton would bring this motion seeking the production of these documents, and I have to say, looking at the purpose or the basis for making that request, it seems to me to be an entirely reasonable proposition that Mr Barton puts forward in terms of wanting to seek these documents. I am actually surprised to say that I agree with some of the comments that Mr Davis just made earlier— A member interjected. Ms TERPSTRA: I know—that perhaps the release of these documents may allay some fears that people have or clarify some issues that people have. It may clarify misunderstandings or concerns around how this trial might have been conducted. So I think this is a good thing, and anything that adds transparency to some of these things is not a bad thing. We are starting off the year on a good foot by trying to get consensus and agreement across the aisle here. The reform in the taxi industry has been a thing that has been going on for some time, and no doubt it will continue. I note Mr Melhem’s earlier contribution when he mentioned how rapidly the industry has changed when you have had new providers come in, how the introduction of new technology can also change things—and it is a rapid change that some of that technology or new providers in the sector can make—how that impacts, and how government can keep pace with regulation. So I would say that reform will continue to happen in that sector as that sector keeps pace with changes. I note Mr Melhem also mentioned that during 2020 there was an advisory panel that comprised Mr Barton and Mr from the other place This panel consulted on a range of options to provide support and mitigate the adverse impacts of the coronavirus, the COVID-19 pandemic, on the commercial passenger vehicle (CPV) industry. Based on that panel’s recommendation, the Victorian government announced on 24 July 2020 that it would invest $22 million to support the commercial passenger vehicle industry—so to support that industry and also to support jobs. That will ensure the safety and confidence of thousands of passengers and drivers that rely on the commercial passenger vehicle sector and services as Victoria continues to recover not only now but into the future. Also as part of that support package there was $3.5 million made available to subsidise increased cleaning and sanitation of vehicles—again very important, particularly if you have got people who may be suffering disability or chronic health conditions or are immunocompromised and the like. So the sanitation and cleaning of vehicles was incredibly important, and it is important anyway regardless, not only during the pandemic but generally and beyond. For this reason the government support package for the industry was supported by new vehicle cleaning laws that came into effect on 18 November 2020. These laws reflect the regulator’s coronavirus cleaning advice to the industry throughout the pandemic, which in turn has been based on health advice provided by the former Department of Health and Human Services. And this requires CPV drivers to make sure an approved hand sanitiser is available to passengers and that they clean high-touch services with approved products throughout the shift. They must also keep a record of every time the vehicle is cleaned. So again that raises a level of consumer confidence in the service that they are using. Booking service providers and vehicle owners must also provide support to drivers to meet these requirements. So since the onset of the pandemic the regulator has focused its education, monitoring and compliance activities on ensuring safe provision of commercial passenger vehicle services in the COVID-19 environment. These are some of the things that occurred once the comprehensive program of audit and safety assurance was launched. The program included industry-specific infection controls and resources to promote and enable voluntary compliance; a comprehensive audit program; system inspection of all booking service providers; safety, engagement and assurance activities in metropolitan and large urban areas; a regular engagement model with industry to provide information required to manage risks and comply with government directions in a rapidly changing environment; and commercial passenger vehicle inspections to ensure compliance with infection control and hygiene requirements. You can see this tailored, well-thought-out and well-structured plan was implemented to support the industry— PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 126 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021 to not only support drivers who were working in that sector but also to bolster consumer confidence for people travelling in those vehicles that they could have some level of confidence that the vehicle they were travelling in was being kept to a high standard and complied with infection control procedures. The other key initiatives that were included when the government invested $22 million towards a range of initiatives to boost the industry support included $6 million to subsidise depot fees paid by vehicle owners and drivers to ensure wheelchair-accessible vehicles are available for those who needed them. This was over $4.5 million we paid by the end of 2020. From 4 August we increased the multipurpose taxi program subsidy from 50 to 70 per cent of fares for three months to make rides more affordable for people who needed them for essential journeys, and this was extended to 16 December 2020. From 4 August we doubled the wheelchair-lifting fee paid by the government for three months to give providers an incentive to keep wheelchair vehicles operating. That again was extended to 16 December 2020. Also there were refunds of the commercial passenger vehicle service levy paid in the 2019–20 June quarter. That put money back into the pockets of drivers in delivery via the State Revenue Office. There was up to $3.5 million worth of grants to support increased cleaning and sanitation of vehicles across the state to help meet the new cleaning standards, as I outlined earlier, and that was over $1.97 million paid by the end of 2020. Finally, there was up to $1 million to support booking service providers in regional communities, ensuring vulnerable regional Victorians, including the elderly or people living with a disability, did not lose access to these vital services. This was over $380 000 paid by the end of 2020. This package came on top of other measures that the government had already implemented to support the commercial passenger vehicle industry, including the pausing of regulatory fees, as I mentioned, and the $1500 coronavirus worker support payment for drivers who contracted the virus or were required to self-isolate. That would have supported drivers. As we know, some of them are not employees—some of them operate as independent contractors or might have an ABN or have their own business as well—so that was to support people so they could have that support payment coming into their pocket rather than have that financial pressure to continue to drive. As I said, I recognise Mr Barton’s strong and strident advocacy in this area. He is to be commended for his continued advocacy. As I said earlier, it is important that we have these discussions and that there be support for people who work in the commercial passenger vehicle sector. As has been outlined, we take these matters seriously. The government has continued to invest in the sector for a range of reasons, supporting the sector with these payments and support package mechanisms to ensure that consumers can have a level of confidence in not only the rideshare sector and more broadly taxis but also the commercial passenger vehicles sector that the vehicles are clean and the like. I will leave my contribution there, and I will leave it for others to comment on the rest of the motion. Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (10:49): I rise to say that Mr Grimley and I happily support Mr Barton’s motion. I will not go into many areas extensively canvassed by Mr Barton in his motion and his speech, particularly given the limited time available. Instead I will speak to his call for more transparency through his documents production motion in relation to two areas in particular. Those are passenger wellbeing and safety and the future of taxi services in regional and rural areas, including many towns in my electorate of Northern Victoria. I believe the Commercial Passenger Vehicles Victoria decision to partner with Uber in the delivery of the multipurpose taxi program (MPTP) gives rise to many concerns and questions in those areas. One of the reasons I say this is that taxidrivers have long been required to have cameras and GPS trackers inside the cars to ensure safety, but Uber is subject to no such regulation, let alone to any requirement to leave such devices turned on permanently. Indeed there have been many cases where these have been switched off. It is not clear what recourse any vulnerable passenger would have in such circumstances. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 127

I have spoken before in this chamber about the horrific chain of events that led to the rape and murder of Samantha Josephson in the United States, for example. I would also add that on multiple occasions when safety problems have arisen in Uber cars here in Victoria the company has refused to supply critical information about those incidents and instead insisted that Victoria Police serve them with an international warrant. On a separate matter, I am also greatly concerned about the impacts that the decision to allow Uber to deliver the MPTP will have on taxidrivers and companies within my electorate. For many of those companies and drivers MPTP work is the backbone of the business and often accounts for up to 50 per cent of their trips. With the decision to expand the MPTP scheme to include Uber, a reduction in the revenue associated with the increased competition for MPTP work will impact the delivery of wheelchair-accessible vehicle services. The operating costs for specialised wheelchair-accessible vehicles are such that these services often run at a loss, and the financial ability of operating them is only possible through regular sedan work in other sections of the business, which cross-subsidises this specialised area of transport. The potential reduction in MPTP work and associated revenue across the fleet will leave in question for many operators the commercial viability of offering WAV services. Wheelchair users will be most impacted should networks choose to discontinue these services, and this is obviously a critical point requiring urgent consideration. More broadly, this recent decision to award Uber the MPTP work also comes of course after years of economic devastation to the traditional taxi industry, which began with the removal of taxi licences in 2017 and has been compounded by the devastating effect of the COVID-19 pandemic. The industry has not recovered from any of these blows, and this latest decision will only exacerbate these matters. In rural and regional contexts thousands of families in the taxi and hire car industry are already struggling to maintain their livelihoods, and the MPTP can represent the difference between small communities having a taxi service or not. Given all of these concerns and many more I will conclude my contribution by reaffirming the support of Mr Grimley and me for Mr Barton’s motion, particularly in the interests of public safety and regional and rural services. We give that support because we do believe these issues require further consideration and review, and that would be greatly aided by the release of these relevant documents. I commend the motion to the house. Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (10:54): I rise also to give Mr Barton’s motion my support and to congratulate him on bringing this very important matter before the house today. It goes without saying of course that the Andrews government significantly botched taxi reform in this state, and many of the areas that Mr Barton has shown great enthusiasm for since he has been in this Parliament and indeed before are a direct result of the mess that the Andrews government made of the livelihoods of many people whose lives and futures depended on the taxi industry. Many of them, as we know, were thrown out of work and were put in a situation where they had to sell their homes and where they had to suffer enormous financial hardship. In many instances their superannuation was gone. They had no future, no financial future. It is just absolutely tragic. I have sat now I think on two or three inquiries into the taxi botch-up. Yes, Mr Leane said it was started by the Baillieu government. Indeed it was, but I tell you what, it was finished by the Andrews government—and did they finish it with an axe or what? It was quite extraordinary, just extraordinary, the way that it was conducted. But the reason that I wish to have a word on this motion today is that I understand and I want to ensure that everybody in this house understands the importance of the multipurpose taxi program. I know myself from dealing with elderly constituents, dealing with elderly members of my own family, dealing with people with disabilities—some very severe disabilities, some confined to wheelchairs— that the multipurpose taxi program is in fact their lifeline. Without this program they would not be able to go out, they would not be able to visit their friends, they would not be able to go to their doctor and they would not be able to do their shopping. They would not be able to leave their home. That is something that I think is a matter that really should resonate with this Parliament, because it is an PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 128 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021 extraordinarily important service and I do not think it is given the credit quite often that is its due. My view is that it should be declared an essential service, because it most surely is that, as I say, for elderly people, for people with disabilities, for people many times who are ill. Without this program, they would be in deep and diabolical trouble. So it is important that this program works and that it works efficiently, effectively and with integrity. That is so important, that that is happening. The fact that Mr Barton has felt it necessary to put this motion up today is in itself a sad reflection on the government. It is something that is beyond my understanding as someone who views these things from the perspective of people who need them. It is beyond my understanding as to why the government would not just give this information to the Parliament. I mean, why? What are they covering up? What are they hiding? But then again, you know, this government is good at hiding things. This government is good at covering up; this government is good at lying. That is the simple fact of life. And here we have another instance, another case today of this occurring. As I say, I commend Mr Barton for putting up the motion, but, dear me, what a sad reflection on the Andrews government it is that he had to do that. I urge all members to support this. I know that there will be members opposite who are not keen on supporting this, but I believe that they really have not got much choice at this point in time—and that is a very, very good thing because we have got a situation here where people in wheelchairs, people with severe disabilities, their lives depend on who is driving them around. If we do not know and we have no way of finding out how they are checked, how safe they are, how respectable they are—if I could use that old-fashioned term—if we have no way of deciding how safe these people are in the back seat of a taxi or an Uber, then we have got major problems. I think this is something that cannot be reinforced strongly enough: the safety of those people who use the multipurpose taxi program is paramount, and it must be paramount because we cannot afford to have people who will take advantage of the frail, the aged, the disabled—people with disabilities. I should not use that word disabled—people with disabilities. We should not have a situation where people will take advantage of them in various ways. We can talk about ripping them off financially for the fare or much worse, and I do not have to go into detail about what would be much worse, but we can well imagine what some swine would do in those circumstances. We have to protect people who might be otherwise in danger, and it is so important that this motion is passed to ensure that we have access to the information so that we can be sure that people are safe in the back seat of the taxi or the Uber. So I commend Mr Barton once again for moving this motion. I urge all members to support it. It should be I think, as they say in the classics, a no-brainer to pass this motion. I believe given the importance, given the need for up-front knowledge, up-front information, this motion should be passed, and it should be passed with the unanimous support of this house. Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (11:02): ‘Pleased’ I think is the wrong word, but I am looking forward to making a contribution on Mr Barton’s motion today. In particular I would like to focus on the production of documents element of the motion itself, which is at the heart of what is proposed, and go specifically to documents that deal with the way in which trial participants were recruited, contacted and selected; the results of the trial; risk assessments conducted for the trial; impact assessments, financial or otherwise, conducted for the trial; and then finally documents relating to the consideration given to unintended consequences for services provided in the broader disability sector, in particular services provided by wheelchair-accessible services. At the outset, in relation to the production of documents it has not been this government’s practice to withhold production of documents where those documents are not the subject of claims or the application of certain types of limitations such as commercial in confidence or cabinet in confidence. This is a really stark contrast to the record of the government when they were last occupying government benches. They were steadfast in their refusal or inability—some called it ineptitude—as it related to transparency and to accountability. To that end I think that it is worth noting that this PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 129 government’s track record around production of documents that are not subject to the application of those limitations, as I have just outlined, is something that speaks for itself. There will in fact be a preparedness to continue to do this in the interests of transparency and of accountability. I make those opening remarks in the hope that that will provide at least some level of comfort, not just to Mr Barton but the stakeholders and the members of his communities that are relying upon government to provide a measure of transparency around this really important issue. One of the things that I also want to focus on with the time that I have is the importance of public safety and of accessibility to people who are relying upon services to deliver the quality and the security of a framework that in fact has due recognition for the needs of travellers and customers and clients on the one hand whilst also providing a measure of safety to people who are operating vehicles within the taxi industry and the hire car industry. We need to recognise that at the outset, and I strongly support efforts that go to the improvement and the enhancement of public safety. We know from the COVID experience and from the ongoing restrictions that apply as they relate to the wearing of masks on public transport, including in taxis, that we cannot take anything for granted, not just as it relates to public health but again, as I mentioned, to the health of those people who are often on the road for very, very long hours in confined conditions and coming into contact with numerous customers over the course of their shifts. We cannot afford to be complacent in the way in which we continue to engage in these issues, not just within this sector and this industry but more broadly. This is where I think government has a lot of work to do to make sure that we are cognisant of these considerations—that in the course of not just pandemic response and recovery but better practice into the long term as we become accustomed to the ever-present threat or possibility of future pandemics and major events which compromise public safety and public health, and which are perhaps the subject of further limitations on the way in which people move around and connect in future, we are not ignoring the importance of these considerations. With that in mind I also want to make reference to the importance of accessibility. Having heard too many accounts from people with disabilities who have found their experiences incredibly humiliating and difficult and discriminatory in the course of seeking to access services, we need to also make sure that we are aware of the impact of inconsistent practices and that we also have the appropriate steps and systems in place to enforce consistency of service delivery and to make sure that this occurs in compliance with the law. There are frameworks that exist at a state level and also at a federal level to protect people from discrimination on the basis of protected attributes, and whilst these frameworks are incredibly important and well understood they are not always complied with in a practically consistent way. I think it is worth putting on the record and important to put on the record the fact that we have a really long way to go in that regard and that it is a necessary consideration within the provision of services and the operation of the system as a whole. The way in which the multipurpose taxi program operates has been well canvassed by other speakers, but I do also want to make sure that the themes that have been identified by the speakers are well emphasised in the course of this discussion—which again is a relatively narrow motion, relating as it does to the production of documents—and that we are in fact using this opportunity to reference the obligations that we continue to have, not just as a government but also in reflecting the standards that apply across the community in providing access to services in a responsible way, in a safe way and also in a way that recognises the importance of workplace health and safety. So this work around the cautious expansion of the program must go on in the right way. I think it is really important that Mr Barton has moved this motion, and I think it is also incumbent upon us to continue the discussion around production of documents in a way that not only is facilitative but also in fact continues the practice of the government’s approach to production of documents, cognisant as we must be of the interface between production on the one hand and the application of in-confidence measures that apply on the other. I am looking forward to continuing the discussion with Mr Barton. It is something which he and I have talked about on numerous occasions before. I understand and appreciate, despite not having personal PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 130 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021 experience of it myself, the enormous level of frustration and grief and anger that sits at the heart of this particular issue. I think with the time left available to me I just want to acknowledge that that continues to be an issue across the sector and that we need to continue to engage with stakeholders, including Mr Barton’s communities and the people who he represents in this place. I also want to make sure that we continue to give faith and comfort to people in this place around the production of documents, again to the extent that is possible within those confines of privilege or confidence that might otherwise apply. So there are technical elements to this particular motion which I concede will be a difficulty to Mr Barton and to his members around production. But that notwithstanding, I think the preparedness to provide documents of a general nature which do relate to the subject matter of Mr Barton’s motion, subclauses (1) through (5), should be given the right facilitative consideration and indeed will be responded to in accordance with the way in which government has attended to other documents motions of this nature. I am optimistic that we can continue to work toward addressing satisfactorily the issues that Mr Barton raises. I thank him for bringing this motion to the chamber today, and I look forward to the progress of discussions into the future. Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (11:12): I would like to rise briefly to speak to Mr Barton’s motion, which is fundamentally a documents motion. I am never sure if my support for Mr Barton helps him or hinders him. Knowing my position on ridesharing and some of the work that I did in the previous Parliament on this, I am never sure that Mr Barton wants to hear me supporting him or if he would prefer that we stayed in opposite corners of the ring. But this is a very sensible motion, and I am interested to learn more about this trial for a number of reasons. A couple of years ago I was actually up in Newcastle and saw the trial there. But in New South Wales they had not extended the subsidy to the ridesharing cars there, so they were actually just working on a fixed rate. In talking to Mr Bourman about the idea of working on fixed rates, I can see how that could be very unfair to a person who was riding a very short distance and would be paying an excessive amount. This is a trial that seems to have been conducted without much conversation, particularly with the taxi industry. And as much as people have said of taxidrivers, ‘I hate them’, many years ago people used to ask me what my favourite car was and I used to say, ‘It’s yellow with a light on’, because I have always been a supporter of getting somebody else to drive me. But these days I drive myself a lot more. Anyway, this scheme, the multipurpose taxi program, has had its problems. Certainly speaking to some disability groups, they used to lament that they would have to wait up to an hour or 90 minutes for a multipurpose taxi, because—I would see this firsthand—you would see them lined up at the airport hoping to get a good, long fare with a large family or a large group of people. So I think we do need more vehicles on the road to cater for the disability market. However, they need to be playing on a level playing field, and certainly when you are talking about vulnerable groups in our community you want to make sure that we do everything to ensure the safety and wellbeing of those people that may not have some of the abilities to communicate problems as you and I might have. In seeking the information about this trial, I think we will understand what parameters the cars were operating within and who they were servicing. We have really only heard that they did 170 trips and everybody loved every single trip—that they gave them all five-star ratings. This did not include wheelchairs. While this trial, from what we see on the face of it from the few sentences that we have seen published, was a great success, I think this documents motion will allow us to consider it in far greater detail and see what the successes were but also what improvements are required and what we need to ensure that we keep a level playing field in this very important service that we offer to people with disabilities. Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (11:16): I will be brief, so, Mr Leane, do not get too comfy there. I will obviously be supporting Mr Barton’s motion. I was here for the original legalisation of rideshare, and I think I shared Mr Barton’s journey to this place, because we had very similar concerns. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 131

But the problem here is whether there is a level playing field. It is one thing for the taxis to have various security and background checks and things like that, but it appears that that is not actually a requirement for the rideshare people. As I have been told, there is no requirement for rideshares to have cameras and no requirement to have fixed GPS trackers. Using Uber as an example, their rideshare drivers actually have the ability to turn off their app and their trackers. Therefore if they want to go under the radar, they can, which is not something we really want. Then we run into insurance issues, which I do not think have been proven one way or the other yet, and background checks. I will just say ‘Uber’, but read it as ‘rideshare companies’—the background checks they do are not nearly as deep as the ones that taxidrivers need to go through. They do not do international criminal warrants and all those sorts of things. There is also the gig economy issue of who covers the workers. Who is the employer? There are a whole lot of things like this. There is no requirement for someone picking up someone in a wheelchair to have a wheelchair-accessible vehicle, and that is probably the strangest one. There are obviously ways around this, but I think what we need to do, and I think the crux of what Mr Barton is trying to do, is to have the documents behind this decision given to the public—or to Parliament and then the public—so we can figure out how this ended up. If it was a level playing field, I would suggest Mr Barton would not have done this. But there are obviously some questions that need to be answered, and because of that I will be supporting this motion. Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (11:18): I will channel Mr Quilty and say I will be brief, because I know Mr Barton will be summing up very soon. I would just like to reinforce my colleague’s sentiment around the call for paperwork. As far as this government is more than happy to hand over paperwork, we need to go through a process about cabinet-in-confidence and commercial-in- confidence. As people know, I was old 10 years ago, so I have been here a long time and I cannot remember our side of politics ever voting against a call-for-paperwork motion. I do remember the dark, dark days when we were not in government, and that government actually denied a number of calls for documents. But a unifying statement I want to make is that I appreciate Mr Barton’s experience and his very pure motives for calling this motion. I appreciate that a lot of people have actually given that sentiment about Mr Barton, and I think it is sort of a reflection on this chamber that it does bring in people with a number of different experiences—like Mr Barton, who has a wealth of experience in this sector; Mr Bourman in IT and police; Ms Patten, with a number of enterprises; Mr O’Donohue, with a legal background; and Mr Finn, who was a shock jock. I think that brings special qualities to the place as well. As I said, we are more than happy to support Mr Barton as far as his call for documents and to go through the processes. We will continue to be consistent, as we always have been, around these particular calls for documents. We do believe that this house has the right to call for documents and transparency and that is what we are here for. I congratulate Mr Barton on his motion once again, and I will hand over to him for his summary. Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (11:21): There is a con. Uber is just another taxi company, but what they are really good at is the marketing. Uber should be absolutely held accountable to exactly the same standards as the other taxi companies here in Victoria, but once again the Andrews government wants to give them a free kick. We cannot understand this. We are not sure why this continues to happen. We say that safety is not negotiable. That should be our number one focus on this—safety. In London Uber have lost their licence two or three times for not being a fit and proper entity. These are the same things they have been accused of here in Victoria, but we reward them. We are in the middle of a pandemic. The pandemic has not passed. Ms Terpstra raised the fact that the Andrews government chipped in $22 million. Let me just say my good friend and colleague Mr Dimopoulos and I fought very hard to get that money out of this government. But here we are MOTIONS 132 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021 about six weeks away from having all the subsidies taken away from the taxi and hire car people. They are going to lose their JobKeeper. They are going to lose their— Mr Bourman interjected. Mr BARTON: other subsidies. Yes, thank you. They are about to lose that support. The industry is running around at less than half pace, and we are about to do something where we have got 10 500 multipurpose taxi program vehicles, which are generally full-time, covering the full gamut of disability services. What we are about to do is to increase that to 86 000 vehicles, the vast majority of them being part-timers. We have to think, ‘Have we got vehicles fit for purpose?’. When someone rolls up and makes their booking on their Uber app and a Nissan Micra rolls up and they have to put a collapsible chair or a Zimmer frame in there, how are they going to do that? Are we going to charge a cancellation charge, because that is what Uber does? They charge us that cancellation fee. To sum up on this, this is about safety. This is about a level playing field. This government has got this industry wrong not once, not twice. A very senior member of the Labor government said to me before he retired, ‘This government have got a lot to be proud of, but their dealing with the taxi industry is not one of them’. Thank you. That is all I will say. Motion agreed to. Motions INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT AGENCY FUNDING Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (11:24): I move:

That this house invites the Victorian Ombudsman and the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC) Commissioner to present to the Council and answer questions concerning the adequacy of current and future funding of their independent oversight agencies and that standing and sessional orders be suspended to the extent necessary to allow the following to occur: (1) Ms Deborah Glass, Victorian Ombudsman, to attend at the bar of the house on Wednesday, 17 February 2021, between 2.00 pm and 3.30 pm; (2) the Honourable Robert Redlich, AM, QC, IBAC Commissioner, to attend at the bar of the house on Wednesday, 17 February 2021, between 3.30 pm and 5.00 pm; (3) each officer will be asked to make an initial presentation of up to 20 minutes to the Council, which will be followed by questions for the remaining period, with the President or Deputy President allocating speaking rights in accordance with standing order 12.06; (4) the proceedings will be conducted in public and recorded and broadcast by Hansard; and requires that the Clerk of the Legislative Council communicate this invitation to the named officers. I am pleased to rise and speak on behalf of the opposition as lead speaker in relation to motion 467 in Mr Davis’s name, which states that this house invites the Victorian Ombudsman and the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, IBAC, Commissioner to present to the Council and answer questions concerning the adequacy of current and future funding of the independent oversight agencies and that standing and sessional orders be suspended to the extent necessary to allow them to do that at the times specified in the motion and that that be done in an open and transparent manner. Having a public sector that is corruption free—where public servants, officials, members of Parliament and anyone involved in discharging the functions of government or the Parliament understand that there is a real prospect that corrupt behaviour will be uncovered, it will be rooted out and the perpetrators of that corrupt conduct will be held accountable—is an objective I hope we would all share. But there has been huge disquiet from IBAC and the Ombudsman about their ability to discharge those simple but very important propositions—propositions that are fundamental to the Westminster system of government, to an apolitical public service and to a public service and a government and a Parliament that are trusted and relied upon. At a time when our institutions are being questioned more and more, that integrity is more important than ever. MOTIONS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 133

And I make the point that government expenditure has never been greater. The sums of money flowing out of the Victorian government have never been more and in many examples, many cases, as a result of COVID, they have never been faster. So as a consequence, as a result, procurement processes have been cut. The usual due diligence processes and transparency processes have been ignored or waved through in the need to respond in an immediate way to the COVID response. I do not quibble with that—I do not quibble with the need to do things quickly in certain circumstances—but what it does is it puts even more onus and a greater burden on our integrity agencies, because it is in that type of environment where corruption can flourish. We saw through the hotel quarantine inquiry and through the publicly available materials that, for example, there was no tender process for the letting of medical services to hotel quarantine. In fact there was no contract. The provider of the medical services himself, Dr Pinskier, a well-known Labor Party figure, said in his statement to the hotel quarantine inquiry that no written contract had actually been entered into months after the arrangement had been entered into. I make no allegations against the Pinskier brothers, who rendered millions of dollars of medical services to the hotel quarantine program, but the fact remains that is a clear example where normal procurement processes were bypassed, did not exist, and a contract was let on the basis of a conversation or two. It was similar with the letting of the security guard contract. There has been all sorts of public commentary about how it was that a New South Wales based security provider with a small network in Victoria, a few contracts, that was not part of the preapproved tender program or tender list for government ended up with a multimillion-dollar security contract that saw security guards being advertised on Gumtree via a pyramid Ponzi scheme whereby everyone took a slice on the way down. It helped contribute to the disastrous botched hotel quarantine program that saw Victoria shut down for longer than any other jurisdiction in Australia and 801 Victorians die. Again, I make no allegation of corruption, but I make the point that there are numerous examples where the standard due diligence processes have been bypassed, and it is in that environment that we need even greater oversight, greater accountability, by the integrity agencies. As I said, the total transactions in this budget for the Victorian government approach $90 billion, so we are talking about a very serious amount of money. Now, yesterday in question time I asked the Attorney-General about the funding cuts to the IBAC—the $4.4 million funding cut to the IBAC— and the eleventh-hour additional funding that the government provided via raiding a trust fund, a hollow log, to supplement the IBAC’s funding. Again, IBAC is overseeing $90 billion of expenditure, and we were debating yesterday in question time $4.4 million of additional funding. I think there is some context that needs to be understood about the resources available to the IBAC and indeed to the Ombudsman. In a remarkable development—one could characterise it as a public plea for help—Deborah Glass went on radio and told Victorians it was ‘very disappointing’ that she was in a position where she was required to publicly advocate for funding and that the appearance of needing to plead for money:

… is really poor and it does absolutely risk looking like attempting to undermine me. So we have the heads of the two central agencies that are responsible for rooting out corruption publicly requesting more money. I think we can take from that that the usual budgetary processes simply have not resulted in the resources that are needed. The oversight committee of this Parliament that exists, with the good work that it does, has not been able to, via government, secure the resources it needs. Let there be no mistake: the work required to get to the bottom of corruption allegations is lengthy, it is tedious, it can involve the review of thousands of documents, and that all takes resources and money, skill and expertise to be able to do. I do not have a window into how the IBAC works, but I imagine many credible allegations may be made that ultimately lead to nothing—but it still takes investigators time and resources to investigate that, to review that, to get to the bottom of that. The IBAC and the Ombudsman must have the resources necessary to be able to do that. MOTIONS 134 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021

In her response yesterday to my question, the Attorney-General basically said—without wanting to paraphrase or misrepresent, because that is not what I want to do—if I understood correctly her answer in response to my question, ‘Well, look, these agencies may want more money, but we have provided a good level of funding’. I think there is a clear difference between the words of the Ombudsman and the IBAC Commissioner and of the public’s expectation in relation to service delivery and the Attorney-General’s response yesterday. I appreciate that people of good intent and goodwill can disagree on a position, but I think there is no doubt there is that disagreement—there is that disagreement about what is an appropriate level of funding to oversight $90 billion of state expenditure. It is clear the public pleas by the Commissioner, Mr Redlich, and by Ms Glass, the Ombudsman, have fallen on deaf ears—they have fallen on deaf ears of government. It is likely that in the near future the IBAC will be required to do more as a result of recommendations from the police informants royal commission. There remain outstanding recommendations that the government is yet to respond to from a previous oversight committee report from the last Parliament that still has not been responded to and that recommends changes to the way police complaints are dealt with. All of these things will take extra resources. How is this impasse and this difference to be resolved? How is it to be dealt with? Well, clearly the standard government processes of budget bids and the like have not worked because Ms Glass would not take the extraordinary step of going on the ABC and 3AW and putting her case. Putting her case through the normal processes has not worked, so she has taken the extraordinary step of putting it publicly. The oversight committee of the Parliament does great work but is government controlled and does not have the capacity to influence budgetary outcomes in a way that meets the expectations or the needs of the IBAC Commissioner or the Ombudsman. So this motion is a way to resolve that impasse. Taking Ms Symes at her word, it is a way to resolve the impasse. What is the commissioner’s expectation, what is the Ombudsman’s expectation, what is the basis for those expectations, what do they see as a minimum service delivery that is needed to keep faith with Victorians and ensure that they have the resources to undertake the investigations needed to root out corruption? The opposition and the government have a different view. So our proposal is: let us hear directly from them. These integrity agencies sit at the heart of good government in Victoria. Our job as an upper house in particular but as a Parliament more broadly is to review the actions of the executive, hold it to account and, where possible, improve outcomes for Victorians. Now there is a clear impasse, a clear disagreement, let us hear directly from Ms Glass, let us hear directly from the IBAC Commissioner, Mr Redlich, and let us have these questions resolved: what is a reasonable funding level to meet the expectations of the community, what additional resources are—or are not, if you take the government’s view—needed to discharge that important function? That is what this motion is all about. It is an appropriate use of this house of review’s time. It would be adding to transparency and understanding of the work of these important agencies and the resources that they need, agencies that at the end of the day are answerable to the Parliament and through the Parliament to the government of Victoria—not to the executive, but to the Parliament. That is why it is eminently appropriate. When standard budget processes, when public pleas, when the oversight committee have been unable to get to a position where these agencies have the resources they need, let us hear from them directly. If the opposition is wrong, well, we are wrong. Let us hear from these agencies directly. Now, in the last couple of minutes I just want to go back on some previous ground. Under the Bracks and Brumby governments, where the current Attorney-General was a senior adviser, there was enormous resistance from those Labor governments to the establishment of an anti-corruption commission. John Brumby said uphill and down dale until he was blue in the face that an anti- corruption commission was not necessary. What Victorians knew and what the anti-corruption commission has demonstrated is that you need a Broad-based Independent Anti-corruption Commission because the holes and the gaps in the integrity system in Victoria under the Labor MOTIONS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 135 governments’ previous model simply were not up to scratch and did not give the public, the community, the confidence it needed about integrity in government. And we have seen with some of the investigations undertaken by the IBAC some very serious allegations that have been aired and shocking revelations that under Labor’s previous model probably would never have seen the light of day. This has applied across government from transport to education to a range of other departments, and there are a number of high-profile investigations afoot that I also think of which will in due course conclude their deliberations. So there is no doubt that the model that currently exists, which was delivered by Ted Baillieu—it was one of his signature election promises—has improved the integrity system in Victoria, but the system needs to be properly funded. We believe that that simply is not occurring at the moment, and the words of Deborah Glass and Mr Redlich demonstrate that. So let us hear from them. Let us have them before this Parliament, this chamber, to get the answers to these questions—questions that through the political debate have not been answered, through usual government budgetary processes have not been answered and through the parliamentary committee that is government dominated have not been answered. Any member of this house that believes in independence, integrity and the importance of appropriate funding so that agencies such as this do not have to go cap in hand to government should support this motion, and I trust that all members of this house will therefore support my motion. Ms GARRETT (Eastern Victoria) (11:42): I am pleased to rise to make a contribution on this motion. I think while we are getting a history lesson from those opposite, perhaps we should remember exactly what Premier Bracks rode in on, and he rode in on an integrity ticket because the previous bloke had smashed every accountability measure in Victoria: the Auditor-General, transparency, FOI. All of the Cain reforms had pretty much been completely and utterly dismantled. So while we are on history, Bracks and Brumby did a huge amount in terms of restoring accountability, integrity and transparency. I certainly can agree with those opposite that we want to absolutely ensure accountability and integrity in our government, in our police forces and in our public sector organisations, and there is no doubt that IBAC and the Ombudsman play a really critical role in that. We celebrate the work that they do, and we are proud of the work that they do. So I think it is very critical now that we actually unpack what the essence of this motion is and put in some really key facts here, because everybody in this chamber is absolutely committed to the work of IBAC and to the work of the Ombudsman, day in, day out, day in, day out. What has this government actually done and achieved with respect to IBAC and with respect to the Ombudsman? At the outset I think it is very significant to say that the government has made it clear, including the Attorney-General yesterday, that we will continue to work with both IBAC and the Ombudsman in relation to the range of work that they have to undertake and any additional work that may be forthcoming, given some of the issues around the royal commission. We have made it really clear that we will continue to work for them. We have also provided ongoing funding to these organisations, and we will continue to fund IBAC, as is right and proper, to support its operational needs. I just want to touch on a few of those things that have happened in these last years. I think one of the most significant ones is that from 1 July IBAC is being funded from the parliamentary appropriation in consultation with the new Integrity and Oversight Committee—the right place, the parliamentary oversight committee with very senior, experienced members of Parliament, including members of the opposition parties, Mr Wells and others—and that has been done in order to ensure greater budgetary independence for the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission. And our 2009 reforms provided this greater budget independence and also increased IBAC’s public examination threshold and provided additional fairness safeguards to improve Victoria’s protected disclosure system, where IBAC plays a clearing house role, a hugely significant role, in protecting people who want to come forward and make complaints and raise concerns. This is a dynamic space. As the work of IBAC and the Ombudsman continues to develop and grow, so does the government’s response. This is an MOTIONS 136 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021 ongoing conversation, and quite rightly an ongoing conversation, and one in which the joint parliamentary oversight committee is in the best position to participate, including with the executive and other elements of government. I think again we can touch on IBAC’s actual total available funding in 2020–21. It is 12 per cent higher relative to its 2019–20 appropriation, and now it will be indexed going forward. So these are significant increases, and IBAC received the funding that they had requested. Again, I stress and reiterate that this government will continue an open dialogue with IBAC to make sure that other funding requirements through the normal budgetary processes can be addressed and that where necessary we can be, as we have been most recently, nimble and quick in responding to particular issues, and that is very significant. We will be responding to the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants, as the Attorney-General made abundantly clear yesterday. We understand that this will require additional resources, and the government will obviously be making further announcements in the coming months in response to that huge piece of work—again, transparency and accountability. What did the previous Attorney-General do the minute the police informant issue became clear? Well, a full, public royal commission was established—absolute transparency, absolute accountability. The implementation of those recommendations is already underway, and much more will be said about that in the coming months. Again, IBAC is playing a critical role in all of those things that are celebrated and recognised by this government, which has a huge commitment to transparency and accountability, and that is really significant. I now want to touch on the Ombudsman. Again I am absolutely reiterating the vital role that the Victorian Ombudsman plays in our integrity framework in this state. The government is continuing to make sure that the Ombudsman has additional resources to investigate misconduct in our public sector, a hugely important role. When we look at our most recent budget allocations, we built on last year’s, which was a record $16.3 million funding boost, with an additional several million dollars to provide that financial sustainability that the Ombudsman deserves and requires. Again, as a budget- independent entity the Ombudsman will be reporting through the joint parliamentary oversight committee, for which cross-party representation exists, and that is hugely significant for the ongoing work. When we look at it, since this government was elected funding has increased by 37 per cent, far exceeding inflation and CPI growth. We also note that the Ombudsman has reported an increase in its net worth in its balance sheet from $3.46 million in 2018–19 to $4.8 million in 2019–20. The vast majority of the Ombudsman’s performance measures over recent years have been met or exceeded, which demonstrates that they are able to do outstanding work and continue to do outstanding work with the increasing budgets that they have been receiving. We understand that there have been further requests around some other roles for the Ombudsman—an innovative and educative approach to its oversight role. These are the subject of ongoing discussions, these are the subject of ongoing considerations and we will continue to consider those requests in the normal processes of government, balancing all of the things that need to be balanced when we are looking at the allocation of funding and making sure that those bodies are meeting what they need to meet. So I cannot stress enough just how seriously and with great respect this government regards the work of our integrity agencies. Our ongoing and repeated increase of funding over our time in government, including with additional powers, has absolutely demonstrated that. We cannot operate and provide decent and responsive government to all of our citizens in Victoria without these integrity bodies performing to the highest of their capability. Again, with our other bodies like the Auditor-General, and with our FOI commissioner, these are the fabric of how we are accountable to Victorians, which is absolutely not only what they deserve but what they demand. So these pieces of our integrity framework, when they are working together, provide that certainty and provide that capacity to ensure that not just our politicians but our public servants, our police force and our contractors—those people who go about our work in this place, MOTIONS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 137 those who we have oversight responsibilities through the broader public sector—go about their work with the highest levels of integrity, with the highest levels of transparency and with the highest levels of accountability. I look forward to celebrating the continued work of the joint parliamentary oversight committee and to giving all of our support to the profound and significant work that IBAC and the Ombudsman and those that they employ do for Victorians, day in and day out. Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (11:52): This ongoing underfunding debacle with IBAC and the Ombudsman perfectly illustrates the government’s priorities. While the government enthusiastically trumpets in its budget its golden goose—or should I say ‘concrete goose’, the carbon- polluting goose—the Big Build, which it announces proudly in the budget and which blows the budget by more than $11 billion in borrowings, it continues to starve vital anti-corruption bodies of funding. It is a small percentage of what it is spending on the golden goose, Big Build. And why would it do that? It is promoting a construction-led recovery, and at the same time it is not like the Premier has sat down with any property developers to talk about contentious projects such as Aviators Field at Point Cook in Melbourne’s west. Actually, IBAC reported that he has. I am not saying that the Premier has done anything insidious, but this kind of information is just vital for the public to know. We need these bodies adequately funded and resourced so that leaders and decision-makers can be held to account and that public faith in democracy can be maintained and hopefully improved. It is pretty low. We need these bodies to ensure the truth comes out, and in some instances we also need these bodies to clear people’s names and disprove accusations. In the case of John Woodman, the IBAC has been outstanding. It has uncovered a smorgasbord of backroom deals, cash-filled paper bag transactions and dodgy donations. But it still does not seem to be getting the appreciation it deserves. The Premier and the state government say they are adequately funding IBAC and the Ombudsman. But that is not the story we hear from the other side. As I am sure will be pointed out many times today, the IBAC Commissioner, Robert Redlich, QC, says that the organisation is not being adequately funded and resourced. The Ombudsman, Deborah Glass, similarly says the funding for her office has fallen substantially short of what is needed. The number of complaints have risen dramatically in the past year or so. Now, I tend to listen to their version of events even though the government says the opposite. The Party is very concerned about the extent of corruption in Victoria being revealed at IBAC. We raised a motion here in the house last year about our concerns about gambling and property developer donations to the government. It was not successful. The major parties were not interested in banning property developer donations. This commission, the IBAC, needs more funding if anything, but the state government is happy to let it sit in deficit of more than $90 million, as has been reported on the ABC. I return to the comments of Commissioner Redlich, who said that since IBAC was created in 2012 it has not received any increase to its budget, and it means IBAC cannot investigate a significant number of complaints of serious misconduct which may well warrant investigation. As the core integrity institution of Victoria it is essential that this commission is given more funding. And as far as the opposition goes, I hope that if it does form government in future years it backs up many of the comments made by its members today and turns IBAC and the Ombudsman into forces to be reckoned with. With that said, we cannot afford to wait years for that to happen. This government needs to act now. For all the money that the government splash out on these mega infrastructure projects, it is appalling that they snub the funding for IBAC and the Ombudsman. We know that this government likes to jump up and down and praise itself about job creation. Well, how about creating some jobs at IBAC or in the Ombudsman’s office? Not all the jobs we create have to be about destroying ecosystems, building dogbox apartments or ripping up trees and replacing them with concrete, despite what the CFMEU and the property developers may have the government believe. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 138 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021

You know, the government have created this world of fast-tracking development, and in this world of fast-tracking development they want to remove councils from having the power to have a say in these huge projects. They want to remove constituents, members of the public, from having a say about developments in their area. Well, that is what fast-tracking is about. But in this atmosphere where property developers are encouraged, the provision of adequate oversight bodies is absolutely essential. It is part of our democracy. We have been warned that IBAC’s capacity to tackle corruption in Victoria will be curtailed if this funding drought continues. I sincerely hope that this has not been the government’s intention all along. Any recent observer of IBAC proceedings would have to conclude that corruption is a significant problem in Victoria and further funding for a leading organisation in tackling it should have priority. It is getting plenty of use—as a matter of fact it is stretched to its limits—so give it some more funding. Only then can the government say it is fair dinkum about tackling corruption. And if the state government wants to help the federal Labor Party’s case for an effective commonwealth corruption commission, showing that a state Labor government can adequately fund its own corruption commission would be a good start. I cannot take the federal opposition’s calls for an ICAC seriously when their state counterpart is effectively starving IBAC of necessary funds. Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders. Questions without notice and ministers statements BAIL REFORM Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (12:00): My question is to the Attorney-General. Attorney, I refer you to the Coghlan bail review of 2017 and the two tranches of recommendations, 37 in total, which the government has accepted in full or in principle. How many of the 37 recommendations, including the 13 recommendations from the review’s second advice report, have now been fully implemented? Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (12:00): I thank Mr O’Donohue for his question in relation to the important Coghlan bail review, and obviously this chamber has dealt with some consequent legislative reforms. The bail review was undertaken following the awful events of the Bourke Street tragedy on 20 January 2017. Mr Coghlan concluded in May of that year a two-part advice to the government, as Mr O’Donohue refers to, containing 37 recommendations to reform the bail system. The government committed to implementing all 27 recommendations in the first advice and is giving further consideration and consulting with stakeholders in relation to most of the 13 recommendations in the second advice. Twenty-three of the 37 recommendations have been implemented. The majority of these are legislative recommendations that were implemented by two acts that many people in this chamber would be familiar with. The Bail and Remand Court is now fully operational. It is an expanded model, operating from 9.00 am to 10.00 pm, with hearings 9.00 am to 9.00 pm, seven days a week—a really important reform ensuring that access to justice and justice matters are dealt with in a more timely manner. A further six recommendations have been partially implemented, five are in progress and three are under consideration. These 14 recommendations include considering reforms to remove minor matters from the bail and remand system, amending the law relating to bail appeals, educating and training police officers to use summonses instead of bail or remand for minor matters, providing additional training for bail justices, accessing the feasibility of audiovisual capability in police stations for after- hours bail applications, recording bail justice hearings, developing a model for the court integrated services program in the County Court and rewriting the Bail Act, which is from 1977. Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (12:02): I thank the minister for the answer about the recommendations that have been implemented. Minister, I was making notes while you were speaking, so I may have got these numbers wrong, but I think you said 14 recommendations either were still under consideration or had not yet been fully implemented. As you noted, the genesis of that QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 139 review was the Bourke Street tragedy. Obviously the integrity of the bail system is critical. It is now several years since the tragedy and since that incident. When will the government make a decision about the remaining recommendations that it is yet to take a position on? Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (12:03): I thank Mr O’Donohue for his supplementary question. As I answered in my previous response, the six recommendations have been partially implemented, five are in progress and three are under consideration. I certainly look forward to updating the house as those continue to be progressed, and of course they are being worked on presently. FIREARMS LICENSING Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (12:03): My question is for the Minister for Agriculture. There is a push on for additional red tape around mandatory shooting proficiency tests for firearm owners. The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning launched a review into the authority-to- control-wildlife system, ATCW, in 2017. Three years later this review is still underway. As part of this review, DELWP conducted a survey where the majority of respondents lived within 80 kilometres of Melbourne. Unsurprisingly people who have nothing to do with managing land and controlling pests want to impose additional fees, record-keeping requirements, firearm proficiency testing and additional notification requirements for ATCW holders. Of the 155 respondents that supported additional requirements, only 12 had ever held an ATCW certificate. The majority of ATCW holders reject the changes. Minister, why is DELWP asking people in the city how to manage problems that almost exclusively occur in the country? Ms Symes: On a point of order, President, I seek your guidance on the appropriateness of directing a question to the Minister for Agriculture, who of course is represented by Minister Tierney, and seeking advice from that minister on information from another department—namely, DELWP. With due respect, Mr Quilty, I just do not think you are going to get an answer that does not come back saying you have asked the wrong minister. So I just seek some guidance in helping Mr Quilty get the answer that he actually wants. The PRESIDENT: Mr Quilty, based on the advice from the Leader of the Government, you can redirect your question to the minister for environment if you wish. Mr QUILTY: I can, but the supplementary is much more towards the Minister for Agriculture. I feel like there is a bit of collective responsibility going on here. The PRESIDENT: My interest, Mr Quilty, is that the main question, the substantive question, is directed to the correct minister. That is why we are trying to help you. So I think you should redirect your question to the minister for environment, and then you can worry about the supplementary. Mr QUILTY: I will direct it to the minister for environment. However, I do feel as if it is one of those areas where there are ministerial crossovers. Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (12:07): I kind of was not paying attention there, President, at the end. But, Mr Quilty, on that question directed to the minister for environment I will make sure it is directed to her and her response is given to you within the parameters of the standing orders. Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (12:07): We will throw this one out there as well. The Victorian Game Management Authority has also called on the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions to require a firearms proficiency course before hunters are allowed to target game. The call to instruct hunters to be better at shooting echoes calls made by groups who want to ban hunting, which reveals the real motivations behind it. These new restrictions would mirror our current firearms regulations, which aim to raise enough roadblocks so that firearm ownership is not worth the hassle. Regulation is intended to block access, not improve competency. It does not do a great job of improving safety. It mostly just annoys people. Nobody has more interest in ensuring accurate shooting than hunters. By QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 140 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021 definition, they aim to bring down the animals through a clean kill. Forcing hunters to demonstrate their ability to hit targets will not stop the rare botched shot in the field, but will increase compliance burdens and costs to hunters and will push money to those running the tests. Minister, aren’t firearms proficiency training requirements just another barrier to entry, designed to further limit hunting? The PRESIDENT: I am just a bit confused now about where that goes to, whether it is environment or police or— Mr Leane: I think it has to go to the original minister. The PRESIDENT: I will take that on notice and will redirect it to the correct minister. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: SKILLS FOR VICTORIA’S GROWING ECONOMY Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:09): I am pleased today to rise and update the house on the Skills for Victoria’s Growing Economy review. As members will know, this is a major review commissioned by the government to reform and revitalise our post-secondary education and training system to lay out a path to secure the skilled workforce Victoria needs into the future. The review, led by former federal minister Jenny Macklin, was released today. The Labor government’s major investments in roads and public transport, education, family violence prevention, disability and aged care will create thousands of jobs over the next decade. The review explored how the system can continue to support Victorian students, businesses and communities as those jobs come online. Importantly the review sought to provide confidence to jobseekers and employers, especially as Victoria responds to and recovers from the coronavirus pandemic. It is the latest step in the Labor government’s ongoing work to rebuild the sector after it was left decimated by the last Liberal government. This is a significant body of work, and the report will play a critical role in shaping our efforts to ensure the education and training system delivers the skills Victoria needs. I would like to thank Jenny Macklin and all of those who contributed, including students, teachers and employers, for their commitment to this important reform process. The government will now consider the findings of the review and respond within the coming months. BAIL REFORM Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (12:10): My question is again for the Attorney-General. Attorney, I refer you to the tragic death of Cameron Smith, a 26-year-old carpenter allegedly attacked and murdered outside the Seaford railway station on 25 November last year by a group of four alleged offenders, including one or more who were allegedly on bail at the time. As I am sure you are aware, I have written to you about this tragedy. Cameron’s death followed the tragic alleged murder of Celeste Manno last year by an offender who was also allegedly on bail, which was the basis of an urgent referral by your predecessor to the Victorian Law Reform Commission for a review of stalking and intervention orders. Minister, will you also request an urgent review to strengthen our state’s bail laws to reduce the likelihood of similar further tragedies? Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (12:11): I thank Mr O’Donohue for his question and indeed express my deep sympathy to the family of Cameron Smith, and I acknowledge that Mr O’Donohue wrote to me within I think two days of me being appointed on this very matter. I understand you have met with the family, and I have also agreed to meet with the family, prompted by your letter, so I appreciate that. It is not going to be my practice, as would be expected, to comment on accused persons in particular cases, but I would point to the fact that many people in this chamber have been involved in bail reform. We have some of the toughest bail laws in the country following the review of Justice Coghlan, and as with my previous answer to Mr O’Donohue’s questions, those reforms are implemented and QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 141 otherwise underway. We will continue, of course, to monitor the operation of Victoria’s bail laws and are open to any programs to continue to keep Victorians safe. In relation to expanding the work of the law reform commission, that inquiry is quite broad already, and I think just adding additional topics would probably dilute the effectiveness and timeliness of that inquiry. I am committed to reviewing all laws, but it has to be done in a measured and targeted way. Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (12:13): Minister, thank you for your answer, and thank you for the fact that you are meeting with the Smith family. I am sure they will be grateful to have that opportunity to put their case to you specifically. I appreciate that the referral from former Minister Hennessy is focused not on bail but rather on stalking and intervention order issues, which are obviously very, very important. I suppose the essence of my question, and noting the previous answer on the Coghlan recommendations that are yet to be implemented, is that we have had two tragedies allegedly involving people on bail. Have you identified any flaws or holes in the current bail framework that need urgent attention to reduce the likelihood of such a future tragedy occurring? Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (12:14): I thank Mr O’Donohue for his supplementary question. Indeed, as I indicated in my answer to the substantive question, looking at gaps in the justice system is certainly part of my job. Unfortunately we get drawn into these issues when the justice system fails in a particular case, and therefore it is incumbent upon government to look at cases and what we can learn from them. I would reconfirm that the law reform commission’s inquiry needs to stay focused on the task at hand. In relation to bail reform, we will continue to implement the outstanding recommendations and respond as appropriate. It is not a point in time in terms of implementation of those recommendations; we can take on new information as we are implementing those reforms. COVID-19 Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (12:15): My question is to the new Attorney-General, Ms Symes, who I congratulate on her appointment. It follows my 10 December question without notice to former Attorney-General Hennessy about the remarkable decrease during 2020 in the number of people held in Victorian jails. It also follows revelations from journalist Aneeka Simonis in last Sunday’s Herald Sun. These show that around 5000 convicted criminals have been released early because of the special COVID-19 emergency management day rules. Attorney, will you be intervening in any way in your capacity as the first law officer of Victoria to ensure the arrangements that have allowed the commissioner of corrections and/or anyone else to grant these substantial sentence reductions are not used again? Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (12:15): I certainly thank Ms Maxwell for her question and indeed for acknowledging my new position as Attorney-General. Obviously I am going to have great interest in having ongoing conversations not only with Ms Maxwell, because I know there are a lot of people that are passionate about the rights of victims, but indeed it is something that Ms Maxwell has been consistent on. I would note, Ms Maxwell, that your specific question here is more appropriately directed to the Minister for Corrections. I think picking up on the question that we just received from Mr Quilty, as the Attorney- General, as the minister responsible for the coordination of the justice department, I do acknowledge that there are going to be questions that will be directed to me that I will make all attempts to answer, but if they are more appropriately directed to corrections, victim support or indeed youth justice, then the appropriate minister is Ms Tierney. Having said that, I will make attempts to give some general commentary, but I do not think it would be a good practice for me to take over responsibility for all the justice portfolios in this situation. In relation to the corrections commissioner and directly in relation to— Ms Maxwell: Sorry to interrupt on a point of order, President, but the challenges come when we ask questions of particular ministers and are provided guidance elsewhere prior to submitting our QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 142 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021 question. It is my understanding that my adviser did liaise with other people to ensure that this question was appropriately directed to the Attorney-General, so I ask for some clarification on that. The PRESIDENT: I really appreciate the assistance from Ms Symes in the beginning about the question and trying to answer it, but I believe it is a legitimate question to the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General has indicated that it is about the law and everything, but the main part is about corrections. The Leader of the Government is trying to cover the whole question. Ms SYMES: As I said, it is certainly not my intention to not answer questions. I am certainly happy to work with members because there is a lot of crossover in the justice portfolio, whether it is with the family violence minister, the Aboriginal affairs minister and indeed the corrections stuff. This is not going to be perfect. Let us just sort of see how we go, and I am more than happy to talk to members offline if they want some assistance and where we think we can help direct it to the right place. The corrections commissioner is the person who has the power to grant emergency management days to prisoners, and this has been the case for nearly 30 years. It is an established practice and certainly has continued regardless of who has been in government. Emergency management days can be granted when a prisoner’s sentence is harsher than what the court would have expected—for example, if they are detained in their cell for longer than usual. This government has been very clear that emergency management days are not a right. Indeed we passed laws last year to ensure that any prisoner who is involved in a disturbance such as a prison riot gives up the privilege of being considered for these days in the future. However, in relation to your specific question about whether I would intervene, it is important to be clear that the power to grant emergency management days sits with the commissioner. That is what the Corrections Act 1986 says, so it is not appropriate for me or any other minister to interfere with how the commissioner performs her statutory functions. Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (12:20): Thank you, Minister, for that clarification. Attorney, obviously even law-abiding Victorians’ freedoms were very heavily restricted throughout 2020, and therefore I am sure I speak for many of them when I say that COVID restrictions applied to prisoners were not particularly exceptional when compared with the deprivation of liberties and movement experienced by the rest of the population. Accordingly I ask: in light of the extraordinary COVID- related sentence reductions given to convicted criminals, what extra publicly funded support, if any, has the government made available to these perpetrators’ victims? I ask that not only because of the additional anxiety, inconvenience and stress that those victims have endured from the lockdowns but also because of the increased trauma and risk created for many of them by the very prospect of their offenders being released from jail early. Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (12:21): I thank Ms Maxwell for her supplementary. We as a government are certainly committed to delivering reforms to the victims of crime financial and service support system. This is something that Minister Hutchins has been very tireless in, and she certainly has been cognisant of the impact of the pandemic on victims. I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment that every person in society was affected by the lockdown, but if you have pre-existing trauma, isolation can in fact exacerbate some of those conditions. Obviously as a victim of crime quite often isolation is already something that they may be experiencing, so undoubtedly for many victims the impacts of lockdown may have been more acute than for others. We have invested $4.3 million in victims services, the helpline, the victims register and extending the intermediary pilot program and continue to support victims now as always, but indeed we are very conscious of post-pandemic conditions and what the government can do to make sure that, as always, we are supporting them as best as possible. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: JUSTICE SYSTEM Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (12:22): I rise to update the house on the opening of the 2021 legal year. I was very pleased QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 143 to join more than 900 people from the legal community to mark the opening of the Victoria Law Foundation’s Legal Laneway Breakfast, including my colleague Mr O’Donohue. This breakfast has been running for 18 years and is usually a packed event at Hardware Lane. While this year’s breakfast was virtual, it was still a terrific opportunity for me to introduce myself as the new Attorney-General, thank the profession for their extraordinary work in providing access to justice throughout COVID-19 and outline some of the government’s work and priorities. In particular I spoke about the government’s justice recovery plan to address the impacts of COVID- related backlogs in our courts and the additional investment of $80 million we have made to ensure victims and vulnerable people get timely justice outcomes. This plan focuses on more matters being resolved outside court, especially family violence matters; safe access to court for all Victorians, such as supporting people with remote hearings; and cases being heard and finalised quickly. I also spoke about our legislation to ban conversion therapy, our strong commitment to supporting victims of sexual assault and our work delivering specialist family violence courts across the state. I know there have been several events celebrating the opening of the legal year, including by Victoria’s faith communities, regional community legal centres and young lawyers. These events highlight that the law belongs to every Victorian, and with the help of fantastic organisations like the Victoria Law Foundation we are ensuring that we broaden the community’s knowledge and understanding of the law and advance continual improvements to the Victorian justice system. KINDERGARTEN FUNDING Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:24): My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood. Minister, in an answer to a question asked by Dr Bach in December last year you said that you had had discussions with a number of stakeholder groups, and I quote:

KECC, the kindergarten expansion consultative committee, has been set up to oversee and advise the government and the department on the rollout of the three-year-old kinder reform … I ask: what advice did these stakeholders provide to you regarding the not-for-profit kindergartens who are going to be largely disadvantaged by the government’s program? Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:24): I thank Ms Crozier for her question. Indeed I have spoken to a number of people in the sector, including peak bodies, about the introduction of not only three-year-old kinder but free kinder. There have been quite extensive discussions with the sector through the department, and I was involved in a number of those discussions late last year. In terms of the free kinder initiative, I can advise the house that service providers have overwhelmingly welcomed this initiative. There are very strong take-up figures available, and I can update the house that over 90 per cent of services across the state are opting in to the free kinder program this year. In terms of the sessional kindergartens, including those community-run kinders, 95 per cent of services have opted in to this program. That is great news. That is a fantastic start, and I do expect that that will slightly increase over the next few weeks as kinder kicks into the new year. There are a small number of sessional kindergartens who are yet to make a decision about whether or not they will opt in to the free kinder scheme this year. I have asked the department to work very closely with those services, and they have been doing so, to see whether or not there are individual circumstances for any of those services that could mean that they would ultimately join the scheme. I think it is important to note that, with a small number of those sessional kinders that have not yet opted in to free kinder, by and large they are charging fees that are well in excess of the average fees of sessional kindergartens in the state. Notwithstanding that, Ms Crozier, I am really keen to see every kindergarten and every Victorian child who is in kindergarten this year have every possible chance to join this initiative, but ultimately it is up to each individual service as to whether they opt in to the scheme or not. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 144 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:27): Thank you, Minister, for that response. Minister, the government’s free kinder program is reliant on not-for-profit kindergartens opting for a funding scheme that would greatly reduce accessibility and quality of education in some settings. St Paul’s kindergarten in Camberwell is one kindergarten that, if it accepted the government’s free kinder proposal, would actually lose $90 000 per year. So I ask: why is the government severely penalising so many of these educational facilities that provide equitable and excellent early education? Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:27): Thank you, Ms Crozier, for that supplementary question. I do take issue with the characterisation that you make about the number of services that are disadvantaged. I do not believe that that is the case. Ninety-five per cent of sessional kindergartens have opted in to this. I am not familiar with the individual circumstances of the particular service that you have raised, but I am very happy to— Ms Crozier interjected. Ms STITT: Ms Crozier, no, there are not many; there are very few. Ninety-five per cent of sessional kindergartens have accepted the offer. There are a very small number of services, as I said in my substantive answer, that we are working with, and I am happy to take those details and see what I can find out for you, Ms Crozier. EARLY CHILDHOOD FUNDING Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (12:29): My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood in relation to a report for the recent inquiry into early childhood engagement of culturally and linguistically diverse communities. What are the minister’s plans to support the required investment in and implementation of the programs recommended by the inquiry to support CALD communities across Western Metropolitan Region? The report confirms significantly more needs to be done to better support early childhood outcomes for the Western Metropolitan Region. As the new minister, and also representing Western Metro, I expect you are aware of the lack of investment in helping young children and families get the best start and the best chance to succeed in life. Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:29): Thank you, Dr Cumming, for your question, and I know that you are a very passionate supporter of early childhood education, and I know that in the western suburbs this is an issue that is very important to make sure that no matter where you live you get the very best start in life. I am familiar with the parliamentary inquiry report that you refer to, and I am working closely with the department to formulate a package of measures and initiatives that will ensure that children, particularly from CALD backgrounds, are getting the additional support that they deserve to not only participate in kinder but also be able to access specialist funding around school readiness initiatives, including if there are any particular special needs. You would be aware that in the last budget the government increased support and extended support for children from refugee and asylum seeker backgrounds because we want to make sure that children who have particular vulnerabilities have access to quality education right across the state. I will be working closely with the department to ensure that that kind of targeted support continues and that not only are we getting very good enrolment numbers but that they are participating fully in kinder as well. I will not pre-empt the Treasurer’s decisions in the next budget, but you can rest assured that I will be advocating strongly for the issues that you have raised. Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (12:31): I thank the minister for her response. It is the best response that I have received for a long time to a direct question. Will you provide what strategies and investment will support children of CALD communities in Brimbank? In 2018 almost 20 per cent of the four-year-olds in Brimbank did not attend preschool, missing out on significant advantages of early childhood education. Years of underinvestment by successive governments mean children in Brimbank continue to enter school with higher than average levels of developmental vulnerabilities. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 145

Brimbank council continue to invest and deliver targeted and tailored early childhood CALD programs and support, but they need more support to do so, and I do hope that this government is the one that actually steps up for Brimbank and other councils in Western Metro. Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:32): Thank you, Dr Cumming, for your supplementary question. I can indicate that I will be carefully considering some of the specific recommendations in the report of the parliamentary inquiry into early childhood education for CALD communities, and I will be able to talk with you and other colleagues further about that in due course. But I know that the department works very closely with all our councils in planning infrastructure and capacity needs in the early childhood space. Brimbank have been very proactive. I understand that there are a range of discussions that have been going on recently between Brimbank and the department about their needs, and this is incredibly important as we plan the rollout of three-year-old kinder right across the state in 2022. Getting that planning right has never been more important. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: VETERANS CAPITAL WORKS GRANTS Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (12:33): I would like to update the house on the opening of the veterans capital works grants. The grants opened on Monday, 1 February, and will close on Monday, 12 April, obviously this year. I invite any organisation that supports veterans and their families, such as ex-service organisations, councils and not-for-profit groups, to apply for one of these grants if their facility is no longer fit for purpose. These facilities are often central to communities and have the potential for broader use and participation. I was actually lucky enough to see the fruits of some good work from a grant that went towards the Ballarat Veterans Assistance Centre. I was there in person. This is a group of volunteers—a number of veterans, but also people who are not veterans but who volunteer with this group—who put the funding that they received towards a website which will help advise veterans about different services that they may need at any given time. I have got to say I was very lucky to be accompanied by and , who are fantastic MPs. I think Ballarat have really landed on their feet. I know Minister Pulford does a lot of good work with them as well. The good work they are doing with vets down there is just spectacular. With the transformation that they are making in Ballarat—the upcoming GovHub, the library rebuild—it is just a pleasure for me to go out and see these great advocates for the community. As I said, I feel like Ballarat have really, really landed on their feet with these two great advocates, and I look forward to getting out to meet more veterans and work with more— (Time expired) Mr Davis: Just on a point of order, President, ministers statements are meant to be about ministerial matters, not cheerios to colleagues in another house. Mr LEANE: I appreciate the point of order about updating the house on great government initiatives. I think it is no coincidence that there are local government MPs that have done great jobs towards presenting and actually achieving these initiatives, and I mentioned just two. The PRESIDENT: We will move on. I will continue with question time and say something about this after. KINDERGARTEN FUNDING Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:37): I have got another question for the Minister for Early Childhood. Minister, under your so-called free kinder scheme, exactly how many sessional community not-for-profit kindergartens who sign up to the scheme will be financially worse off? Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:37): Thank you, Dr Bach, for your question. It is an important one. I know that you are very QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 146 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021 passionate about early childhood education, and so am I. And I want to make it possible for as many of these kindergartens as possible to get the benefits of the government’s free kinder program this year, which is a fabulous initiative and very popular. I do get updated every couple of days on the figures, so I am very happy to take your question on notice and update you on exactly how many of those sessional kindergartens are yet to decide. It is a handful. I will endeavour to get that information to you as soon as possible, Dr Bach. Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:38): Thank you, Minister. I will appreciate getting that updated information as soon as possible. Minister, by way of supplementary, I am sure you would have seen that it has been reported that as many as one in 10 kindergartens will lose revenue under your scheme, with some not-for-profit kindergartens facing losing hundreds of thousands of dollars. I wonder: what is your advice to those kindergartens—as many as one in 10? Is it to sign up to the scheme and face financial ruin, a loss of quality staff and cutbacks to early learning hours, or is it to deny their parents the savings and face a loss of enrolments? Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:39): Thank you for your supplementary question, Dr Bach. I do not accept that it is one in 10. That is wrong; that is simply wrong. And I do not accept the characterisation that you make about the extent to which you claim these kinders will be worse off. The undertaking that I am happy to give—the department has already commenced this at my request—is that the department will work extremely closely with each of those services. I want each of them to understand exactly what supports are available, because, Dr Bach, as you know, there are some kindergartens that are providing additional hours that they are able to charge for if they are over and above the funded hours. There are a range of other supports available to kindergartens this year, and I want to make sure that those individual services understand exactly what they are entitled to under the very many supports the government is providing for early childhood this year. DUCK HUNTING Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (12:40): My question is for the Minister for Agriculture in the other place. The Andrews government is yet to make public a decision on the 2021 duck-shooting season. Documents recently received under FOI contain concerning information about the conduct of the Game Management Authority. In discharging their function to advise the then agriculture minister on the 2020 duck-shooting season arrangements, GMA made serious omissions, misrepresentations and references to outdated data for the purpose of justifying a 2020 duck-shooting season. These included misrepresenting the abundance and distribution of Victorian game ducks. Minister, this year’s abundance survey has found waterbirds are down another quarter on last year. How can Victorians have any confidence that the GMA will accurately represent these findings when making a recommendation to you? Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:41): I thank Mr Meddick for his question and his ongoing concern in relation to duck shooting and the advice that the minister relies on. I will refer the matter to the Minister for Agriculture, and I am sure that she will respond within the standing orders. Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (12:41): Thank you, Minister, and thank you for referring that on. As a supplementary: in light of this information, will the minister cancel the 2021 duck-shooting season? Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:41): Again, I thank Mr Meddick for his question. I had a related question from Mr Bourman yesterday, and the answer will remain the same. I will seek advice from the minister in relation to when she will make a determination in relation to this season’s duck shooting. The PRESIDENT: Before I call the minister to make the last ministers statement, I want to advise Mr Quilty that my understanding is that his substantive question was about the Department of CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 147

Environment, Land, Water and Planning and was to the right minister, but the supplementary was directed to the Minister for Agriculture. The first question was to the minister for environment and the supplementary to the Minister for Agriculture. Before I call the minister, I am going to give you a choice: whether you are happy to rephrase your supplementary question, or I am going to rule it out. I will rule out the supplementary question, not the substantive question. Have you got it? The first question is there for two days. Now it is up to you to change your supplementary question and direct it to the right minister. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: SMALL BUSINESS DIGITAL ADAPTATION PROGRAM Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:43): Last Friday I was delighted to meet with the founder of Trade Trak, a Melbourne-based startup created by and for tradies to help manage their businesses. Mark Mullinder has established a cloud-based, comprehensive tool for trades and services to manage onsite safety, job scheduling, quoting, invoicing and contractor management, all through a simple app for immediate use and application on the job. The Andrews Labor government is very proud to be backing this innovative company as one of eight new providers to join our small business digital adaptation program. I was with the member for Mount Waverley, Matt Fregon—a wonderful member, while we are giving out cheerios to colleagues. We had a wonderful time together visiting Burdens and meeting with director David Mills in a family-based business in Glen Waverley to hear how Trade Trak has assisted them in giving all of their small business customers use of the platform and all the functionality that it offers. Launched in November of last year, the small business digital adaptation program helps eligible self- employed Victorians and micro and small businesses to build crucial digital capability to support their day-to-day operations by allowing them to access a free trial of selected digital products. Participating businesses can then purchase approved products and apply for a rebate of $1200 to access them for 12 months and participate in free training and workshops offered through Small Business Victoria. The other new digital products available for local businesses to trial are provided by the Australian Good Food Guide, QuickBooks Online, Lawpath, Ecwid Inc, Reckon Limited, ServiceM8 and the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce, supplying services ranging from accounting and job management to legal services and restaurant reservations and ordering. These providers join software organisations Mr Yum, MYOB, Xero, Square, Squarespace and Shopify in the program, which has now seen more than 6250 Victorian small businesses sign up for the free trials. WRITTEN RESPONSES The PRESIDENT (12:45): Regarding questions today, Mr Quilty asked a question of the minister for environment, and that will be two days, but Mr Quilty chose not to ask a supplementary question, and I understand that; Ms Crozier to Ms Stitt, one day on the supplementary; Dr Bach, one day on the question; and Mr Meddick to the Minister for Agriculture, via Ms Tierney, two days for the question and supplementary. Constituency questions NORTHERN VICTORIA REGION Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (12:46): My question is for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure and addresses her continued inaction in providing funding for stage 1 of the Shepparton bypass project. From my numerous contributions on this subject, members will be aware of the lack of action by the Andrews Labor government regarding the Shepparton bypass project. Since funding the project’s business case in the 2017–18 state budget, Labor has used every excuse imaginable to not commit more funding and progress the project. Even after the federal government committed $208 million in 2019, the minister refused to provide any further investment in the Shepparton bypass. The project’s business case was due for release in 2019, but this was delayed until December last year. True to form, that time line was not met and there is now information that the business case is still CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS 148 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021 only in draft form. Will the minister provide the Shepparton community with an update on the status of the bypass project, including whether the business case has now been finalised for budget consideration, and if so, what is the projected cost of stage 1? WESTERN METROPOLITAN REGION Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (12:47): My constituency question is directed to the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, and Minister for Solar Homes, the Honourable Lily D’Ambrosio. Applications are now open for a more than $11.3 million funding package. Part of this package is the $5.4 million Recycling Victoria Communities Fund. Through this funding we are supporting charities, social enterprises and community organisations to lead re-use, repair and share projects. My question to the minister is: can the minister provide an update on how local organisations, social enterprises and charities in the Western Metropolitan Region prepare their projects to receive funding for this vital initiative? This program will help Victorians find smarter ways to minimise, repurpose and appropriately dispose of waste and prevent the dumping of unwanted household goods. This is part of Recycling Victoria’s new economic initiative. The 10-year, $380 million investment and action plan will transform Victoria’s waste and recycling system, create thousands of jobs and set us up for a sustainable future. WESTERN VICTORIA REGION Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (12:48): My constituency question is for the Minister for Planning and is asked by the residents of Torquay and the surrounding areas who have been fighting a 12-year battle against development in the Spring Creek Valley. The valley is home to no less than 22 endangered or vulnerable species of wildlife and various endangered or threatened flora, including the last remaining stands of Bellarine yellow gum. Torquay is a town under significant strain, not just from many new housing developments to the north, with more slated, but from the explosion of development in Armstrong Creek in Geelong. What Torquay does not need is even more housing estates. What it needs is for firm town boundaries to be fixed to protect not only the threatened species but what remains of its coastal character. Will the minister fulfil the Premier’s promise, made on site during the 2018 election campaign, that there will be absolutely no development in the Spring Creek Valley? WESTERN VICTORIA REGION Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (12:49): My question is for the Minister for Planning and relates to the pending government response to the Barwon River ministerial advisory committee’s recommendations on future development of the Barwon and Moorabool rivers and surrounding areas. It has come to my attention that you, Minister, were requested, even before responding to the ministerial advisory committee’s report, to enact a moratorium on all planning approvals. It is clear that such a decision would be hugely disruptive to existing applications, many of which have been years in development, on which decisions are expected soon. The uncertainty now fostered is deeply damaging and can only discourage investment and development. My question is: can the minister end this uncertainty now, explain when the response to the committee’s recommendation is due and confirm that no moratorium will be enacted before this date? SOUTHERN METROPOLITAN REGION Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (12:50): My constituency question is to the Minister for Planning. I have been contacted by residents concerned about the potential demolition of heritage homes at both 5 Trumper Street, Camberwell, and 57 Berkeley Street, Hawthorn, which Boroondara council had sought to protect with an interim heritage overlay. The minister rejected this application based on a decision that these houses do not have individual heritage significance but would have contributory significance to a wider heritage precinct if such a precinct was identified. My question is: how does the minister believe council can protect these heritage places that do not meet the threshold for individual significance but unfortunately are not located in a wider heritage precinct as defined by CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 149 the state government’s practice note applying the heritage overlay, August 2018, when the council clearly believes these houses are worthy of protection? EASTERN VICTORIA REGION Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (12:51): My constituency question is for the Minister for Agriculture. Minister, 18 months ago I moved that an inquiry into agricultural trespass, theft, sabotage and reduced penalties be instigated in this Parliament. A year ago the report came out with a specific recommendation for on-the-spot fines. The government accepted those fines almost eight months ago and is still yet to implement on-the-spot fines that will protect farmers, protect livestock and protect biosecurity. The minister has been very tardy, and I ask the new minister on behalf of many of my constituents, but specifically Mr John Gommans from Caldermeade Farm: when will you introduce these on-the-spot fines? WESTERN METROPOLITAN REGION Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (12:52): My constituency question is to the Minister for Roads and Road Safety. I do not know if the minister has recently driven down Derrimut Road, but I certainly have. I was impressed by the improvements, I have to say, but was equally astonished as I drove along there by the sudden end of these improvements and the return to the single lane each way. I was again astonished when I heard reports the government has run out of money to finish the Derrimut Road duplication. Minister, Derrimut Road services one of the fastest growing parts of Victoria. Will you give a formal undertaking that the Derrimut Road upgrade will continue and give an estimated finishing date for the project? WESTERN METROPOLITAN REGION Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (12:53): My question is for the Minister for Health in the other place, and it is from a resident, Eddie Merrifield, from West Footscray. Is the Alfred hospital’s policy of not accepting exemptions from general practitioners in keeping with the chief health officer’s policy and directions? Mr Merrifield went to visit a friend who he cares for in the Alfred hospital last week, and he has an exemption from his medical practitioner stating that he cannot wear a mask. Security at the hospital informed him that this would not be acceptable and only an exemption from the Alfred hospital would be accepted. NORTHERN VICTORIA REGION Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (12:54): My constituency question is for the Minister for Water. In December I met with several locals in Cohuna to try to better understand the water problems caused by the Murray-Darling Basin plan. I spent the day touring between Cohuna and Koondrook listening to concerns about water management around Gunbower Creek, Gunbower forest and the channels, and the use of regulators in the system. Irrigation channels near Cohuna in northern Victoria provide water for stock and domestic use for farmers along the channel. They also provide important habitat for the Murray-Darling Basin’s struggling ecosystem. Ecologists expressed concern over Goulburn- Murray Water using acrolein to clear irrigation channels of weeds. Acrolein is toxic to aquatic life and causes the death of fish and other creatures in the channels, as we have now seen with the massive fish kills. Locals suggest that letting Gunbower Creek run low through winter would mean that frost would kill most of the aquatic weeds. Minister, why is Goulburn-Murray Water putting acrolein into irrigation channels near Cohuna in northern Victoria instead of drying the channels out in wintertime? NORTHERN VICTORIA REGION Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (12:55): My question is for the Minister for Roads and Road Safety and it follows a serious incident on the Black Spur on 18 January whereby a long tanker, unable to stay in its lane because of the vehicle’s length, pushed an oncoming car into the embankment. As I have raised numerous times in Parliament, the Black Spur is a busy and narrow road and situations like this are of extreme concern to local residents and tourists who use this route. Simple mathematics MOTIONS 150 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021 could determine the maximum length for vehicles to be able to travel along this narrow road without impinging into the oncoming lane and putting other road users at risk. My question is: will the government consider initiating a maximum length for vehicles permitted on the Black Spur, with associated safety measures such as signage and a turnaround area? EASTERN METROPOLITAN REGION Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:56): My question is for the Minister for Local Government. As is the case with many active Victorians, residents in the Eastern Metropolitan Region which I represent very much enjoy bike riding. The region contains so many great trails like the Mullum Mullum trail and also the Gardiners Creek Trail. I used to ride my bike every day to work when I was a deputy principal within my electorate. Unfortunately many cyclists are let down by inadequate cycling infrastructure on our roads and on other trails. Cycling lanes on streets like Mont Albert Road are often choked with debris and have cracked surfaces and parked cars. My question is: what is the minister doing to work with local councils to ensure that the rate-paying cyclists of the region I represent are able to travel safely? Sitting suspended 12.57 pm until 2.05 pm. Motions INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT AGENCY FUNDING Debate resumed. Mr ATKINSON (Eastern Metropolitan) (14:05): At the outset of my contribution I wish to alert the house to the fact that I am proposing an amendment, and I seek to have that amendment circulated. I move:

Omit all the words and expressions after ‘That this’ and insert the following in their place: ‘house, pursuant to section 33 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003, requires the Integrity and Oversight Committee to undertake an urgent inquiry into the adequacy of current and future funding of the Victorian Ombudsman and the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC) and requires the committee to: (1) hold and broadcast public hearings with: (a) Ms Deborah Glass, Victorian Ombudsman; (b) the Honourable Robert Redlich, AM, QC, IBAC’s Commissioner; (2) report to the house by 30 March 2021; (3) advise on best practice models in other jurisdictions for the long-term funding of independent scrutiny agencies in such a way that they are not inhibited from conducting urgent and/or necessary investigations and inquiries; and (4) ensure that this inquiry takes precedence over other committee matters.’. Ms Garrett actually spoke in this debate, and I think that Ms Garrett is a person who as a minister has clearly established her integrity. Many of the remarks that she made in opposing the motion proposed by Mr Davis were significant remarks and suggested a commitment to the oversight of these agencies and the importance of their work in scrutinising the conduct of a number of areas, including our bureaucracy and our agencies, the police and indeed also members of Parliament. Her words were important, but I hasten to add that so often with this government what they say is not necessarily what they mean, because indeed on so many occasions this government has touted the importance of transparency, touted the importance of the integrity of our systems and our processes, and yet too often I think it has not lived up to the very high standard and important standard and valid standard that it has suggested we need to achieve. I think, for instance, of the non-cooperation with the red shirts inquiry, both at an Ombudsman level and at a police level. I wonder at the current cooperation with the Ombudsman’s inquiry into the Somyurek matters. MOTIONS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 151

It is very important for us to ensure that these agencies are independent, that they are unfettered in terms of the rigour with which they can pursue matters in the interests of us as members of Parliament being able to vouch for the integrity of the services and the processes that we have, but also very clearly that rigour is important to the Victorian people. It costs them money. But sometimes it costs so much more than money because corruption is insidious. Corruption can be a contagion and it needs to be stopped. You know, for a long while in Victoria we believed that corruption was something that was really a problem for New South Wales—the Rum Rebellion state could not help itself—and then we saw what happened in Queensland and Western Australia, and begrudgingly in Victoria we came to realise that perhaps we at least ought to have in place machinery to ensure that we do not fall into the same trap of allowing corrupt behaviours to get under the carpet. And indeed it has been proved very clearly the value of IBAC’s and indeed the Ombudsman’s work here in Victoria in recent years. One of the crucial things, though, in terms of the work they do is that it is all very well to give them a charter and to say, ‘Yes, you are to pursue these matters’, but if they are not properly resourced then in fact there is a compromise on that very objective of achieving integrity, of achieving proper scrutiny, of what happens in government—in government agencies and indeed even in the conduct of members of Parliament. I know when I was President we had problems in terms of getting funding even for some of our parliamentary committees—adequate funding—to ensure that they could do the job of work that the Parliament expected of them. Resourcing is very important. So it is troubling that both the IBAC Commissioner and the Ombudsman raise concerns about the level of funding that they have available to them under the budget presented by the Victorian government. We realise—I realise certainly—that there were significant constraints on the budget process in this past 12 months. The COVID priorities obviously made it difficult to approach some of the other issues and priorities of government that might in a normal course of action have received quite different attention. And the government has said, ‘Well, you know, there was adequate funding’—that in fact these agencies were not deprived of sufficient funding to undertake their work. That obviously contrasts significantly with the very public statements of both the IBAC Commissioner and the Ombudsman, and I do note that the government, in terms of trying to perhaps water down some of this criticism, has said, ‘Oh, well, we’ll actually find some supplementary funding for the IBAC Commissioner’. I do note that the government has given an assurance that for expected additional matters that will be referred to at least one of these agencies, and possibly both of these agencies, further funding will be provided to ensure that they can undertake that work. I take those assurances with the hope that they are valid and will actually be delivered by the government. Nonetheless a motion was put today by Mr O’Donohue for Mr Davis that sought a very different process perhaps to what we have been used to. It was a process which would have brought both the IBAC Commissioner and the Ombudsman here into the chamber to discuss with the Parliament the processes that they are going through and their resourcing implications vis-a-vis the budget that has been provided to them. I know that there was some concern amongst some members that this process perhaps set a precedent that they were a little concerned about. They perhaps did not think it was an appropriate process at all. I actually do think there is importance in establishing the connection between the officers of the Parliament, such as the Ombudsman and the IBAC Commissioner and the Auditor-General, and the Parliament, as distinct from with the executive. So I think that there is some value in that. Nonetheless, hearing what some of the members have contributed to this debate and discussions that have been held between some of the members of the opposition and indeed other members of Parliament, I have proposed this amendment on the basis that I think it provides an alternative course of action that I hope the house might be prepared to support today. Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (14:15): I will speak to points raised by the Attorney- General with regard to this motion that is in the house today. I will come back to the specifics of IBAC funding and Ombudsman funding—obviously highly relevant to the motion today—and start with future funding and then go to the heart of what I think is the matter here today. Both the IBAC MOTIONS 152 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021

Commissioner and the Victorian Ombudsman have spoken publicly in recent times, and I do not think there is any disputing this, about their desire to expand their roles and the resourcing requirements for this. They have also spoken about additional requirements that they expect will be placed on them in the future as a result of ongoing reforms, including the implementation of the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants final report—and I know my learned colleague Ms Garrett referred to this—and other critical components of the government integrity and accountability reforms that have given our integrity agencies budget independence. We have been abundantly clear that we will work with IBAC and the Ombudsman to determine and meet funding requirements that may flow from any expanded role, and we will ensure they are funded to fulfil their statutory roles. Now, in coming to the heart of this matter today—I am almost there—in fact there is a budget process underway right now considering these matters, and that is a critical point. Why? It is a shame the opposition have been rather focused on playing politics here and have not bothered to consider the views of our integrity agencies in the preparation of this motion here today. The Ombudsman has said that she does not think it appropriate to present to the Council on these matters as there is a budget process currently underway, and I would have thought that those opposite would want to consider the views of the relevant agencies in the context of what we are discussing here today. Attempting to turn the budget process of government that has for consecutive governments of either colour been a cabinet- in-confidence process attempts to undermine the ability of integrity agencies to provide full and frank advice to government and the well-established deliberative budget processes of executive government. These processes allow all agencies to request additional resources and the government to deliberate on how these requests should be acquitted in the context of the state’s overall budget capacity. Retaining the confidentiality of information provided to the executive government—I am really going here to the heart of processes—through the budget process allows government to give balanced consideration to competing priorities as the state’s overall budget capacity, and we have got to be realistic here, is usually significantly less than the resourcing requests made through the budget process. The attempt by the opposition to turn the budget process into a public bidding war is nothing more than an attempt to completely undermine the independence of the budget process. Members interjecting. Ms TAYLOR: You are putting words in my mouth. That is not what I said. You are putting words in my mouth. This stunt also seeks to completely sideline and undermine the critical role of the Integrity and Oversight Committee, a joint investigatory committee of Parliament. And just to remind those opposite, the Integrity and Oversight Committee was established in 2019 under the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003. Mr Atkinson: On a point of order, Acting President, sorry to intrude, but, Ms Taylor, were you aware of my amendment? Ms TAYLOR: Yes, I am aware of your amendment, but the amendment has not been passed. Mr Atkinson: No, it has not been voted on. But the point is that the speech is actually targeting something that is, if you like, moving on. There has not been an indication of the amendment as well. I just wanted to make sure that you had actually received it. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): It appears the government is aware of the amendment, so they can speak to the substantive motion and the amendment should they want to. Ms TAYLOR: I can speak to both, but the amendment was only just circulated literally a minute ago and you are expecting a 3-hour response right now. I am going to the substantive motion, because at the end of the day we do not know if your amendment will get up anyway. I mean that respectfully. I am sorry that I do not have this perfect response for you with regard to your amendment that may not get up in any case. MOTIONS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 153

Just to remind those opposite, the Integrity and Oversight Committee was established in 2019 under the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003 with specific responsibility to monitor and review the performance of the Victorian integrity agencies, including IBAC and the Victorian Ombudsman. I am sure Mr O’Donohue’s colleagues who are members of the Integrity and Oversight Committee, the honourable member Mr Rowswell and , will be pleased to know how little he and the Liberal-National leadership think of the work they do—that he wants to go over the top of that. This stunt shows those opposite do not understand our Parliament oversight committee structure or alternatively they do not care. Either way it is clear that this motion is nothing more than a very bad attempt at playing political games and should be treated as such. Whilst those opposite want to turn the funding of our integrity agencies into a political football, we will continue to support—critical point—the independence of the budget processes of our agencies and ensure they can fulfil their statutory obligations. Coming back to the issues, obviously there has been a lot of debate about IBAC funding. Let us get down to the heart of that, because I think that also speaks to some extent to some concerns that have been raised by Mr Atkinson. As part of the 2020–21 budget we are providing IBAC with an additional $27.1 million over the next four years, representing a 20 per cent increase of the original base budget for 2021–22. In addition to output funding allocated in the budget, IBAC requested and was authorised access to a further $7.36 million through the ongoing budget process—not reflected in output funding—to be spent in 2020–21. IBAC’s total available funding in 2020–21 is actually 12 per cent higher—and I know my learned colleague did refer to this, but I can hear that there is a lot of debate about the funding and whether it is sufficient—relative to its 2019–20 appropriation, and it will for the first time be indexed going forward. Ombudsman funding: as part of the 2020–21 budget we also built on the previous year’s record $16.3 million funding boost with an additional $3.1 million to further assist the Ombudsman to uncover improper conduct and improper administration to better protect the community. Since the government was elected funding has increased by 37 per cent, far exceeding inflation and CPI growth. The Ombudsman’s most recent annual report published late last year reported an operating surplus of more than $400 000. Further, the Ombudsman reported an increase in its net worth in its balance sheet from $3.46 million in 2018–19 to $4.8 million in 2019–20. It should also be noted that the Ombudsman has met four of its five performance measures over recent years, which does not support the notion that their funding is falling short of what is needed. Fundamentally our government has always been and continues to be committed to supporting the critical role of the Victorian Ombudsman and IBAC, and I know that it is in all our interests to stamp out corruption. It does not fare well for any of us if that is to be perpetuated. I would not in any way resile from our government’s commitment—a 100 per cent commitment—to the independence and the capacity of oversight agencies to fight against corruption. They are not empty words; they are solid words. But I come back to the original consideration also that there are a lot of presumptions being made on what activities the Ombudsman should undertake on the part of those opposite without actually considering what the Ombudsman and other oversight committees are willing or able to do, and that is what has really been shocking about the motion today. There has been a lot of presumption on the other side that if the Liberal Party ask, the Ombudsman will do as they see fit, when in fact we should actually consider the views of the Ombudsman and respective oversight agencies ahead of compelling them to attend to X or Y in this situation. So I think that that is actually galling under the circumstances. There is to be further debate today. I can speak to your point. We have had a moment to consider it. We oppose the amendment because there has been no notice and no consultation. It undermines the committee process, and the committee already has the capacity to hold public hearings and already has with these witnesses. I hope that acquits your question. MOTIONS 154 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (14:25): I prepared to speak to one motion, but with the rather substantial amendment to that motion, will there be three original words in the motion now? Mr Davis interjected. Ms PATTEN: There will be four, will there? Right—four original words in the motion. I do not know if I was unusual in this action, but prior to considering this motion I phoned the Ombudsman this morning to see what she thought about the motion. Much to my surprise, she was very surprised by the motion. She had not heard about it, she had certainly not seen it until I sent it over to her, and she said to me, ‘I think it would be entirely inappropriate for me to appear in the chamber in such a way’. And I thought ‘not only inappropriate but uncomfortable’, because she would have to stand at the gate, we would not be able to provide her with a chair, we probably would not even be able to give her a glass of water. It is not something that we have done. In fact I asked the clerks, ‘When was the last time we did this?’. It was a good 50 years ago, and it was to chastise some journalists about some inappropriate material that they had published. Apparently we then reversed that chastisement a little bit later. But it is not common, and I do not think it is appropriate. However, I am supportive of the proposed amended motion that we have for consideration of this issue. I actually asked the Ombudsman, and she is going to send me some information—if this gets up, I will watch with interest—on how other jurisdictions deal with funding the bodies that provide oversight to the government. How do they do it? I think it is a wicked problem that we pay for the people who are providing the oversight and that can put us into a difficult situation where governments may be seen to withholding funds because they do not like what those oversight bodies are doing. I think that is not a position that governments of any persuasion would like to be accused of being in. So I do think that trying to find some other approach to this that provides some space between the Parliament and those oversight bodies is worthwhile investigating. As I mentioned, I have asked the Ombudsman if she would have a look at how similar offices are funded in other jurisdictions, and she said that she will get back to me about that. I will keep this quite brief because that is really all I had to say about this. Those organisations must operate unfettered. We know that both the Ombudsman and the Commissioner of IBAC, Mr Redlich, are concerned about the lack of funds that they are receiving. They are concerned about the effect that that may have on their work. They are concerned that this may reduce the work that they are doing, and I know that that would be the last thing the public wants. I certainly think of the very substantial work that IBAC has done and the substantial work that the Ombudsman has done, not least that inquiry into the high-rises in Flemington and Kensington and the work that she did there. Let us hope that we never have to be in that situation again, and let us hope that those incredibly hardworking public servants in the Department of Health and housing do not have to make that quite horrible decision that they made again. But I think with the work that was done and with the opportunity of hindsight that the Ombudsman had on that, the dive that she was able to do into the significant human rights issues that she raised in her report, we will not do that again, and we will take the advice and the recommendations of the Ombudsman in that report. I know that there is not a person in this house who does not fully support the independent work of IBAC and of the Ombudsman, but it may not seem that way when you listen to the Ombudsman on ABC or 3AW asking, pleading, for more resources. It may seem that we are starving the body that is keeping us on the straight and narrow and is keeping us honest, and that is not the perception that I think we should be presenting to the public. So I am fully supportive of the amended motion that the Integrity and Oversight Committee undertake a very short, sharp and urgent inquiry. Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:31): I am pleased to rise and support this motion with amendment. I brought this motion to the chamber initially, with the lead speech by Mr O’Donohue, for the purpose of highlighting the ongoing concerns that many of us have about the funding and treatment of both the Victorian Ombudsman and the IBAC—the support for its particular and very important anti-corruption investigations. I have listened to what the crossbench has MOTIONS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 155 said, and for that reason we have suggested that we modify the motion, under the version just brought to the chamber by Mr Atkinson. It is, I think, a reasonable way to highlight it. I will lay down my concerns. The Integrity and Oversight Committee, or the accountability and oversight committee, in my view has not done enough. I have got colleagues on it, as has been pointed out, and they are in a minority. It is a tame cat government committee—let us be quite clear about it; it has a massive government majority—and it has not been strong enough in standing up for independent agencies and fighting with government on their behalf. Hopefully this sort of motion, a motion that actually says, ‘You know, you’ve really got to get on and look at this closely and come back with some sensible ideas’, is a way of moving this forward. I think we all want the independent agencies to have the resources and wherewithal and support to do the work they need to do. We know that corruption is a serious issue, and I pay tribute to the work done by IBAC recently in the portfolio that I shadow, the transport portfolio, and the transport infrastructure side of the portfolio. We have seen with V/Line, for example—and I just use this as a case study— major spending, including major spending during the COVID crisis, siphoned off in corrupt payments. This is very serious stuff—very serious, very wasteful—and I pay tribute to IBAC’s work in uncovering that, in rooting it out on every turn. If they need more resources, from my perspective it is money well spent. This is the kind of spending that actually returns a dividend to the community because it actually stops this kind of corruption; it stops this kind of waste of taxpayers money. So this is where good governance, good practice and good outcomes actually deliver a dividend to the community. That is one of the reasons I brought this motion. The opposition created the IBAC. It was the Baillieu government that created the IBAC. The Bracks and Brumby governments refused to have an independent broad-based anti-corruption commission. We introduced it. That is not to say that it is immutable forever. It is not to say that it cannot be reformed and improved and strengthened as time goes on. And in a sense, that is what we are suggesting here: that a short, sharp inquiry could actually get to a good outcome that would lead to a better result for both commissioners, both independent officers. I do say I am troubled by the way this government has treated those independent officers. I am troubled by comments the Premier has made. I am troubled by comments that the Treasurer has made at various points. These are very serious matters, and they need to understand that. I get that if the Labor Party is being inquired into, it is very awkward for the Labor Party to provide additional resources to the IBAC Commissioner or an ombudsman who is looking at their matters—corruption or improper behaviour inside the Labor Party itself. I get that it is a problem for them, and I get that they are awkward about it. But they have got to be big enough to get over that and actually say, ‘We still have to resource these agencies properly because it is in the community’s interest and, frankly, probably in the government’s interests long term’. Cleaning this kind of stuff up is actually in the government’s interests, in the community’s interests and even potentially in the Labor Party’s interests if it is cleaned up somewhat by these agencies. So I say we have a problem with this government. They have not resourced the agencies. Both Deborah Glass and the IBAC Commissioner have been very clear that they have funding issues—that this is actually limiting their ability to do the investigations and inquiries that are necessary. As I said, it is good value. You know, an inquiry that cleans up corruption on major projects, an inquiry that cleans up corruption in tendering, is actually going to deliver a dividend to the state. So this is one of those things where spending money delivers not just clean government. Transparency International has made a lot of commentary about this around the world, where good independent agencies and good processes actually provide economic dividends as well as the immediate government savings—a clean economy—and the first place the government can start with a clean economy is an economy where government services are clean, where government services are not corrupt, where the right decisions are made and where the right governance is in place across the public sector. So I say, ‘Let’s lead by example. Let’s put in place the right mechanisms’. The Integrity and Oversight Committee should get MOTIONS 156 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021 off its tail and actually do the work that is necessary. It has got a purview, and this fits clearly within the purview. Let us have a short, sharp inquiry that actually gets some really significant runs on the board. I want to say something about the budget process. The government talks about the budget process as some coverall. Well, this goes deeper than that actually—it goes much deeper than that—and the Parliament, which authorises the spending, has a right to look at some of these matters. When it comes to funding for integrity agencies—officers of the Parliament no less—the chamber does have the right to scrutinise and the Integrity and Accountability Committee does have the right to ask questions and to dig deeper. I say that the chamber should become more active in the future, more active in actually pressing for some of these matters. That is one reason why this year during the budget process we moved an amendment for an additional set of resources that fitted with some of the requests that were in the public domain by the IBAC Commissioner and the Ombudsman. So those amendments were also new. They have not been made in that suggested form on an appropriation of Parliament bill very often in the past, or not in recent times, but we treat this with great seriousness. The opposition is very, very concerned about a number of these aspects. We are very concerned that if the tap is turned off, if the screws are turned on the Ombudsman, if the screws are turned on the IBAC Commissioner, if the screws are tightened on IBAC, they cannot do the work they need to do, and that really troubles me. I think the opposition has listened to what the crossbench has said on a number of these points and hence this amendment—and thank you, Mr Atkinson, for bringing this forward. So that amendment, I think, addresses any of the concerns the crossbench might have had about the format that we originally had. We need a bright light on this. We need a spotlight in fact right on these matters, and we need to have those reports quickly. I am conscious Ms Taylor has raised the budget process. Well, the budget comes down in May. This time cycle is crafted to ensure that there is actually some input into that budget process and there is some input into the process that is transparent and public. Where you have got integrity agencies that are committed to transparency, committed to openness and committed to shining a light on things, you cannot do deals with government as part of the budget process in the dark, behind the scenes, in the hallway somewhere where no-one can see them. No, that is not the right way to go. It needs to be done in an open way. This gives an opportunity for some of these discussions to be had openly, where the commissioners can say, ‘We need resources. We will be clipped if we do not have the proper resources’. So I say to the chamber, I implore the chamber, ‘Please support this amendment and the consequent motion after the amendment because we will have a better outcome’. We have listened, we have suggested a change to what was there and we think that that will give a better process—a process that strengthens integrity in this state, strengthens the position of the Ombudsman and strengthens the position of the IBAC Commissioner. Mr ERDOGAN (Southern Metropolitan) (14:40): I rise to join with my colleagues on this side of the house in opposition to this motion and the amendment. I only just received the amendment, I might add, but nonetheless I feel that this motion is more grandstanding and playing politics and would set a bad precedent for this place. For a number of reasons— Mr O’Donohue interjected. Mr ERDOGAN: Mr O’Donohue, I will address some of your issues. You raised the issue of the Westminster system and the culture of accountability, so you would understand the separation-of- powers principle: the difference between the executive, the judiciary and the legislature. This is an important mechanism in our democracy, and I think the budget process, broadly speaking, involves confidentiality of documents of the executive. To set aside this sort of precedent would mean a public bidding process for every government department or body. On the importance of stopping corruption—of integrity, of accountability—we should all agree that it is vital, because ultimately the people who lose out from the impacts of corruption disproportionately MOTIONS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 157 are the poorest in our society globally. As many of you also should agree with—the World Economic Forum has written about this many times—the effect of corruption globally is multiple trillions of dollars usually funnelled away from the poorest people. Some on the other side might not have a problem with trillion-dollar debt—they can ask their federal colleagues about that—but there is an economic cost because it undermines public trust in government, it wastes public resources and it means there is a problem that people have in causing injustice as there is a disadvantage caused to people. Usually the people who are disadvantaged are the poorest and those from low socio-economic backgrounds already. So we all know that stopping corruption is important. Our bodies in charge, such as the Ombudsman and IBAC, are crucial mechanisms that are part of the public accountability mechanism and the transparency we have in our democratic Westminster system. We have a free and open media in this country. That is all part of it: a free, open media and good, strong integrity bodies. But I am proud of this government’s record in increasing funding for these bodies. If you look, year on year there are continual increases in funding for IBAC and the Ombudsman. Before I rose to speak on this issue I asked the Attorney-General’s office if the Ombudsman had been consulted as a stakeholder as part of drafting this motion. I do not believe that Deborah Glass, the Ombudsman, had been consulted about whether she believes it is appropriate to appear before this Council or, for that matter, the committee as part of that process. It is disappointing, Mr Davis, that you do not expect a lot of confidence in your colleagues in the other place who are on that committee and in the job they are doing to hold the government to account. Is that a reflection of their performance? Is that what you are stating? Members interjecting. Mr ERDOGAN: They have an opportunity to raise their concerns. I do feel that by playing politics with such an important issue or such an important government body you can undermine our institutions and the public’s confidence about how they operate. We have seen globally what populist politics can do to undermine confidence in democracy broadly. Mr Finn, you might know a bit about that. But, broadly speaking, I think democracy and the Westminster system operate best when there is an open discussion, and I think it is fair to have a discussion about integrity bodies. So I am glad that the integrity bodies were set up the way they were. We already had the Ombudsman, we had IBAC set up and the funding has continually increased. I know some of my colleagues have spoken about the amount of funding increases that this government has made, but I think it is important to touch upon some of them again for the benefit of the record. Since getting elected, this government has increased IBAC’s budget by 20 per cent just in the last year. In the next four years it will increase by $27 million. I note that IBAC’s budget increase of 20 per cent over that time is considerably more than some other agencies. It might be a needs basis, it might be for a number of reasons, but I think it is important work and it is worthwhile, and so we should be supporting our agencies. But I think without consulting them, calling them before this house or this chamber or to the committee would not be fair. I think a broader consultation over such a motion would be needed—for example, the amendment, as I read, would bring it to the relevant committee. Like I said, I only just received it before rising in this place. Both the IBAC Commissioner and the Victorian Ombudsman have spoken publicly in recent times of their desire to expand in performing their role, but I think it is abundantly clear that we should work with IBAC and the Ombudsman to determine and meet funding requirements that may flow from any expanded role. That budget process is underway, and it is a budget process for which usually the executive confidentiality is respected amongst all the competing priorities. Obviously many government departments want expanded funding. Who does not want bigger, better, newer hospitals? So we are building that. People need, with the population growing, bigger, better, new schools, so we are doing that. Our agencies required more funding, so we have increased their funding by about 20 per cent. But ultimately it is a competing interest, as we all understand. I do not think we want a running MOTIONS 158 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021 commentary on every single government department’s funding process and to potentially breach the confidentiality of the executive, which is an important pillar of the Westminster system and the checks and balances. So in rising to speak on the substantive motion and the amendment, I would have to agree with my colleagues who spoke prior and I would have to vote against the motion as it stands. Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (14:47): The integrity of our democracy requires strong independent accountability bodies. This has been proven time and time again. If left without oversight, governments will go off the rails. Decisions will be made in the interests of donors and mates and not the community. Anti-corruption commissions and the Ombudsman are two of the most important bodies we have to protect and oversee our democracy. Particularly here in Victoria, where we have one of the least democratic parliaments in the country, the Ombudsman and IBAC are essential to ensuring the government and our public service are acting in the best interests of the community. Powerful and properly resourced anti-corruption bodies have become a necessity around Australia. Only at the federal level is one lacking. Every state has one, and they have all been shown to be absolutely necessary. Whether it is police corruption, approving coalmines for cash, property developer corruption or misappropriation in relation to government contracts, anti-corruption commissions hold governments to account. Regardless of their politics, the reality is money and power do corrupt. The Ombudsman also plays an essential role in holding governments and the public service to account for how they are delivering on their promises and the services the community needs. The Ombudsman often embarrasses the government of the day, but the point is to learn from the findings of the Ombudsman, not pretend everything is okay when it is not. Both the IBAC Commissioner and the Ombudsman made quite extraordinary statements around last year’s budget indicating their concerns about appropriate resourcing to enable them to do their respective jobs. The government’s response was to try and wave the concerns away, but the reality is that they do not like accountability. No government does, but when the IBAC Commissioner and the Ombudsman are taking the very unusual step of going public with concerns about funding it is incumbent on the government to listen—and if they do not, the Parliament certainly will and should. IBAC is proving its value to the community with serious investigations into allegedly corrupt conduct of property developers and their relationships with local councillors and state MPs. Victoria desperately needs to break the influence of property developers on our cities and suburbs. The current IBAC inquiry has now lifted the lid on how the community is locked out of key decisions that affect it. Instead, fancy lunches and bags of cash seem to be the way business is done. For years the Greens have been calling for IBAC to be expanded to play a more significant role in investigating complaints against the police. It is beyond time that the police in Victoria are no longer allowed to investigate themselves. We urgently need an independent body to investigate the police, and IBAC, with sufficient funding, could do this important work. The Ombudsman plays a crucial role in looking to resolve disputes between members of the community and government agencies. One area I am particularly concerned about is resolution of complaints by public housing residents. Residents take a wide range of concerns to the Ombudsman, including maintenance and repair issues, faulty appliances, broken plumbing, out-of-order lifts and mould. The incompetence of the previous Department of Health and Human Services meant that the needs of public housing tenants were neglected and often ignored, leading tenants to turn to the Ombudsman for help. The Ombudsman’s inquiry into the public housing lockdown is another example of carefully investigating government actions and their impact on the community. The finding that the lockdown breached the human rights of the public housing residents may have been inconvenient for the government, but hopefully they are taking her findings seriously so that it does not happen again. To keep doing its important work, the Ombudsman has clearly stated she needs more funding. MOTIONS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 159

Recently the Ombudsman played a pivotal role in shining a light on the darkest areas of human rights abuses in the state, including the appalling case where a woman with a mental impairment was held in the solitary confinement cells of a Victorian prison for 18 months for no other reason than there was, and I quote, ‘nowhere for her to go’ to manage her behaviour. The Ombudsman has found such regular abuses in our exploding prison population are not isolated. Australia having recently ratified the UN’s optional protocol to the convention against torture means that the Victorian Ombudsman will likely have a significant additional role in monitoring ongoing compliance with these obligations in Victoria in addition to her ongoing essential work. The government has raised procedural issues with this motion before us—that it is not appropriate to ask the IBAC Commissioner or the Ombudsman to appear before the Legislative Council. While we have some sympathy for that position, what the government has not done is commit to an alternative process whereby parliamentarians can question the Commissioner and the Ombudsman to discuss their concerns about resourcing. In the absence of the government being prepared to support a committee referral, they are just hiding behind process to avoid accountability. On that note, I note the amendment that has been moved by the opposition that seeks to find a pathway through some of those procedural concerns that have been raised, which I think is an improvement on the original motion. We will be supporting the amendment. Accountability matters, so we will be supporting both this motion and the amendment proposed to try and negate some of the critique of the procedural issues that have been raised. Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (14:52): It seems common sense to me that when we are in this emergency situation where the government is spending massive amounts of money there would be increased opportunities for integrity issues and corruption to exist. Similarly, we find ourselves in the pandemic and we are still under these emergency powers, and the purpose and the net effect of using these emergency powers is to limit the rights of Victorians and to bypass some democratic processes. These two agencies help investigate these problems with corruption and problems with human rights. It seems very obvious to me that their budgets also need to increase commensurately with the extra work that they have to do. It is not only common sense, it is also something that was published by the OECD last year, in April 2020. They highlighted the fact that during health crises and economic recessions there is an increased risk of corruption and other integrity violations. We have already seen the great work that the Ombudsman has done during the public housing tower lockdown, investigating the horrible things that happened to those people and what she outlined were human rights violations. My concern is that the Ombudsman may not have had the resources to investigate many other things that I consider could have been human rights violations that may have happened. This is only one scenario. It is the only public health direction that she has investigated as far as I am aware, and she found it was violating human rights. So I would like her to have the resources and abilities to investigate whatever is put to her attention. We have seen signalling from the government that they are going to be extending the state of emergency further. It is absolutely imperative that if that happens, we have mechanisms to look at the actions that the government is taking and are able to come up with suggestions on things that they might have to do differently. I note that there are already things they are looking into at the moment that will take a large amount of resources. IBAC is already looking at investigation into cleaning contracts, so this is another procurement issue that has been highlighted as a potential risk by the OECD. These things take a lot of time, and as some of my colleagues have already indicated, the things that come out in the public are probably only the tiny, tiny part of the work that they do. They probably investigate hundreds of these things to find out that maybe there is nothing there. So there is a lot of work that you would not see, especially in IBAC, I would imagine. Similarly with the Ombudsman, they have opened an investigation into the Business Support Fund, another issue related to the government’s spending. Clearly we are going to see more spending MOTIONS 160 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021 throughout the next budget cycle, so it seems to me entirely appropriate that both the Ombudsman and IBAC can have the opportunity to say what things they see on their radar that require funding. They have made clear public statements begging for some sort of assistance, so it seems appropriate to me that they get the opportunity to tell the Parliament and the public how they are going to use these public resources and how that is going to benefit Victorians. Again, this is one of the few times that I stand up in Parliament and ask for increased resources to a government organisation, but I think in this case it is absolutely imperative that these two bodies be given more funding, especially in the current scenario when we have massively increased risks, in terms of both human rights and corruption risks. Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (14:57): I would like to thank all speakers for their contributions to the debate and thank Mr Atkinson for moving the amendment following the feedback and the consultation Mr Davis has done with members of the crossbench. Referral to the Integrity and Oversight Committee is an appropriate way to address this clear issue. I just want to deal with the government’s response to this motion—that somehow having public hearings and hearing from these integrity agencies would undermine the budget process. Well, I have news for government members who have spoken on this motion: funding the IBAC Commissioner or the Ombudsman is not the same as funding a level crossing or a road upgrade or 10 new hospital beds. It is not part of normal executive government funding programs and funding infrastructure. It goes to the heart of integrity in the operation of our democracy and the spending of billions of dollars of state government resources. As Mr Davis and I think Mr Limbrick said, if you have appropriate procurement that is clear, with no corruption, it will save government money. So this is not a politicisation of the process. It is actually giving a standing to these agencies that other normal government bids that every department and every minister have been through in the budget process do not deserve and do not need. I do not want to see what the expenditure review committee does with its funding for new medical services and new road facilities. To conflate the two is either dishonest or to misunderstand how government works and the central responsibility of these agencies to integrity in government. That is why these agencies are not a part of executive government, they are accountable to the Parliament. I welcome the debate today. I thank Mr Davis for bringing this motion and look forward to the chamber’s support for this very important referral. House divided on amendment:

Ayes, 16 Atkinson, Mr Davis, Mr Meddick, Mr Bach, Dr Finn, Mr O’Donohue, Mr Barton, Mr Hayes, Mr Patten, Ms Bath, Ms Limbrick, Mr Quilty, Mr Bourman, Mr McArthur, Mrs Ratnam, Dr Crozier, Ms Noes, 18 Cumming, Dr Leane, Mr Tarlamis, Mr Elasmar, Mr Maxwell, Ms Taylor, Ms Erdogan, Mr Pulford, Ms Terpstra, Ms Garrett, Ms Shing, Ms Tierney, Ms Grimley, Mr Stitt, Ms Vaghela, Ms Kieu, Dr Symes, Ms Watt, Ms Amendment negatived. MOTIONS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 161

House divided on motion:

Ayes, 15 Atkinson, Mr Crozier, Ms McArthur, Mrs Bach, Dr Davis, Mr Meddick, Mr Barton, Mr Finn, Mr O’Donohue, Mr Bath, Ms Limbrick, Mr Quilty, Mr Bourman, Mr Lovell, Ms Ratnam, Dr Noes, 20 Cumming, Dr Leane, Mr Tarlamis, Mr Elasmar, Mr Maxwell, Ms Taylor, Ms Erdogan, Mr Patten, Ms Terpstra, Ms Garrett, Ms Pulford, Ms Tierney, Ms Grimley, Mr Shing, Ms Vaghela, Ms Hayes, Mr Stitt, Ms Watt, Ms Kieu, Dr Symes, Ms Motion negatived. COVID-19 Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (15:10): I am very pleased to be able to stand and speak to my motion 472. The motion relates to a very important issue that arose from the government’s decision on New Year’s Eve. I move:

That this house: (1) expresses concern at the Andrews government’s rushed decision on the afternoon of 31 December 2020 to shut the border between Victoria and New South Wales which caused confusion for Victorians; and (2) calls on the Andrews government, in the interest of transparency, to release all expert health advice and any other advice in relation to the decision made on 31 December 2020 to close the border with New South Wales, including but not limited to the logistics of closing the border. As I said at the outset, this affected so many Victorians. Tens and tens of thousands of Victorians were caught short because of this rushed decision. In fact it was not just a rushed decision, it was a botched decision. The Acting Premier, who herself did not know the details of what she was announcing, because she was actually within a bubble, the cross-border bubble, came out at 3.30 pm on New Year’s Eve and told Victorians that they had to get back by midnight that night, New Year’s Eve, otherwise they would be subject to 14 days of isolation and testing if they did not make the deadline. What was extraordinary about that 3.30 pm decision was that there was a press conference at 11.00 am on the same day, just 4½ hours prior, with the minister talking about all things relating to COVID but not a mention of the potential for this border closure. This decision was not only rushed but dangerous, and it was dangerous because of the tens of thousands of Victorians who were trying to get home so that they were not caught up in this absolute debacle. Because the government was demanding and mandating that you had to be tested within 24 hours of getting back and then go into self-isolation for 14 days, that caused so much disruption to so many people for their work, for a whole range of issues, and it is incredible that the government was so ill prepared. It beggars belief, their decision-making process and what they were relying on that was causing this panicked, chaotic, confusing decision that really disadvantaged many and has been ongoing for weeks and weeks and weeks. I know that my colleagues in here, Mrs McArthur and others, were dealing with these issues, as I am sure government MPs were too because it affected their constituents. We are talking of tens of thousands of Victorians being caught up in this absolutely chaotic decision. We have never had a full explanation other than to say, ‘Oh well, we needed to wait for cabinet to sign off on it’. But there was no consideration at that 11.00 am presser that that would maybe occur. So what on earth was the government acting on? What panicked them? What decisions were they MOTIONS 162 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021 making? Or was it just another kneejerk captain’s call from the Premier, who was probably down at Sorrento with the Foxes having a lovely lunch down there on the eve of New Year’s Eve? He was down there a fair bit, so I am led to believe. He was seen by a few having a very relaxing time over Christmas. I am not denying him a break. Everyone needed a break. Mr Finn: Did he sign a contract, I wonder? Ms CROZIER: Well, that is a good question, Mr Finn. I wonder what he did sign and how many contracts he signed. But nevertheless, let us get back to this issue, which is incredibly important, because apparently the Acting Premier said that she was on the phone to the Premier while he was on holidays all the time about this. So was it another captain’s call? Victorians deserve to have the absolute understanding of why these decisions were made. Victorians went through a huge amount last year: 111 days locked in our homes in lockdown; the devastation of the botched decisions—policy decisions made by the Andrews government—that led to the death of over 800 Victorians, the loss of livelihoods. And look at the ‘For lease’ signs that are in shopping strips all over this city, in the suburbs, across our state. They will never reopen. The devastation and the loss of economic activity and loss of jobs has not been felt; it was only JobKeeper and the federal government’s interventions that saved this government from absolute pure destruction in this state. But there was enough destruction and this decision was so rushed, and that is why I am saying that the house and Victorians deserve to understand what the health advice was. I want to read into the debate some examples of just what I am talking about, because this is not me saying it, it is actually Victorians. I have got quite a bit to read here, so please forgive me:

On the 31st of December 2020 while in the Maitland and Newcastle area on holiday we saw the government’s calls at approximately 3.30 pm for all Victorians to return home by 11.50 pm on 1/1/21. We had plans and booked accommodation in regional New South Wales until 9th of January 2021 but forfeited it all and bought flights home to Melbourne for my daughter and I and made plans for my husband to drive our car home and meet us at home to self-isolate together for 14 days. They could not get back before midnight. She said:

We believe this was the instruction of the government to us as Victorian residents. So this woman and her daughter flew home to Melbourne from Newcastle via Canberra. She said:

AFP officers spoke to us in Canberra to confirm where we were travelling from and approved us to board the onward flight to Melbourne. My husband drove to the Victorian border from Newcastle, arriving at the border at 9.30 am on the 1st of January 2021. We made the decision to travel separately as my daughter was sleeping poorly due to teething and does not cope well with long car trips with little opportunity to take breaks due to the time sensitivity, so it would be safer for my daughter and I to fly home while my husband drove and took all our possessions with him. We got to Melbourne and we were immediately detained. We were given water but not given food for the entire time we were detained at the airport. From 10.00 am to 5.00 pm we were detained at the airport on a bus. My daughter was inconsolable and confused, and I was incredibly distressed by then hearing that my husband had been turned back at the border and was not allowed into Victoria. Nobody could tell me what would happen to us, and we were just told to wait until someone could talk to us about our situation. Eventually, at about 2.00 or 3.00 pm, we were handed detention notices telling us we were prohibited persons and would be taken to mandatory hotel quarantine. This is the government talking to its own citizens like criminals, for goodness sake. She continued:

There were 16 returned Victorian residents in one unventilated gate lounge in close proximity— when we are meant to be in this COVID disaster, and they are all on top of one another—

for 6 hours without being given clarity as to our situation. Upon speaking to the senior authorised officer asking about getting an exemption and being allowed to quarantine at home as planned, he told me he would escalate the situation with his superiors but an hour later advised me to enter hotel quarantine in order to give my daughter an opportunity to rest. He told us that we could apply for an exemption with the assistance of the authorised officers … MOTIONS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 163 at the Holiday Inn in the Melbourne Airport, where they were going. But then it goes on:

We were then taken onto the tarmac and boarded onto a SkyBus. We were told we had to wait for luggage to be loaded onto the bus and waited 90 minutes, without anybody being allowed to leave the bus to go to the bathroom. She went on to tell me:

We have been at the Holiday Inn since 5.00 pm on 1 January and we have been told different things every time we speak to a nurse or an authorised officer as to how we can apply for our detention to be reviewed or exempted. We have been told there is no process in place to deal with exemptions from quarantine or contesting quarantine for domestic arrivals. This is the scenario that I was dealing with for days and days and days—an example of something that people like this woman and others had been caught up in. Her husband was stuck in New South Wales. He could not get across the border, because the government would not allow him back to be reunited with his family. How utterly ridiculous. How utterly cruel. How utterly thoughtless and senseless. No common sense was applied to this decision whatsoever. They travelled back to Melbourne in good faith, thinking that they were doing the right thing, but they were caught up in this botched, rushed, chaotic decision. As I said, I have got email after email from people who have said to me ‘I have lost out on work’, ‘I started a new job in December’, ‘I have been caught out’ and ‘I could not possibly get back in the time that the government told me to get back’. People are still struggling because they fell through the cracks. They did not test COVID positive or they were not associated with somebody who had, so they were not entitled to any payments. I have put this in this week through a constituency question, asking on behalf on my constituents: how do these people get support? They have rent, they have registration to pay—they have a whole range of things—and these poor people were speaking in desperation to me, so frustrated. I will give you another example, where somebody who wrote to me said:

We are on the mid-north coast with family and found out on New Year’s Eve evening of the new restrictions and ridiculously tight time frame to return. We do not have a car here. We could not physically have returned on New Year’s Eve. There were no flights available from here on New Year’s Eve nor 1 January. All car hire places within 100 kilometres were closed. We had no means of getting home. Even if they did, he said:

Certainly we could not get through within the time frames that we were told that we needed to get across the border. They could not do it safely without the breaks. And the chief health officer said that you could get through. No, I beg your pardon. I am incorrect. It was not the chief health officer, it was that fancy title for Jeroen Weimar. Mr Finn: The czar. Ms CROZIER: What is he? A member: Didn’t he work for V/Line or something? Ms CROZIER: He did—for the level crossing removals—and botched that. He is the commissioner for contact tracing—my apologies to the chief health officer; it certainly was not him. But he said he could get through New South Wales with just two 15-minute breaks. What a dangerous message to tell Victorians: to race back and break everything that we have heard in TAC ads for years and years and years. ‘If you are tired, rest’, ‘falling asleep will kill you’, ‘drowsy driving will kill you’—we get those messages. That was just a very irresponsible, outrageous thing for him to say. It just shows that they were not thinking about what it meant to the tens of thousands of people that needed to get back to Victoria because of this decision that was made—for what reason? There were cases, but the New South Wales government was managing it. And haven’t we seen how New South MOTIONS 164 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021

Wales has been able to manage these outbreaks, in stark contrast to what happened here in Victoria— the devastation and destruction that have occurred. What is happening in other states with one case? Locking borders, locking cities down—this is just ridiculous. If we are to get on and be able to manage our situation, then these people who are making these decisions need to understand that their decisions are impacting everyday Victorians. Victorians did go to green zones. Green zones were okay to go to. They did not go to central . Most of these people were going to green zones, as the government had indicated. They had not said, ‘Do not go to New South Wales whatsoever’. They did not say that. They said that about the red spot in Sydney. They gave the impression and they gave the green light for green zones for New South Wales with their fancy traffic light system, which again has just been a kneejerk reaction to the botched decision of New Year’s Eve. I cannot begin to tell you the number of distressed phone calls I received and the number of distressed people that rang me to say ‘I’ve got to get back to my family; I’m stuck’ and ‘I went across the border to see my family because I haven’t been able to see them for almost a year, because we were doing the right thing in lockdown. We were doing everything the government asked us, and we thought we were doing the right thing by going to these green zones and having a holiday and seeing our family and friends over this period’. What a shambles that was. I think it epitomised just how this government has handled this whole thing—kneejerk, rushed. Absolutely it has been all about the government’s impression about what they are doing for the community without taking into consideration the actions and the decisions they are making. It was unbelievable, it was dangerous, it was unreasonable and it certainly impacted tens and tens of thousands of Victorians. The government will argue, ‘Well, we told you not to go; it was at your own risk’. And I certainly got that back from those trolls on social media that are too pathetic and too gutless to put their true names to their faces even though we know who they are and they work in half the government. Mr Finn: One is in the Premier’s office. Ms CROZIER: The Premier’s office, the minister’s office. Mr PR Guy—we know who you are. Really and truly, it is just pathetic. Dr Bach: Jenny Mikakos said the trolls came out of the Premier’s office. Ms CROZIER: Well, she did. Jenny Mikakos did, Dr Bach. She did say the trolls came out of the Premier’s office. She would know. She was part of the government. She was part of the strategy. She was part of all of this and she knows those decisions that were made, and she has come out and basically told that hotel quarantine inquiry, ‘Don’t believe a word the Premier said’. Well, I do not think Victorians will forget. I know the government does want Victorians to forget all of those issues around the hotel quarantine—the ‘I can’t recall; I can’t remember’ by the Premier, the ministers and others. We have seen this week the legal costs. They were all legalled up to make those calls. They have held Victorians in contempt and disregard. They have held this Parliament in contempt and disregard. They have shut us down. They have shut us down of any scrutiny. They tried to shut us down, but this house voted against that. That was a very good thing. Not the other place but this house had the gumption to take on the government and to have that accountability and scrutiny that this government needs, because if ever there was a time it was when decisions like this were made on New Year’s Eve that they need to be scrutinised, because that could have ended in catastrophe. I know people that were spoken to on the borders by police, and they said, ‘Please, just go through. We can’t check you; it is too dangerous’. I know people personally who that happened to. Mrs McArthur: What a farce. Ms CROZIER: An absolute farce, Mrs McArthur. And then the next thing, which also was farcical, was the cross-border bubble. From Wagga to Bendigo you were in the cross-border bubble; you could actually move around in the bubble. The Acting Premier did not know that. She was actually MOTIONS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 165 in the bubble. How hopeless. And what is more, people going from Gippsland to see their parents in Moama then got caught up in the whole cross-border thing and had to come back. But their parents: ‘No, they’re in the bubble, so they can travel all over Victoria’. I mean, the whole thing was an absolute farce, and it just describes another episode of Utopia. If they ever, ever start that series up again, they will have series after series after what has gone on with this government. But sadly I should not be so flippant because— Ms Tierney interjected. Ms CROZIER: People’s lives have been lost because of your government’s decisions, Ms Tierney, and people’s livelihoods have been affected, like this man who is saying, ‘How am I going to pay my registration? How am I going to pay my rent? Because I don’t meet any of the government’s criteria to get any support’. He is a man so desperate to say, ‘You promised us, Premier, and yet you don’t care’. He was heartfelt, and I have got to say that these decisions affect people’s lives. Yes, we have got a pandemic; we know that. It is unprecedented. We will hear that from government MPs. We all know that. But New South Wales has been able to manage this in a much more sophisticated, transparent way. Mrs McArthur: Without the deaths as well. Ms CROZIER: Without the deaths. And that is another thing: the transparency, Mrs McArthur. Every day you see on the New South Wales government Twitter all the details: how many people have had COVID, the deaths and the running stats since the pandemic started. It is the same with South Australia and the same with other states. Not here in Victoria. You will only get the last 24 hours tweeted out by the department. They do not want to tell just how many lives have been lost and compare it and how many people have had COVID, because that is their track record of the absolute destruction and devastation that has been inflicted upon this state because of this government’s policy failures. The New Year’s Eve decision was just another failure, and that is why I am saying, in the interests of all Victorians, in the interests of transparency and in the interests of decency: give us the information—every bit of information—that made that decision. And all the , I hope you are listening to this, because your constituents were caught up with this too, and I hope you will support me in supporting this motion to get that information because all of those Victorians deserve that, just like they deserved answers to the hotel quarantine. We did not get that; all we got was spin and a load of claptrap. It was a farce, as we know. We got more out of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee report that was tabled yesterday on contact tracing than we did the hotel quarantine inquiry. That money was wasted on legalling up those ministers, as I said before. Victorians deserve to know the truth. They deserve transparency from this government. Enough of the spin, enough of the cover-ups—tell us what made the decision. Release all of the advice, the logistics, why you said all the police would be up there for weeks on end— A member: And how much did that cost? Ms CROZIER: Well, it left police stations unmanned. I have spoken to police who said that crime was going up. On all of those things Victorians deserve a lot better than these kneejerk decisions that were made by an Acting Premier that had no clue what she was talking about. I urge all members in this house, in the interests of Victorians and transparency and decency, as I said, to support all of that information being released to this house and to Victorians as a matter of priority. Mr ERDOGAN (Southern Metropolitan) (15:31): I wish to begin by expressing my sympathies for everyone affected by the various public health measures throughout this global pandemic. It truly was a challenging year for everyone, for all . But specifically in relation to this motion before the house, I rise to oppose Ms Crozier’s motion as it criticises the Victorian government’s decision to enforce border restrictions between New South Wales and Victoria whilst New South MOTIONS 166 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021

Wales was experiencing a coronavirus outbreak. She should know that this virus is very close to home for us in Southern Metropolitan. It was genomically linked to Black Rock, the New South Wales variant of the virus, and if these measures were not taken, the outbreak and the resultant outcome could have been far more grave in Southern Metropolitan. So I make no apologies for us protecting the people of Southern Metropolitan and all of Victoria. The safety and wellbeing of Victorians has been the top priority, and in making those decisions we have always been guided by expert health advice. All Victorians have made sacrifices throughout this period, in particular regarding COVID-19, but we have achieved together—all of us, regardless of your political colours, your footy club et cetera—and we have all safeguarded our achievement. We are a world example now in bringing down the number of COVID cases. Whilst the rest of the world has experienced third or fourth outbreaks with thousands of cases daily, in Victoria we were at thousands of cases and we brought it down to zero. That is a credit to the health team, to the government for their policies and to the health professionals who we relied upon. The implementation of the recent border system is an example of the actions we are taking. But decisions around borders are not taken lightly. They are made judiciously and considered and informed by expert advice, as I have stated. This decision was based on expert advice from the same public health experts that saw us extinguish the second wave in the later part of 2020. The lessons of the pandemic have taught us that the cost of inaction is too high and doing nothing is not an option in this case. We must do whatever it takes to keep Victoria safe and open. We were all able to enjoy visiting our families, catching up with loved ones and going out shopping—returning to a new COVID normal over the summer break. I know I did, and in Southern Metropolitan Region we enjoyed the beaches, the public parks and even the new off-leash dog parks that we are building in Southern Metropolitan. But the Black Rock outbreak being genomically linked to the Northern Beaches of Sydney outbreak I think brought home that the risk still exists. We have not defeated this virus yet, and the global pandemic rages on. But by implementing the traffic light border system the government has been quick and decisive to respond to outbreaks. I had a quick look before getting up to speak on this motion, and it seems quite a straightforward system. There are explanations of how the system operates, and hearing from constituents that had to apply for their permit and use the online system, they could understand. I have a number of constituents that came back from the Gold Coast. The Gold Coast was a green zone, so it was as easy as filling in the application form, and they flew back to Melbourne without qualms. But I understand some people were caught in orange or red zones, and that would have been quite challenging, but I guess this global pandemic has taught us that it is— Ms Crozier interjected. Mr ERDOGAN: Well, the border communities have been affected throughout the pandemic. It is the way I guess the federation was set up for many people. But I mean, we have tried to ease it with this traffic system, with the border bubbles et cetera that you yourself have mentioned, Ms Crozier. I guess a contact trace needs to be quick to track anyone who has entered Victoria, and the traffic light system allows us to identify everyone because they will be getting that permit before arriving here. By gathering information our contact-tracing team will be well placed to identify and limit the spread of any virus. This means that we do not need to put in place other local restrictions which have an impact on communities and business across the state. Victoria’s public health experts continue to monitor the situation in other states and territories, and the government will continue to be guided by the health advice that helped us navigate the most difficult periods of the pandemic. The government is committed to ensuring that any measure that is required to prevent the spread of the coronavirus in the community is not used a moment longer than necessary. The restrictions on movement between New South Wales and Victoria were carefully designed to ensure a number of categories of people did not require permits to travel where there were compelling MOTIONS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 167 reasons for that to be the case. This included border community residents, people receiving or accompanying a dependent requiring medical care and emergency workers, including workers in health care and child protection. The Victorian government also introduced a specific worker permit to travel in and out of Victoria for workers in a number of industries where such travel is essential. People could also apply for exemptions to enter Victoria for reasons including an end-of-life event, returning home for health and wellbeing, emergency relocation and other care or compassionate reasons. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought extraordinary challenges, raised complex issues with real- world consequences and put us in a position as the envy of the world. As I raised earlier, the rest of the world is going through a third or fourth wave whilst we have achieved zero. Like I said, the restrictions were for no longer than necessary; the moment we could increase home visits they were back up to 30 people per household. So I think we have been successful, and I think we are cutting through and people understand. So the feedback I have had is actually quite positive. People are glad that we have responded quickly. I know the community out in Black Rock and across Southern Metropolitan, and I have received a lot of positive reinforcement from the public that we are making the right decisions. I was at the Middle Park Bowls Club, and a concerned resident came up to me and said to me, ‘Mr Erdogan, I want you to thank the Premier, Mr Andrews, for being decisive and for getting the cases down to zero’. So I am not going to apologise here for our border policies. In summary, I am saying that I believe that the motion before the house is a political stunt. It is baseless. It is about bringing fear into the community. But I want to thank our dedicated public health experts, and for the safety and wellbeing of all Victorians the motion will be opposed by me. Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (15:39): I will be briefish. I am glad that Mr Erdogan enjoyed his COVID-normal summer. The border residents will be thrilled to hear it, I am sure. They really will! I spoke on this subject yesterday in my members statement but will return to it in a little bit more detail today. The motion concentrates on the events of 31 December, but I hope as a border resident you will give me a little more latitude to reflect on the entire shambolic month of border closure that we have experienced. On 31 December at 4.00 pm the Acting Premier took a break from her New Year’s Eve celebrations to announce that the Victorian border would be closed, all Victorians who were not back in Victoria within 6 hours would have to get tested and isolate at home, and those who were not back by midnight on 1 January would be barred from entering indefinitely. And so began the great New Year’s Eve panic of 2020. All along the Murray River, campgrounds and holiday accommodation emptied. At 4.00 pm they were crowded and festive. Less than 2 hours later they were empty, food and drink left sitting on tables as people shoved their gear into their vehicles and joined the queues at the bridges. The routes into Victoria turned from empty highways into car parks as tens of thousands desperately tried to get across. Cars steadily piled up into queues as those who had been further afield arrived at the border and joined. Victorians sat in their cars at the border for up to 7 hours or even longer. We heard stories of people driving through the night in the hope they would get through in time, people who had been drinking and who made decisions to drive because they would lose their jobs if forced to quarantine for two weeks, stories of cars breaking down on the side of the highway where Victorian families could only sit and watch the exodus streaming past while knowing they were going to be stranded. Even with the thousands of dollars that tow truck drivers were charging, they would not guarantee to get them across the border in time. The border closure put the lives of Victorians at risk. The decision to close the borders at all was clearly a mistake in retrospect. While perhaps we can understand the government panicking about another outbreak of community transmission in Victoria after the ineptitude of their management the last time, it turns out that competent contact tracing is enough to get on top of an outbreak. I have no doubt that the Premier got a great deal of personal satisfaction from being at the other end of a border closure finally—his chance to posture as decisively MOTIONS 168 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021 protecting his people, as other premiers had been doing before, and to flip his little finger to those who humiliated him earlier in the year. That border communities and economies would be laid waste by the decision would have been of zero concern. This government is ever and always only interested in Melbourne. As we have seen throughout this pandemic, border closures are great opportunities for COVID theatre. The second round of border closures slammed our regional economies. Along the river our border economies are intertwined; 10 000 people cross the border for work every day just in and around Wodonga. Locking the border to Victorians crossing into New South Wales did not just destroy businesses on the New South Wales side. In many towns much of the tourist accommodation is on the New South Wales side. Shut that down and you shut down the tourist economy on both sides of the river. This government dropped us back into the hole we were dragging ourselves out of, without a care— because the reasons do not matter. We had no cases before the lockdown, we had no cases after. We had no cases before, during or after either of the border closures. We have been doughnuts all year. Regional Victoria has been through too much in the last year. This government has no regard for us at all. Now, you might think the government would have learned from the first lockdown, watching it. And to be fair, some things were done better, but many mistakes were repeated. Border residents have had many, many hours sitting in traffic to consider how badly managed these checkpoints have been. While in Wodonga there were days where the queues were short, in towns like Echuca the queue never went away for the whole month. We had a better border bubble from the start. It was better thought out, it was a bigger area, it worked more freely. So I want to acknowledge that point. But on almost all other measures Victoria failed to run things as well as New South Wales did. The border checkpoints were shambolic. If anyone had wanted to get around them, it would have been easy. They were there to make Melbourne believe something was being done. We know the police did not want to be there, in the heat or the rain, checking the same drivers licences day after day. They knew it was pointless COVID theatre. Even the government clearly knew it was pointless. You can tell by the way the checkpoints just faded away last weekend without any announcement. Suddenly, unexpectedly, VicPol gave up on checking licences, and the next day the checkpoints were gone—although the last I checked the ‘Go slow’ signs before the border were still up in New South Wales. Perhaps no-one has bothered to tell New South Wales yet that the checkpoints are gone. Not a word from the Premier about what could have been a good news story. We can only assume he has discounted the value of good news on the border; the border does not matter. I have not even mentioned all the Victorians who were stranded in New South Wales because they could not get across in time and then could not get a permit. Days turned into weeks while people waited on the border for permission to cross—children stranded away from their parents, Victorian residents becoming internally displaced refugees. They would literally have been able to apply for asylum as refugees under the UN rules. As I have already said, in retrospect the decision to close the border was obviously the wrong one. But we believe even at the time it should have been clear it was not necessary. We are told the government knew they were going to close the border as early as 10 o’clock in the morning but it took until 4.00 pm before they could be bothered to announce it. If that is true, it is appalling contempt for Victorians who were outside the state at that time. I will finish my rant there. This government’s incompetence continues to blight our life in regional Victoria. You make the case for Rexit—for a regional exit—and a new state composed of northern Victoria and southern New South Wales far better than I ever can. We long for the day when we can leave you to your mismanagement and be at our own destiny along the banks of the Murray. Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (15:46): It is good to join the debate on this motion from my friend Ms Crozier. It was beneath Mr Erdogan before to say that this motion is a stunt—it is not. This MOTIONS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 169 is serious. In fact this is deadly serious. When you come to the content of Ms Crozier’s motion, you see that she has expressed herself in a measured way, in a way, I agree with Ms Crozier, that should enable the entirety of the crossbench to vote with us. And I will read the motion for the benefit of colleagues opposite:

expresses concern at the Andrews government’s rushed decision— it was rushed; that is a fact—

on the afternoon of 31 December 2020 to shut the border between Victoria and New South Wales … And then as a secondary point, and this comes directly to the content of Mr Erdogan’s government talking points as the first speaker for the government, it:

calls on the Andrews government, in the interest of transparency, to release all expert health advice … Mr Erdogan said there was expert health advice that led the government to make this decision. Now, I doubt that, but nonetheless that is the assertion of Mr Erdogan. He is an honourable person, and so if that is the case, I would say to those opposite: let us see it. Let us see it. It is important to see it and it is important to gauge this broader discussion because, like I say, this is serious. Right across the summer period what we saw from the government by way of response to the unfolding pandemic was an omnishambles. We saw the listing of exposure sites that were not in fact real businesses or that were listed incorrectly and miles away from where they actually are. We saw huge queues— inexplicably huge queues—at testing sites and very long waits for people to get tested. We also saw people sent away from testing sites in my electorate—at Heidelberg, for example—and also at testing sites at Albert Park. Specifically regarding the rushed border closure on New Year’s Eve, I agree with the comments made earlier by my colleague that over the summer period Victorians were treated like second-class citizens. As the government rolled out the red carpet for COVID-positive tennis stars, Victorians were locked out of their own state. Throughout the course of last year, during the daily Dans, just about everybody came in for some blame. At one point it was members of CALD communities who were to blame for the second wave, meeting in family groups and not quite understanding the government’s communications. Or the government’s communications were dreadful and were not put out in a timely way or in a way that some members of some Victorian communities could understand. It was the government’s fault, but there was the Premier blaming members of the CALD community. It was family groups. It was young people. Of course it was the federal government. We heard a new one from Mr Erdogan today, and I am not criticising Mr Erdogan personally. He was reading from government talking points as the opening speaker for the government. We heard a new one from him in terms of blame: it was Edmund Burke and the founding fathers. It is the federation that made the Premier shut down the border in the way that he did, locking out Victorians, treating them like second-class citizens despite the fact of course that so many had not been anywhere near a hotspot—well, certainly not a hotspot in a manner that would be defined that way by any normal or rational or thinking person. I was concerned by one or two other elements of the government’s response. It was not Mr Erdogan’s response, it was the government’s response—he was the lead speaker for the government speaking from government talking points. One of the things that Ms Crozier asserted as she spoke on her own motion is that the government’s response over summer, specifically in the case of this one border closure but also more broadly, was cruel to Victorians, and I agree it was. One of the things that we heard from the lead speaker from the government in response was, ‘No, no. That’s not true. There were concessions’. For example, there were concessions for people who had, and I quote directly and truthfully from the government’s first speaker, ‘suffered an end-of-life event’. Now I confess I laughed when he said that, but it is actually serious that this government lacks compassion and morality to such an extent that it talks about death in this way. MOTIONS 170 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021

We are here to discuss this motion today, which is a serious motion because of course 801 Victorians needlessly suffered ‘end-of-life events’ last year because of the manifest incompetence of the Andrews Labor government. To speak about death in that way, for the government’s talking points to depict death and the decimation of Victorian families, not to mention of course the ongoing decimation of Victorian businesses, in that way is so uniquely unfeeling as to be almost extraordinary. But we are used to it from this government. If you had suffered an end-of-life event—meaning if you were dead— then somebody could come back from interstate who had not been anywhere near a COVID hotspot, who could not possibly have the virus, to visit you. Aren’t we compassionate? I am afraid that is an indictment on the morality and the decency of this Andrews Labor government. I was really worried over the summer period on a whole range of occasions but certainly directly after I heard the extraordinary news that the government had made this decision in such a rushed way, and Mr Quilty pointed out some of the concerns that he had—they are concerns that I shared—regarding the safety implications in particular of such a rushed decision. I am aware that many other members of the house are keen to speak on this motion, so I will cease momentarily, but not before underscoring the point that I think one of the reasons that the government made such a rushed decision was because the government continues to have—quite rightly continues to have—the deepest concerns about its contact-tracing system. I am not quite sure of any other explanation except for manifest cruelty. I sat on a committee that was established as a result of Ms Crozier’s hard work to look into the government’s contact-tracing system, and we heard that the government was offered a best-practice, electronic, end-to-end contact-tracing solution in March last year. The government said no and carried on with pens and paper and fax machines for five long months. I asked seven senior members of what was then the Department of Health and Human Services who made that decision. It is not disputed by the government. It is a matter of record and a matter of fact that this best-practice, world-leading contact-tracing solution was offered to the government in late March. The government does not dispute that. No member opposite will dispute it. It is a matter of record. I asked these seven senior members of the department, including the new secretary after the departure of Ms Peake, ‘Who said no?’. I asked Professor Sutton and I asked Dr van Diemen. I asked other senior members of the department, and of course nobody said, ‘No, it was a matter of shared responsibility’. There had to have been improvements throughout the year last year given the incredibly low base that the government started from, but my worry is that contact tracing is still not up to scratch. How else could you explain some of the government’s bizarre decisions over the summer period? That is why in my mind the second point of Ms Crozier’s motion is vital. We heard from the lead speaker for the government that there was health advice; he confirmed that. There was health advice for this decision to shut down the border. Let us see it. Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (15:55): I rise to oppose the motion brought to the house by Ms Crozier. Mr Finn interjected. Dr KIEU: Let us hear my arguments first before you make a judgement. The motion puts in a few different points, and they have been discussed in strong language and even emotional and exciting language, saying that the government did not consider the needs and wellbeing of Victorians—which is not a fact, not a truthful fact—or that the government made a ‘kneejerk’ decision to immediately close the New South Wales border. It was not kneejerk at all. May I make the analogy—which may be too dramatic to some, but it is not too faraway an analogy— that if we were at war and enemies lay at the front of the castle, then all the options would have to be considered and immediate action would have to be taken. It is not too different a situation when we have an enemy invisible to the naked eyes, as deadly as the best weapon that we can defend ourselves MOTIONS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 171 against—we have vaccines, but they are still not coming; there is some hope on the horizon—and as infectious as we have all seen throughout the world to millions, tens of millions of people. In the US there have been 400 000-plus deaths, and by the time the vaccine takes effect there will be more—and that is not to mention the mutations. We have heard that we have got vaccines from the Oxford group, from the Pfizer group and from elsewhere, India and China, but those were designed—even at a very quick rate, an exceptional rate in the history of vaccine development—only for the original virus. Now, after a year, we have mutations from London and from South Africa and there are more coming— particularly worrisome is the one from Brazil. The best vaccine that we have for the original virus had 80 or 90 per cent efficacy, and when we have to use that against the new strand it becomes less and less efficient—it becomes about 70 or 60 per cent for the London virus or even less, about 50 per cent—and who knows whether it is effective or not against the Brazilian mutation. I have to add one more thing about the vaccine. The vaccine is to protect the person, to help the person to be immune from attack by the virus, but we do not know yet whether it will help to suppress the transmission—unless we have a very highly efficient vaccine and a high number in the population taking it up so that we can have a so-called herd immunity, and it is the case that we still do not know. Even so, with the rollout of the vaccine, as the federal government has found out, we may not have the vaccine as planned because of the high need of the European countries and the USA. So those are very highly alarming and deadly serious matters. A member of the opposition said that this motion is deadly serious, but I am sure it is not as deadly serious as the situation we have with the virus. Some members of the crossbench said that closing the border was a mistake, so by extrapolation, ‘Let us open the border of Australia and see what happens around the world’. Those decisions were not taken lightly by the government, particularly in vacation time. But with the situation with this so dangerous virus and with the unknown, and just before that we had the problem with the Black Rock outbreak which came from the north shore of New South Wales, those actions were not taken lightly. In fact they were based on the best available medical advice. The opposition kept coming up with the request that the advice be released. Yes, but then there is also the confidentiality of the cabinet papers. I am not in a cabinet position, so I just point out the facts. Let me take up the other point of the motion. I thank every single Victorian for their sacrifice, hard work and commitment so that we could have a virus-free state—in the community, I am talking about—for 28 days since the last case, except the ones returning from overseas, from elsewhere, who are in quarantine. Those efforts are highly recognised, and we are grateful for them. The closing of the border was absolutely necessary to deal with a very deadly situation—an urgent and unknown virus, particularly from New South Wales. The decision was based on, as I said, the best medical advice that the government had. It also allowed the contact-tracing team to follow up with people so that we could keep Victoria safe and keep the Victorian economy open. We are in a good position. We are in fact the envy of the world with the results and the situation we have. This morning the Minister for Health announced a plan for vaccination for the state. If things go well— and obviously it is not entirely in the control of the state government—if the federal government can get the vaccine to our country in time, then we will have some vaccine to fight against the deadly virus. Overnight it will not be a silver bullet because it will take time to get the immunity in our bodies activated and it will also take time to deal with the mutations that definitely will be coming, as we have seen with flu, which has been with us for decades—for 100 years or so. The mutations for the new COVID-19 virus will take a different form with different genome changes, and that is also something that we have to worry about. As my colleague Mr Erdogan has pointed out, there are various concessions, exceptions and help for Victorians who have to come back across the border for various reasons: for their health or caring responsibilities or for their employment situation. We do have exemptions for those people. I acknowledge and am grateful for the inconvenience that a lot of Victorians experienced when they had to queue up at the borders. I do recognise that. It was a long queue in time and in length— MOTIONS 172 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021 kilometres of cars parked waiting to get in. We are thankful for their patience and thankful for their sacrifice, but we have 6 million people in Victoria to be protected, to keep safe. The government needs to keep us safe and needs to keep the economy open, and those are the measures that we have had to enact in order to do so. I have 22 seconds left. I would just like to say that what the government has done is to put health and safety and the openness of the Victorian economy above all in order to protect the masses, and that is the best action that we could have taken under the emergency and the deadly attack from the virus. Sitting suspended 4.05 pm until 4.20 pm. Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (16:20): This motion essentially describes the chaos that ensued when the Victorian border was closed to New South Wales on New Year’s Eve. The situation was chaotic and confusing and distressing for many Victorians. The fact that it had these impacts is not to say it was not the right thing to close the border. The Greens have been steadfast in their support for a public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic and we understand the need for the government to close borders. But if you look at the language of the motion, most of it is merely an accurate description of what occurred. The reality is tens of thousands of Victorians were put in an unreasonable position in needing to rush back, and there were inconsistencies in the information being provided and the way the borders were being managed—primarily, I imagine, due to the sheer number of people impacted. Similarly, many people returning were not able to be tested in the 24-hour period that was asked of them due to the rush on testing facilities. These are the facts. They came about because the government was acting on health advice to close the border at a time when there were tens of thousands of Victorians out of the state. It is good that there is now a clearer permit system for dealing with similar situations should they arise in future. While we support the border closures on the basis of health advice, the Greens have been vocal in calling for the government to create pathways for Victorians stuck in red zones. Victorians should be able to come home to their families and their jobs with whatever additional testing and self-isolation regime is necessary to protect the state. We do not agree with the language of ‘kneejerk’ in response to the border closure, as included in debate on this motion. Our health authorities are managing a complicated and evolving situation on the basis of evidence and consideration. The motion goes on to call on the government to release relevant advice on the border closure, and in the interests of transparency and accountability we support that call. Doing the right thing does not mean that people are not affected by it. Just like with the public housing lockdown, the government should be able to acknowledge the adverse effects and distress people experience from the way they manage a situation. They do not need to deny the effects on Victorians of their decisions while still being clear they made the right decision in the circumstance. Victorians have lived through a distressing year. The distress of incidents like the New Year’s Eve border closure deserve to be acknowledged. Given that the motion is generally an accurate description of the effects of the border closure and the chaos created, along with a call for information, while confirming our ongoing support for our public health response the Greens will be supporting the motion. Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (16:23): I would like to congratulate Ms Crozier on bringing forward this motion, which is a very important motion. It is a motion that particularly affects my electorate, because the entire northern border of my electorate is of course the Murray River and the New South Wales border. We have suffered quite significantly for the past six or seven months, with border closures first initiated by New South Wales and then continued on by Victoria. People were very pleased to see that border reopen and that freedom of movement. The whole basis of the commonwealth was the freeing up of movement between what were then colonies, now states, and the freeing up of trade because of some of the problems that existed on the Murray River. Here we see, a couple of hundred years later, the borders being slammed shut again. MOTIONS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 173

The debacle that occurred on New Year’s Eve was an absolute insult to the people of Victoria. At 4.00 pm for the Acting Premier, , to go out and for her to actually get it wrong not once but twice and maybe even three times—she could not get the announcement right—created an enormous amount of confusion and an enormous amount of additional stress for people who were trying to navigate their way home into Victoria. The commissioner, Jeroen Weimar, had to go out and correct her mistakes, but it still did not help a lot of the people who were stuck on the other side of the border. Again, at 4.00 pm that announcement was made on New Year’s Eve—what an insult. That actually trapped many people out of the state because many people did not even hear that announcement and they could not get home by midnight in time to allow them to go to work on Monday, because if they came home of course on 1 January, they had to isolate for 14 days. We had parents ringing us who could not even contact their kids: they were camping over in New South Wales; they were out of range. These kids needed to go to work on Monday. We had young people who had been out on the riverbank drinking all day because it was New Year’s Eve—it was a special day—and they could not come home to get to work on Monday. By the time they got home on New Year’s Day, if they managed to get home New Year’s Day, they had to isolate for 14 days. We had families stranded for hours at checkpoints. At the crossing at Echuca-Moama, at one stage it was a 7-hour wait to get across the border. At Yarrawonga-Mulwala it was a 4½-hour wait. I have friends who have a holiday house that is 3½ kilometres into New South Wales from the border at Mulwala, and they took a photo of the queue of cars out the front of their place. You could not see the end of the queue of cars beyond their house. The impact on businesses was enormous. I spoke yesterday about the four businesses at Gateway Island on the Lincoln Causeway at Wodonga and the impact that it has had on them, because they not only had the closure of the border, they had the checkpoint right out the front of their businesses for four weeks. And this was not the first time. That had an enormous impact on those businesses at Echuca-Moama and Yarrawonga-Mulwala and other tourist areas along the river. These are towns where they rely on tourists, and they rely on tourists who are coming from both sides of the border. In fact in Echuca most of the accommodation is on the Moama side, but most of the businesses and restaurants and things are on the Echuca side. Businesses in Echuca and Yarrawonga and other tourist towns in Victoria have done it particularly hard for the whole of 2020 because of the restrictions on travel and the impact that that has had on their industry. They were looking forward to a bumper New Year’s Eve long weekend followed by the January holiday period. They had ordered food for a three-day weekend with tourists filling their towns. They had rostered staff for a three-day weekend, and as we know, you have to give staff three days notice to change their roster. So to cancel those staff, they could not do that until the Monday anyway. And they had booked entertainment. It was New Year’s Eve and a weekend, a three-day weekend. It was going to be a big period that they were really looking forward to to help them finally start on their recovery from the COVID recession. But at 4.00 pm their bubble was burst, because they just watched the tourists pour out of town. The tourists were leaving in droves, and even tourists from the Victorian side left because they did not have confidence any longer. They feared that this was going to be another big wave, and they needed to get home. So these businesses have been devastated by the Andrews government’s kneejerk reaction to shut down the border. I disagree with Dr Ratnam; she said she does not like the word ‘kneejerk’, but this was a kneejerk reaction, and that was evident, because the government did not have all the processes they needed in place. I had a healthcare worker ring me on Sunday morning, 2 January. At 7.00 am in the morning my phone is going: ‘I’m at the crossing at Yarrawonga-Mulwala. I’ve been in Mulwala. I cannot get into Yarrawonga to fulfil my shift’ at the aged-care facility that she worked at. So these things were not put in place. Unfortunately that particular worker was living in Mulwala but had not changed the address on their licence. By the time we got onto the VicRoads website, changed the licence address MOTIONS 174 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021 and printed that all out and everything so that she could prove that to get across the border, it was too late for that shift, so that put an enormous impost on the aged-care home to fill her spot. But the ultimate insult was that the government kept saying, ‘We told you not to go to New South Wales’. Now, that is just not true. The government did not tell Victorians not to go to New South Wales; they told Victorians on 21 December not to go to the hotspots of the Northern Beaches in Sydney. They did not tell them not to go to regional New South Wales. I know that Ms Patten was in regional New South Wales because she had not been told not to go to New South Wales. So for the Acting Premier to keep saying, ‘We told Victorians not to go to New South Wales’, it was an absolute insult to everybody’s intelligence. The Queensland border, which closed a few days later, after the closure of the border to New South Wales, also caused significant problems, and one of those was how Victorians who were not in the lockdown areas of Queensland would get back to Victoria through New South Wales if they were driving. Of course the commissioner, Jeroen Weimar, advised them to drive through with only two 15-minute breaks. This was just encouraging them to do something that was dangerous, and in fact he bragged that he had done that himself once—driven straight through with only two 15-minute breaks. That does not even fit the national law for professional drivers. The time to travel from Tweed Heads to Wodonga is 14 hours, according to Google Maps. If you are a professional driver, you can drive for 5¼ hours if you are driving a semi, and then you must have a 15-minute break. But you are restricted to driving for 12 hours within a 24-hour period, and then you must have a 7-hour break. Now, there is no way that people could get from Tweed Heads to Wodonga—it is a 14-hour drive—in the time that a semitrailer driver is allowed to drive without having a 7-hour break. So this was encouraging people to do things that were just absolutely dangerous. People who were trapped in Queensland were just beside themselves. There were grandparents with two grandchildren—the parents were still in Shepparton. This was a shocking situation for them. The children were fretting for the parents, the parents were distraught, the children were crying, the grandparents were upset, and to get them home was just incredibly difficult. Finally the government did come to their senses and allowed some Victorians to return home. But what the government should never, ever do is just slam the borders shut to Victorians. Victorians have a right to return to where their home is, to where their jobs are, to where their lives are. They are citizens of this state, and they should not be locked out. In fact one of the Lib Dems said to me the other day that they could actually apply for refugee status because they were locked out of the state in which they lived. So that was an incredible blight on this government. Mr TARLAMIS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (16:33): I also rise to make a contribution on this motion today, and I join with my colleagues who have already made a contribution in opposing this motion. They have already outlined in their contributions the reasons why they will be opposing this motion and I will add to that as well, but from the outset I wanted to add for the record that the safety and wellbeing of all Victorians has always been the government’s priority throughout this pandemic. To suggest otherwise is a complete outrage. All of the decisions that have been made have always been based on expert health advice, and any restrictions that have been in place have only ever remained in place for as long as they have needed to be in place and have been removed at the earliest possible time. Our position on that has never changed, no matter how hard those decisions have been to make. We have remained committed to doing that, because ensuring the safety of Victorians has been paramount. These decisions have not been taken lightly. We understand how difficult it has been for many people and the impacts that it has had on them. They are always very hard decisions, and there are real impacts that we know are felt by many people. At the end of the day we all have families. We live in the communities that we serve. We have friends, neighbours and families who were all affected by these restrictions as well, so to suggest that these decisions are made in a situation where we do not understand the impacts or do not appreciate how significant they are I think is a very simplistic argument, and I do not think it is a fair judgement. As many people on the other side of this chamber MOTIONS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 175 and in this building have been in government before and have had to make many of these tough decisions, they should understand and appreciate that they are never easy. It is very easy to sit back on the sidelines on the back bench and shout across and say, ‘You should have done this; you should have done that’. But many of you have been in these situations before and have made decisions, so I would call upon you to reflect upon those circumstances and maybe think twice before you go out there and go for the 5-second grab in your media conferences and all those sort of things, because the reality is that we have seen a lot of politicking during this pandemic. Ms Lovell: From the government. Mr TARLAMIS: Well, from a lot of places. And this place has not been immune to it. Again, we have got this motion here before us today where we are talking about health advice. Frankly, I do not know what you would do with the health advice, because consistently on the one hand you talk about health advice and then on the other hand you undermine the health advice. What we have consistently seen from those opposite is the undermining of the health advice and the disregard of the public health advice. We have consistently seen and heard the spreading of misinformation, the fuelling of mistrust and the fuelling of conspiracy theories from many of those opposite. Members interjecting. Mr TARLAMIS: Yes, we have. You know that we have. You have heard them yourself. Many on the other side of this chamber have been party to it. We have seen an approach where they have sought to be all things to all people, along the way undermining even themselves. One minute you have got Michael O’Brien, your leader, going out there on 31 July—as Leader of the Opposition— calling for tougher restrictions and whatever it takes to stop the spread of the disease. Twenty-five days later: ‘This is outrageous; you’ve gone too far’. Well, which one is it? Ms Crozier interjected. Mr TARLAMIS: Again, basically Michael O’Brien stands up and says, ‘The Australian Open must go ahead as it always has’, and you are in here interjecting today saying, ‘How could you make concessions for tennis players and put in place processes for tennis players?’. How does the Australian Open happen without tennis players? I mean, you have got all these inconsistencies, and then you turn around and say, ‘It’s not about politics; it’s not about grandstanding’. Yes, keep telling yourself that. If you tell yourself that enough, maybe you will start to believe it—I do not know. It is a bit of a stretch, but maybe, I do not know. Members interjecting. Mr TARLAMIS: Yes, that is okay. Members interjecting. Mr TARLAMIS: Yes. Well, as I said, these decisions are not taken lightly, okay? And you know that. Ms Crozier seeks to be the health minister one day, yet she consistently undermines health advice. Members interjecting. Mr TARLAMIS: Yes. Well, the record— Members interjecting. Mr TARLAMIS: Through you, Acting President. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Ms Patten): Order! Mr Tarlamis. Mr TARLAMIS: The record will reflect what people have said on the record in various forums and at press conferences. The record will reflect and history will record what people have said and what people have done and what actions they have taken. I will stand by what I have said, and others MOTIONS 176 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021 can stand by and defend what they have said, and that is fine. The steps that we have taken as a government have always been about trying to protect the public, and they have worked. We are one of the only jurisdictions who have seen off a second wave, and it is continuing to work. Look at the numbers today: 28 days, zero locally acquired cases. There are 21 active cases in hotel quarantine. The system is working. And when we put in place measures like the border restrictions, it is to protect all Victorians. And after what Victoria went through in the second wave, Victorians understand that we cannot afford to go through another wave like that. We have to acknowledge the sacrifices that have been made by those people. We have to acknowledge all the sacrifices that people have made. And they do not want to go through another wave, so they understand the decisions that we have made and the importance of the restrictions that we put in place when we put them in place. They know that is going to be tough and they know that we have to basically take all necessary steps to ensure that we are putting in place processes that will protect all Victorians. We need to keep Victorians safe and we need to keep the state open. And those border restrictions, as we have seen, will not stay in place any longer than they need to. We have seen the situation where currently the restrictions have been coming off. There is only one orange zone remaining and two red zones in Western Australia. Again, when the appropriate time comes, those restrictions will be eased again. Mr Finn: Not before December. Mr TARLAMIS: Well, it will happen as soon as it is safe to do so, okay? Mr Finn: Not before December. Mr TARLAMIS: Well, it will happen as soon as it is safe to do so. And to do it when somebody wants to do it as opposed to when it is safe to do so— Members interjecting. Mr TARLAMIS: You have made your contribution. You have had your allotted time. You can keep interjecting all you like, that is fine. Ms Crozier interjected. Mr TARLAMIS: I was not casting aspersions; I was making a statement. I was making a statement; I was not casting aspersions. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Ms Patten): Mr Tarlamis, can I suggest that you keep to your contribution and maybe not enter into conversation. Mr TARLAMIS: Yes, sorry. Victorians have built something very precious that needs to be safeguarded. They have made sacrifices, and we owe it to them to protect all that they have achieved. And that is what we are seeking to do through the provisions that we are putting in place. We understand that these are tough and very difficult, and we will do everything we can to support the community on the way through and take measures to support them as much as we can. There are provisions in place to assist Victorians to return, and we will continue to support them in any way that we can and get them home as safely and as quickly as we can. I will basically conclude where I began: all of our decision-making is done and all of our aim is basically with the safety and wellbeing of all Victorians being paramount. It will always be based on the advice provided by health experts, and any restrictions will be in place for as long as they need to be and not a day longer. We stand by that and we do not apologise for that because we need to keep Victorians safe. We need to keep Victoria open, and we will support Victorians in that respect. Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (16:43): I rise to speak in support of Ms Crozier’s motion condemning the Andrews government’s reckless decision to shut our northern border on New Year’s Eve, causing significant distress and panic to interstate travellers and Victorians. State government control over interstate borders has been a complete disgrace throughout the pandemic. Our founding MOTIONS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 177 fathers would be horrified to see what these megalomaniac premiers have done with borders. Australia is an island country with no international land borders. Australians have a right to live, learn, work and travel in any state they wish, and we cannot afford to continue to deny them that right every time COVID cases emerge. Australia’s federation is beginning to look more like an island of petty warlords than anything resembling a unified country, with rogue premiers going off the reservation to pump up their own egos or increase poll numbers before pending elections. State borders are for interstate sporting competitions, not for controlling the movement of people, let alone preventing people from returning to their homes and being united with their families. In Queensland we had Premier Palaszczuk declaring that ‘in Queensland, we have Queensland hospitals for our people’, as she barred a 14-year-old boy suffering from issues related to his double-lung transplant from entering her state. In Western Australia we had Premier McGowan keeping the border closed for so long it was easy to forget they were even part of the federation. And down in Victoria we had Premier Andrews implementing kneejerk border closures over a handful of cases to the west or north, severely impacting rural border communities and leaving Victorians who were interstate virtually stranded. At one point in November the Premier closed the border with South Australia, despite South Australians being subjected to less severe restrictions than we had. Rural communities such as those in my electorate have been the biggest victims of these parochial premiers’ power trips. These communities do not operate via a line on a map. They live, work and access education and health care across state lines. The carelessness of these border closures jeopardises their ability to fulfil these needs, aggravated by ridiculous decisions such as that in the November border closure with South Australia that denied educational purposes from being a permitted reason for a permit. The next significant victims of these border closures are the federal taxpayers, who are expected to pick up the bill for these megalomaniac premiers’ economic carnage. Premier Palaszczuk even had the audacity to recently call on the federal government to extend JobKeeper to support Queensland’s tourism industry, which has been crippled by her border closures. Hardworking taxpayers in western Victoria and elsewhere should not be expected to pick up the bill for the incompetence of public officials more than 1500 kilometres away. State premiers should be forced to bear the consequences of their recklessness and impulsiveness, rather than handball the problem off to Canberra. If the Queensland government wants to have an ongoing wage subsidy, the Queensland government should pay for it and Queensland voters can hold them accountable. The tourism industry is also a significant victim, having been turned into a sacrificial lamb for political pointscoring, as the CEO of Destination Gold Coast said in May last year. Tourism businesses along the Great Ocean Road and elsewhere depend on Australians travelling from interstate and visiting their towns, but of course these border edicts, such as the Victorian Premier’s on New Year’s Eve, are based on politics, not concern for people’s livelihoods. Daniel Andrews has spent the last nine months running a scare campaign about this virus, telling Victorians they would kill their mother if they visited her on Mother’s Day, or if we did not submit to their authoritarian rule from on high, we would all die. Meanwhile, massive lengths have been gone to to ensure that tennis players and celebrities can come to Victoria, while we keep Victorians out of their own state and locked out of their own homes. But thank goodness for Premier Berejiklian, who quite rightly says:

When you unnecessarily close state borders you lose jobs, you create hardship, you impact people’s mental health and wellbeing. Under her leadership, New South Wales has kept operating so that businesses survive, jobs are saved, while Victoria was shut down. According to the Business Council of Australia, the shutdown of domestic travel has put a $17 billion hole in the national economy over the last seven months between March and October. The cost of policing these border closures is also significant, with 31 checkpoints across a 1200-kilometre border with New South Wales. So 700 police were deployed, reportedly causing the closure of regional police stations. MOTIONS 178 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021

The common theme throughout the pandemic of these extraordinary measures taken by state governments has been a large cost, with no expert health advice provided to the public to justify them. This is why, as Ms Crozier’s motion states, in the interests of transparency the Andrews government must release all expert health advice and any other advice in relation to the decision made on 31 December 2020 to close the border with New South Wales. However, the only advice that exists in relation to these border closures is more likely from political advisers than health experts—to say nothing of the epidemic of amnesia that we have been subjected to in Victoria. I do not know what health expert is going to fix that. Mr Finn: I don’t recall. Mrs McARTHUR: ‘I don’t know. I can’t remember. I don’t read emails’—definitely an amnesia epidemic happening here. It is extraordinary. Members interjecting. Mrs McARTHUR: ‘I wasn’t there. I don’t know’. Thank you, Mr Finn. These borders should not be used by megalomaniac premiers masquerading as power-hungry emperors. We are all Australians and we are all in this together, and I urge the crossbench—obviously the government are not going to do it, but the crossbench—to support Ms Crozier’s motion, because we desperately need the information that they say exists but will never provide. Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (16:51): I was just listening to speeches around amnesia and ‘Thank God for the New South Wales Premier’. Where was the opposition when the New South Wales government closed the border on the line? There was no bubble. It was on the line. You are talking about all the heartache the border communities went through—they just closed it on the river and on that little line on the end, and bad luck! That is where they closed it. I was speaking to local governments up there. They were saying, ‘We’ve got people that live on the other side of that line. They live north of that line and couldn’t come to work’. They could not come to work because the New South Wales Premier closed the border on that line. And where were you? I was speaking to the New South Wales local government minister, saying, ‘Please, can you reconsider this and make it a bit of a bubble where people can go to work?’. Border communities do not live and work in the fashion that you might think they do. Where were you? I mean, speak about amnesia and forgetting. I think I am out of time, but spare us. Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (16:52): That was a lot shorter than I expected from the minister in relation to very important things. Mr Leane: You didn’t answer my question. Where were you? Ms CROZIER: Mr Leane said, ‘You didn’t answer my question’. When the New South Wales government decided to shut the border to Victoria it was when we were having 170 cases a day and rising every day, and we had thousands of cases that were active at the time. And let us not forget, Mr Leane, that 801 Victorians died at that time. So Victoria was actually— Mr Leane interjected. Ms CROZIER: The virus was out of control because you could not contact trace, you had no capacity to contact trace, so you could not control the virus. So you had to control us in lockdown. That is why other governments, who were getting that information, made that decision—not lightly. And Premier Berejiklian has been an absolute stand-out in managing the breakouts, allowing the economy to continue, not being so kneejerk in terms of providing—and the advice that New South Wales is providing to the community, which is public, is streets ahead of what was provided here. Ms Patten was obviously on the contact-tracing inquiry with me. We heard a lot of this evidence. Yes, we have come a long way, but we need to have that confidence. One of the findings around the inquiry was that to give people the confidence about the actions the government is taking, you must give them MOTIONS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 179 information and be transparent. That is the whole point of my motion. It is so we understand exactly why this decision was made, because people are now fearful. Why would I go to plan a holiday in New South Wales or Queensland or interstate when there is a risk that the borders will slam shut over very little evidence to suggest that the virus is very, very active? Now, we have seen this afternoon, and the minister herself has just gone out this hour talking about the breaches in hotel quarantine, where the virus has left one room and miraculously flown over to another room across the corridor. So I would ask: how safe is the community from that? How safe are all of those people within hotel quarantine? Has everywhere else been checked out in relation to the current breakout in that hotel quarantine facility as we speak? I am not sure the minister asked that. I have not heard all of her press conference. But we need the information. We need to understand that people are safe so that we can have confidence. Yes, the government is right in terms of the vaccine rollout, and they have made a big play of that today, but of course the federal government is responsible for the vaccine. They have procured that, and it is up to the state government to get the logistics of this right and to get that vaccine rollout— Mr Finn: That is a real worry. Ms CROZIER: Well, it is. I am hearing, Mr Finn, that there are discussions going on with local governments. Mr Leane, perhaps you would be able to inform the house tomorrow in one of your ministerial statements about the discussions local governments are having about venues to actually conduct that vaccine rollout. But to get back to my motion, again I say that in the interests of transparency, in the interests of truth, in the interests of securing confidence within the Victorian public—who were absolutely so dismayed by the very rushed decision—they would have understood if the minister had said at 11.00 am, ‘Look we are concerned with what’s going on. There could be another announcement later in relation to some border closures. Please, everybody, be attuned to that, and I will update you’. Why couldn’t the Acting Premier have said that and given some reasonable thought process to what they were doing, rather than coming out when people had started drinking? They had started actually celebrating New Year’s Eve. They could not get into a car. It was too dangerous to get to the border. Certainly I know people that were in that situation. They were stuck, they had no opportunity, and when they got back to Victoria they had to wait not just 1 or 2 hours—they were turned away on the first day to get testing— but 6½ hours or 7 hours to be tested. All of these things disrupted Victorians in such a massive way. All we are asking for is a bit of transparency and truth from the government, and it is very disappointing that they refuse to give us that transparency and release that advice and do not support my motion. I think it is telling that the government is willing to let international tennis travellers in who have tested positive because of the Australian Open. I am not casting aspersions on that, but they would not even allow their own citizens back into their own state and put them into the scenarios as I described in the hotels at Tullamarine. It was absolutely disgraceful the way that they were handled—treated like criminals, treated like goodness knows what. I would urge all members to support my motion in the interests of truth and transparency. Motion agreed to. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 180 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021

Production of documents HIGH-CAPACITY METRO TRAINS Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (16:58): I move, in the very brief time that is left, notice of motion 386:

That this house: (1) notes that: (a) part of the Evolution Rail consortium awarded the contract to deliver the high-capacity metro trains is CRRC Changchun Railway Vehicles Co. Ltd, linked to the use of Uighur slave labour; (b) CRRC Changchun Railway Vehicles Co. Ltd is also part of the Chinese government’s Belt and Road Initiative; (c) more than a million Uighurs and members of other Turkic Muslim minorities have allegedly disappeared into a vast network of ‘re-education camps’; (d) factories in China are allegedly sourcing Uighur workers from the ‘re-education camps’ under a government-led labour transfer scheme; (e) the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, the Honourable Jacinta Allan, MP, confirmed on ABC radio on 5 October 2020 that she was aware of these allegations and has sought advice from the Department of Transport about whether they were true; (f) the Minister for Transport Infrastructure said the advice received from the Department of Transport about these allegations were untrue and the minister did not indicate that CRRC Changchun Railway Vehicles Co. Ltd was not using Uighur slave labour in other contracts and constructions; and (2) requires, in accordance with standing order 11.01, there to be tabled in the Council, on or before 12 noon, Wednesday, 4 November 2020— and with the forbearance of the house I would say that 4 March 2021 would be a sensible modification for this motion that has been sitting there—

any advice received by the Minister for Transport Infrastructure from the Department of Transport, which she referred to in the ABC radio interview on 5 October 2020, relating to allegations that CRRC Changchun Railway Vehicles Co. Ltd were using Uighur slave labour in the high-capacity metro construction. Note that this states baldly the facts that are known. There are in fact re-education camps in China where Uighurs are being held. There are situations in China. It is very clear when you look at some of the international aid organisations and some of the international transparency organisations that in fact Uighur labour is being used in construction and manufacture in China. I accept the advice of the Minister for Transport Infrastructure that the firm that is constructing our high-capacity metro trains is not in that contract itself using Uighur labour, and I accept that on face value. But the minister refers to briefings she has received from her department, and essentially what I am seeking through this documents motion are copies of those briefings. If they provide persuasive evidence that the HCMTs are not being manufactured by Uighurs, I think many Victorians would be assured. They would have a higher degree of confidence if there has been a proper investigation by the department to examine these matters. If there has not been a proper investigation and if the evidence is not strong, that would lead to different questions. I obviously do not have access to that information. The minister does. She has referred to the briefings that she has got in radio interviews, and as I say, this is in itself a very simple and straightforward documents motion saying, ‘Please provide those briefings which you have referred to on radio’. I think the community is entitled to see them. Clearly the minister felt it was sufficiently significant that she has asked for those briefings and has been provided with those briefings, and that is entirely proper. I am not being critical of that. But I think the community is entitled to understand the basis of the assertions that she has made and the veracity of those assertions. So in that circumstance I ask the chamber to support the provision of those documents. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 181

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (17:02): Let me speak to this motion. Our Victorian government is deeply concerned by allegations regarding the use of forced labour by one of the companies in the supply chain for CRRC. The Evolution Rail consortium is contracted by our government as part of a public-private partnership to deliver the high-capacity metro trains project. The Evolution Rail consortium includes Downer, CRRC and Plenary. Once we were made aware of the allegations, the government asked the Department of Transport to investigate the issue to ensure the consortium delivering the HCMTs is complying with all the laws. Minister Allan has been advised by the Department of Transport that they contacted major rolling stock suppliers in relation to this claim and are assured that they are not aware of forced labour within the supply chain. We expect all companies and their suppliers to uphold the human and labour rights of their workers—of course, absolutely. The HCMT contract requires Evolution Rail to comply with all applicable laws and standards as they relate to the project, including the Commonwealth Modern Slavery Act 2018. CRRC is one of three key companies involved in delivering this HCMT project as part of the Evolution Rail consortium, which also includes the Downer group and Plenary. As one of the world’s largest train building companies, CRRC has successfully delivered trains to over 100 countries, and that includes Sydney’s Waratah fleets. Now, if we look specifically at HCMT, an acronym I had just before—high-capacity metro trains, just to be really clear—we had our first train introduced onto the network in December last year, which took passengers on a return trip from Pakenham to Flinders Street. This train will now be running regularly as part of the new timetable. There are 18 trains currently in various stages of testing in Victoria. Trains will continue to enter service once all tests are completed to the high standards of the government and the safety regulator. This train is the first newly designed metropolitan train in nearly two decades and will deliver a smoother, quieter and more comfortable journey, and is the biggest train on the metropolitan network, providing more space for physical distancing—and that is important in light of what we have been dealing with with COVID-19 and the global pandemic of course. The high-capacity metro train has now been accepted by the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator, ONRSR. Each train will be required to undergo certification by an independent reviewer and safety assessor as well as Metro Trains before entering passenger service. Now for some key facts that are highly relevant in this context when we are talking about infrastructure investment. This project is creating 1100 Victorian jobs. We are taking apprentices, trainees and cadets onto the project as well as people facing barriers to employment, and giving ex-auto workers—those opposite should know a lot about ex-auto workers; they have certainly got a bit of a history there—the opportunity to be part of this project. Built with 60 per cent local content, the trains are made with more local content than any other project of this kind in Australia, with bogie frames—I hope that is the right pronunciation—being built in Bendigo. That also attests to my lack of knowledge about the construction of trains, but anyway. Traction and electrical systems are made in Morwell—how about that, made locally in Morwell. Now that is something. That is something. Key electrical components and pantographs are from Hallam, also local. That is a good thing. The government has a contract with Evolution Rail, who have advised there are a number of complex challenges they are currently working through. There are a number of triggers in the contract we will be holding Evolution Rail to. Fundamentally we are focused on creating jobs and rebuilding our Victorian economy and having good relationships with our export partners. It is all about jobs—jobs for Victorians, more jobs, more products being exported, more economic opportunity and more businesses thriving in our state. Victorian exports are the best products of their kind in the world—we should be proud of our products, shouldn’t we?—and China is out biggest customer. We want a good relationship with our biggest customer so that more Victorian products can be exported. Not just existing exports but new opportunities will be crucial to recovery. We expect the Australian government is providing strong representations to China and all trading partners and is advocating for all our exporters, for sure, because we have Victorians as our highest priority—making sure that we look after our Victorian products and making sure that they are able to be sold and that we keep our businesses profitable. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 182 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021

We would condemn any unwarranted impositions by any country that would make it harder for Victorians to sell products, whether it be to our biggest customer or indeed any customer. A positive relationship is important to us, and we have made the point to Chinese counterparts both here and in China. So, our trade relationships with our biggest trading partners and our smallest are about supporting Victorian businesses and creating Victorian jobs. I would like to think that there is consensus across the chamber about supporting Victorian businesses and creating Victorian jobs. Surely that would be a priority across the chamber and it would not just be a hardline wedge on ideology. Heaven forbid, no. I would like to think we actually all care about Victorian jobs. Decisions made under the Australia’s Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Act 2020 about the status of agreements are a matter for the federal government. Victoria will comply with our obligations under the legislation, just to be clear about that as well. So fundamentally where we are at is that of course we have to make sure that workers are treated appropriately, and that goes without question. That goes without saying. So no-one in any way wants to resile from that. Why would we resile from that? That is absolutely, as I have said from the outset, a priority for our government; it always will be. We will always be concerned for the rights and the welfare of workers, so that is why we have gone to the correct procedures and made sure to investigate issues that have been raised and that speak to this motion to ensure that the consortium delivering the HCMTs is complying with all the laws. So just to be clear about that, there is no resiling from that in any way, shape or form, and that will always be our priority—to ensure we are looking after Victorian jobs, we are backing in Victorian businesses and we are also making sure that workers are treated appropriately as well. Fundamentally that is part of the Labor DNA at the end of the day. We do want to make sure that workers are honoured. And we know, as I said from the outset, that this is creating real jobs—1100 Victorian jobs—and I am emphasising that because we have to be always be mindful of that as a fundamental premise. That is part of the impetus to export in the first place— (Time expired) Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (17:13): I am happy to make a brief contribution on this particular motion from Mr Davis. I agree with Ms Taylor and her sentiment that of course there should be great concern for any workers’ rights or people being abused in any part of the world. I think that Ms Taylor did talk about the necessity of the progress of this state, and in progressing this state we still want to absolutely have our eye on where contracts go and what concerns there are. In other jurisdictions those contracts may be delivering to people that need to be treated in a humane and good way compared to the concerns that might be aired here. I think that it is an area where things have moved as far as the opposition are concerned. I know when Ted Baillieu was Premier—I am not sure if it was once or twice—he led big trade delegations to China. Mr Davis: The biggest in Chinese history. Mr LEANE: The biggest in China’s history? Mr Davis, thank you for correcting me. Premier Ted Baillieu led the biggest trade mission to China. A number of companies— Mr Davis: Biggest delegation from anywhere in the world into China. Mr LEANE: Anywhere in the world into China? I am not too sure, Mr Davis, if the concerns you are raising now as far as that marketplace and as far as workers rights go were completely on the radar of the Premier and the ministers. Mr Davis interjected. Mr LEANE: Well, no, I think you could say that they could have been naive back then compared to now. Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders. STATEMENTS ON REPORTS, PAPERS AND PETITIONS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 183

Statements on reports, papers and petitions ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING COMMITTEE Inquiry into Nuclear Prohibition Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (17:15): I rise to speak on the report produced by the Legislative Council’s Environment and Planning Committee following its inquiry into nuclear prohibition. We have heard far too much old-fashioned, ill-informed scaremongering referencing nuclear. This Cold War bunker mentality must end if we are to successfully tackle the energy catastrophe we face, and this is not just a left-versus-right issue. This house has heard the, I would claim, outdated views of Ms Taylor, but her union allies hold an entirely different view, and the committee heard supportive evidence from the AWU and the CFMEU. In their submission the Australian Workers Union noted:

Unfortunately public anxiety on the dangers of nuclear power is disproportionate to historical evidence and the scientific discipline. They continued—now, this is the AWU, remember:

Anti-nuclear … groups have proven extremely successful at fanning public indignation towards nuclear science. This has been achieved by … a focus on isolated nuclear disasters, and the linking of electricity generation— to—

… nuclear armament. On nuclear accidents we think of Chernobyl, a disaster caused entirely by human error and a jerry- built reactor designed and run by the communist Soviets, constructed in the 1950s. You could not get a more different scenario to the one we would have in Victoria with state-of-the-art SMR technology. The 2011 Fukushima meltdown is another favourite of the alarmists, yet the plant was built in the 1960s with critical and foreseeable design flaws, constructed on a fault line and a victim of one of the worst recorded earthquakes and tsunamis in Japan’s history, a catastrophe in which 18 500 people died. Now, the alarmists would have you believe that these people must have been victims of radiation exposure, yet the accepted death toll from Fukushima is just one. Just one person died in the only major nuclear disaster in 40 years. In fact in 2014 the World Health Organization stated that it expects no increases in miscarriages, stillbirths or physical or mental disorders in babies born after the accident. So let us look at the realities of the energy challenges we face and the benefits of nuclear energy that Victoria must embrace if we are to decarbonise. France and Germany, for example, are neighbours with similar populations and standards of living, developed economies and significant manufacturing sectors. Yet France emits 6.9 tonnes of CO2 per capita annually and Germany 10.7 tonnes—that is a whopping 55 per cent discrepancy. How curious when one considers Germany generates 25 per cent of its energy from wind power and has a massive solar penetration of nearly 10 per cent. Germany provides its baseload power predominantly from coal with a small proportion from nuclear, whereas France produces 72 per cent of its energy from nuclear, thereby eliminating millions of tonnes of CO2 every year, and with a spotless safety record. In fact there is no country in the world that has successfully decarbonised without nuclear energy. Now, this is not an abstract future scenario, it is the reality around the world today. You can have significant wind and solar power generation, but intermittent renewables can never be the whole solution. Victoria should be energy technology agnostic, as I am, and embrace all options, including nuclear, hydrogen, waste to energy, wave energy, carbon capture and storage, onshore conventional gas and even HELE coal, along with renewables. To do otherwise will condemn Victorians to a Third World energy supply. This is why I worked with Dr Bach and Mr Limbrick to produce a minority report highlighting the benefits of nuclear energy for Victoria. Both New South Wales and the commonwealth have found nuclear power has substantial benefits. Victoria must not be left behind. STATEMENTS ON REPORTS, PAPERS AND PETITIONS 184 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021

The inquiry was not asked to trumpet nuclear energy as a silver bullet for the energy challenges we face, it simply asked: should the prohibition on nuclear energy be lifted in Victoria? After hearing the extensive evidence given to the committee from a wide range of experts, the only conclusion one can come to is that the prohibition must be lifted. DEPARTMENT OF PREMIER AND CABINET Report 2019–20 Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (17:20): I would like to give a statement on the Department of Premier and Cabinet annual report 2019–20. The reason I would like to give a statement on that is that that is where the veterans portfolio has been, so it gives me an opportunity to speak on some of the initiatives and issues that are happening in the veterans sector as we speak. In saying that, I would really like to show my appreciation. I was lucky enough to go to the National Vietnam Veterans Museum, which is the biggest Vietnam museum in the world—there is even not a bigger one in America, surprisingly. This is a museum with an amazing story. Mr John Methven, OAM, who is obviously a Vietnam vet, and his wife started this museum a number of years ago. He actually had a van, and they drove around Australia. They would stop in different cities or towns, he and his wife would put out displays and Vietnam vets and vets’ family members would come and donate things while they were in town. So they had this big collection, and it ended up culminating in this museum, which is in Phillip Island, where John and a number of volunteers helped put up some big sheds to house what is an amazing display with tanks and planes and medals—not amazing; a unique gathering of medals—all commemorating the Vietnam War obviously and Australia’s part in that. It is not a political place. They do not take a side on whether it should have happened or not. They just want a place to acknowledge the activities that the veterans went through and what they had to endure. I want to thank the board members that showed me around, which includes Bob Elworthy, AM; Neville Goodwin; Colonel Marcus Fielding; Lesley Argaet; Phil Dressing; Gary Elliott; and also the Honourable Ken Smith, who was there. He is well, and he does a great job being part of that, I will give him credit. It was really good to catch up with him. I really enjoyed that, and I am looking for ways that maybe we can support them further. They have got big aspirations to move the museum to a location across the road, and I am seeing what we can do to help them fulfil that aspiration. I think I mentioned in question time I was lucky enough to go to the Ballarat Veterans Assistance Centre. It is a group of vets who are volunteers, but there are also other volunteers that are not vets. They have identified a gap, and they believe they can help veterans and family members get services and get directions to services which they sorely need and deserve. I think the gap does concern me, and I had a good conversation around how we can assist. The gap that they have identified must be a gap that is statewide. On another issue with veterans, I have spoken to a lot of veterans. I know this is a federal issue, but veterans are calling for a royal commission into veteran suicide. That is what they want, and I respect the federal government have put a different position at this stage. It sounds like there is going to be a federal election some time this year, people are saying. This is not a political issue as far as being party-political goes. This is an issue I think we should all get behind and we should all encourage our federal counterparts on, whether it be members of the coalition, whether it be the Labor Party, whether it be the Reason Party or whether it be the Greens party. I think we should push our federal colleagues to all take a platform that in the next term there will be a royal commission into veteran suicide and, on top of that, all take a platform that the Department of Veterans Affairs services need to be refreshed and looked at. I do not think they are as supportive as they could be, and I have said that in this chamber before. This is not a political issue, because it has been like this for 100 years. Different governments have struggled with this, and maybe it needs a royal commission to turn it upside down to get to a STATEMENTS ON REPORTS, PAPERS AND PETITIONS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 185 point where the optimum support and respect for veterans and their families is given via any taxpayer dollars that we have available. PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES COMMITTEE Inquiry into the Victorian Government’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (17:25): I rise to speak to the Inquiry into the Victorian Government’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, which was tabled this week. Can I say at the outset that is something like 400-odd pages; it is a very extensive report. But I want to turn my attention to the minority report in this report because of the work that was done by a number of people. I note that there are a number of minority reports. The Greens—the member for Prahran, Sam Hibbins—put a minority report in. The substantial report obviously is quite significant. But I turn my attention to the minority report that was put together by the opposition members. At the outset the Premier said that PAEC, which is the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, is ‘the pre-eminent committee’ that will undertake this work and look at the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic—‘without fear or favour’, I think, was the term he used. Certainly as you go through this minority report you will see some issues that are so glaring, which are not in the substantial part or the body of the report but are here in black and white through the minority report. I really want to thank those members—Richard Riordan, and Danny O’Brien—in terms of putting that together. I know that there were other members from this chamber—Mr Limbrick sat on the committee and asked some excellent questions too of ministers and bureaucrats and other witnesses. It was very important, because as we have heard today and as we have heard over the months, there has been devastation in this state that has not occurred in any other state or territory, and it is because of the government’s response to the hotel quarantine breaches and of course the failures in contact tracing. I am not going to reprosecute those issues. But I want to just go to some of the points that were raised and some of the evidence that was provided. I go to the emergency management commissioner. He firstly gave his evidence, and then he changed it several times. The report goes on to talk about Operation Soteria:

… a shocking failure in accountability and an exemplar of ‘buck-passing’ … It is laid out in black and white here just how that was in relation to who was responsible and the evidence provided by the emergency management commissioner and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services at the time, Ms Peake. If I can return to that, one of the points that is made, and I will read this in, was:

It’s clear that neither Ms Peake, nor those advising her, had any clue about what they were actually doing. The bureaucrat who advised Ms Peake on the appointments, who was an economist by training, gave evidence that she viewed the Hotel Quarantine program to be an exercise in ‘logistics’ as opposed to a health emergency, stating: My view then, and quite frankly my view now, is that the overwhelming role that we needed for an effective response from the emergency management framework was one of coordination of logistics and other assistance. That goes to the problem. They did not understand that this was largely a health response, where infection control was so critical. Yes, there were logistics—of course there were logistics. You were getting returned travellers coming in from parts of the world with the virus, and that is why they were going into hotel quarantine. But the way the government viewed this, it is clear from this evidence, was that it was all about logistics and they did not see it as a health response. We saw that with the private security. Throughout this minority report, there is that evidence. It is really telling with the witness statements. The opposition members were able to pick out and find those flaws and then make various recommendations. There were 58 findings in their minority report and they made 17 recommendations in relation to all of these elements. STATEMENTS ON REPORTS, PAPERS AND PETITIONS 186 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021

In terms of that, their recommendation was that future state governments comply with and follow the state emergency response plan in any future public health emergency and appoint the chief health officer as state controller. We know that did not occur. We know that was a major problem. I will have some more to say on this report in coming weeks, because I think it is very important that many Victorians understand, and I would urge many people to read that minority report. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY AND FINANCE Budget papers 2020–21 Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (17:30): I rise to speak on the state budget for 2020–21, which provided $5.75 million for the Barmah National Park joint management agreement. One of the requirements of that joint management agreement is to remove all of the brumbies from the Barmah National Park, which has upset a number of people in my electorate and beyond my electorate. In fact since Sunday, 10 January, this year my inbox has been absolutely full of people who have been pointing out to me an interview that was done on the ABC 774 Australia All Over program with Keith Ward, the chief water ecologist at the Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority. Now, one of the reasons that the government want to remove all of the brumbies from the national park is that the Barmah National Park is a Ramsar-listed wetland, and the government claim that the presence of the brumbies is damaging severely the moira grass in the wetlands. But in this particular interview that Keith Ward from the Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority gave on 774’s Australia All Over program, he actually spoke about the moira grass and he spoke about the special things that you see in the forest. He included the flood plains and the moira grass and he talked about his years of experience and of working in the forest for 30 years now. He went on to talk about the forest in flood and how spectacular it is, and I have often spoken in this place about the red gums in flood and how red gums are supposed to have their feet wet—because they do look sensational when the forest is actually reflected in the water. It is a beautiful sight, and I invite all of you the next time the Goulburn or the Murray River is in flood to come up and actually have a look at how beautiful it is. Whilst it is a very traumatic event for many of our communities when we have floods, if the floods can stay within the flood plains of the river and not get into the towns, it is an absolutely spectacular event. He talked about the environmental flows that have come about in more recent years and the benefits that they have provided to the fish and the moira grass in the area, and what has upset the people in my area who are concerned about the brumbies being removed is that as part of that interview when he was talking about the benefits of the environmental flows to the moira grass he said that in recent times he has seen some of the best moira grass that he has seen in years, and he has been working there for 30 years. So clearly the people are concerned that it is not actually the brumbies that are damaging the water grass but rather it was the droughts and the lack of water that had done the damage to the moira grass, and they are wanting the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change to now review this plan to remove all of the brumbies—to do another study and to have a look at the moira grass now and the state of it now that it has had a few years of environmental flows. As Mr Ward said, it is some of the best moira grass that he has seen in many years. He also spoke about the golden everlasting paper daisies, and he said that they were just massive swathes of gold as well because of these environmental flows. So if the environmental flows are actually doing their job and improving the Barmah forest, my constituents do not believe that it is necessary to remove all of the brumbies. As we know, the brumbies have heritage value and they have sentimental value: they are the Australian Waler horse. Many of them have been there for over 160 years, but some of them were introduced around the time of World War I, when the Light Horsemen who went off to war took one of their horses with them but had to release the rest of their horses, so they have a lot of sentimental value to our local area. The locals would like the environment minister to review her plan to remove all of those brumbies and to actually look at the forest, see the state of it now and then reassess that plan, because we do not believe that the brumbies should be removed in their entirety. STATEMENTS ON REPORTS, PAPERS AND PETITIONS Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 187

AUDITOR-GENERAL Systems and Support for Principal Performance Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (17:35): Great schools require great leadership, and great leadership can only come from fantastic school principals. I was deeply troubled late last year to read a new report from the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office entitled Systems and Support for Principal Performance, and in this report the Auditor-General slammed the Andrews Labor government for the way in which it fails to support our school principals. Now, as you know, Acting President Patten, education is a matter close to my heart. Before taking up my seat in this place I was the head of a large secondary school in my electorate, and so I know full well that being a school principal is a stressful job. There are myriad issues on a day-by-day basis that our principals must deal with. There are three key cohorts that principals must deal with: first and foremost, students; secondly, staff; and thirdly, the parent and guardian body. To do this, principals deserve support from our Department of Education and Training. If the staff at the Department of Education and Training are not doing this, well, what are they there for? Nonetheless, this report from the Auditor-General’s office found that processes that the government says are intended to support principals are, and I quote, ‘cumbersome’ and ‘inconsistent’. Indeed no fewer than 65 per cent of principals said that they thought processes that were intended to seek to support them were indeed unfair; 83 per cent of principals said that these processes were time consuming—in fact added to their workload. The aim of course should be to seek to lighten the immense workload of our principals to enable them to do the things that they love doing and they must do, setting the culture in their schools. All the best emerging research demonstrates that you cannot have a high-performing school culture without that culture being set and led by school leadership and first and foremost by that school principal. That is not something that can be done by a bureaucrat on Spring Street. However, this government’s position seems to be that we centralise power when it comes to our education system within the bureaucracy and the minister’s office and lump more and more paperwork on our principals. That is what 83 per cent of state school principals say. They also say, and the Auditor-General agrees, that, and I quote, ‘major changes’ are required to ensure that our principals get the help and support that they need. A further element of the report particularly worried me. I have spoken so often in this place and in other forums about the extent to which I feel that the vast majority of our teachers here in Victoria, especially in our state schools, are just fantastic. A small minority are not of course, but the vast majority are fantastic. Similarly, there is such a huge amount that we can learn—certainly this minister and his office, this government and its bureaucracy can learn—from our state school principals, and yet the report found that, and I quote:

… a lot of high performers … live in the absence of being told they’re doing a good job. There are inadequate mechanisms to share good practice, and there is so much good practice going on in our schools, despite the best efforts of this government to squash it. So Mr Hodgett, the member for Croydon and Shadow Minister for Education, and I sought at the end of last year to push the government to accept these findings and to finally act, because as I said, with emerging research we are learning more and more. We are learning more clearly that you can only have high-performing schools and you can only have a great school culture if that is set by the principal. Late last year I was also interested to learn and gratified to learn that the Minister for Education has been spending some of his time reading through my speeches in this place. He could learn something by doing that, and I encourage him to continue to do so. He stood up in the other place and had a crack at me on the basis that I had said in my maiden speech in this house that I wanted school principals to be able to do what I had done as the head of a large secondary school when it came to hiring and firing and supporting staff. Well, what I did, for the benefit of the minister and his team, when I was a school leader on school boards and as a vice-principal was hire more teachers, pay them more and, yes, on a small number of occasions ensure that staff who were not up to the job, meaning they were a risk to ADJOURNMENT 188 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021 student safety, were removed. That is the job of school principals. That is the job of school leadership. Unlike the minister, I have done it. I would urge him to read this report carefully and to accept its recommendations. Adjournment Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (17:41): I move:

That the house do now adjourn. WEST GATE TUNNEL Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (17:41): I wish to raise a matter this evening for the attention of the Minister for Planning, and those who have been paying attention will be aware that I have been expressing my very deep concern for quite some time about planning decisions surrounding the dumping of toxic soil at Ravenhall and at Bulla. I have also expressed my very grave concern, in particular with the Bulla dump, that housing is not far from the proposed toxic waste dump. We have seen housing developments pop up just 200 or 300 metres away from this Hi-Quality dump, as it is so called. ‘Hi-Quality’ is the name of the company, I should hasten to add, not a description of what they do. What I have been absolutely horrified to see over the summer recess is a new supposedly high quality—not related to the dump but another high standard—residential development advertising its wares, and where might this residential development be? Right opposite the tip; right opposite the proposed waste dump—the toxic soil dump. It is absolutely astonishing that any minister would allow a development opposite a proposed toxic soil dump. I mean, if you had to come up with a scenario where an environmental disaster was imminent, you could not come up with a better one than the one that the minister has put together in Sunbury Road. I do not understand what is going through his mind. I do not understand what is happening with the developments along Sunbury Road so very close to the proposed toxic soil dump. It is a disaster waiting to happen, and my very great concern is that for many years to come we are going to see people who buy homes there, who build there and who live there and their children suffering from some dreadful diseases as a result of this toxic soil. So what I am asking the minister to do is to ensure that no toxic soil is allowed to be dumped in Sunbury Road. The only way that we can avoid this disaster is to get it right away from the residential developments, and I am asking the minister to do just that. NAPIER STREET, WHITE HILLS, BUS STOP Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (17:44): My adjournment matter is directed to the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, and it concerns a new public bus stop in Napier Street, White Hills. The action that I seek from the minister is to order an urgent safety review of the bus stop located at 507 Napier Street, White Hills, and to allay the concerns of local business owners and residents by relocating the bus stop to a more appropriate location. In October 2020 I was contacted by business owners in White Hills who expressed concerns regarding the planned location of a bus stop outside 507 Napier Street. My constituents’ concerns were that the bus stop would be located between the entry and exit driveways of an off-street car park. There were also safety concerns regarding drivers entering and exiting the car park, passengers getting off the bus, other pedestrians, cyclists and other road users. I raised these issues with the minister at the time, requesting details of any investigation by Regional Roads Victoria regarding alternative locations for the bus stop. In his response the minister stated that RRV had determined the planned location to be safe for drivers, pedestrians and bus commuters. Despite the concerns raised, construction of the bus stop at the planned location commenced and was completed prior to Christmas. I recently visited and spoke to my White Hills constituents, whose concerns around safety at the bus stop are even greater now that it is in operation. The constituents are concerned that small children who get off the bus may run into the adjacent off-street car park and into ADJOURNMENT Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 189 the path of a reversing vehicle. Reversing drivers would be unable to see the small children that suddenly appear behind them, creating a dangerous situation with potentially tragic consequences. When establishing the bus stop, workers painted the required bus bay onto the road, obviously the regulation length for a bus stop, but the painted markings reached halfway over the entry driveway to the off-street car park. It was only when the local business owners complained that this portion of the bay was removed, but this now raises questions regarding whether the bus stop is compliant—that is, whether the space between the two driveways actually meets the minimum required space for a bus stop. Most concerning is the fact that when a bus is present at the stop, drivers exiting the off-street car park now have their view obscured of oncoming traffic in Napier Street, which forms part of the Midland Highway and carries a large volume of vehicles each day. So the action that I seek from the minister is to order an urgent safety review of the bus stop located at 507 Napier Street, White Hills, and for the minister to allay the concerns of local business owners and residents by relocating the bus stop to a more appropriate location. VOLUNTARY ASSISTED DYING Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (17:47): My adjournment matter is for the attention of the Minister for Health in the other place, the Honourable Martin Foley. My matter concerns the conflict between the Victorian Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2017 and the commonwealth Criminal Code, resulting in the prohibition of VAD services by telehealth, including phone call, video link and email. Former senator Derryn Hinch is one of the most vocal public figures in support of the legislated dying with dignity scheme, and we therefore commend the government on making this a reality in Victoria. However, there have been a few bumps along the road since its introduction. One that I have raised previously is the inaccessibility of people from rural areas to see specialists in order to satisfy the safeguards of the legislation. However, another highlighted greatly by the COVID-19 pandemic is the prohibition of using telehealth to provide permissions and advice to those wanting to take part in the voluntary assisted dying scheme. This is because medical professionals are worried about the possibility of conflicting with the federal Criminal Code, which states that you cannot use an electronic carriage service to directly or indirectly counsel or incite someone to end their life. By way of background, all medical practitioners who have trained to provide VAD care were contacted by the VAD review board personally and advised that they were not allowed to provide any aspect of VAD care via a carriage service. This meant that all consultations had to be face to face, causing an extraordinary burden on both patients and doctors. This also became effectively impossible during the height of the pandemic, so doctors have been technically breaking the law with every phone call related to VAD care, facing the possibility of legal action and even theoretically jail. This interpretation of the law came from somewhere within the Department of Health and Human Services; however, the commonwealth Criminal Code refers to suicide, whereas voluntary assisted dying is a lawful medical option available to a small number after very strict scrutiny. A VAD death is not recorded as suicide, and many articles have been written also describing why VAD is different to and not considered suicide. The leading legal opinion here in Victoria in Robert Richter had reached the same conclusion, as had the Western Australian Attorney-General. Providing VAD care is complex enough as it is, and there are still too few doctors trained. The prohibition on telehealth is just another barrier but one that I believe can be removed. I believe Minister Foley wrote to the federal Minister for Health, , about this matter, and I would appreciate being kept updated of any reply and its substance. But for now, the action that I seek is for the minister to confirm, according to the voluntary assisted dying legislation, that our medical professionals will not be prosecuted for providing the voluntary assisted dying service via telehealth. PETER–BELL STREETS, PRESTON, TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (17:50): My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Roads and Road Safety. Minister, because of the level crossing works in Bell Street in Preston in ADJOURNMENT 190 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021 my electorate of Northern Metropolitan Region, the parents at St John’s Greek Orthodox College in Preston cannot exit Peter Street onto Bell Street from the school pick-up and drop-off areas at the school. Whilst the level crossing works are the responsibility of the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, this matter is the responsibility of you as the minister for roads. The parents have told me that the Bell Street traffic does not allow them to turn left at peak times and that it has been a struggle without a clearway or a traffic officer. Drop-off and pick-up times are particularly dangerous and difficult. With the level crossing works and the increase in parents using their car to get their children to and from school during this new school year, it has made this area particularly difficult with traffic congestion, and it is a bigger issue than ever before. I want to thank the many, many parents who have approached me about this and brought this safety matter to my attention. The action I seek from the minister by way of directing the Department of Transport and VicRoads is to investigate urgently the intersection of Peter Street and Bell Street in Preston, particularly during school drop-off and pick-up times, and to investigate if there is a way that they can place a clearway or a traffic officer or some safety scheme at that intersection for the safety of the parents and the safety of the children. DRIVER EDUCATION Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (17:51): My matter is for the Minister for Roads and Road Safety. It is actually substantially about a matter that predates his time in the roads portfolio; nevertheless I feel sure that he and his staff and/or department will very easily be able to provide me with the relevant information about it. Specifically it is about a 2014 Labor Party pre-election commitment in relation to road user education. In the lead-up to the election the ALP announced that it would introduce a compulsory driver education program for year 10 students if it won government. It was estimated that this new program would cost $24 million over the four years to 2018 as part of a broader $146 million road safety package for young Victorians. I certainly agree with the principles behind that policy, and in my time as an MP the importance of driver education is something that has only been consolidated in my mind. Indeed I have received a lot of feedback and participated in many discussions with constituents and various experts about road safety issues, not least among them the brilliant Driver Education Centre of Australia, or DECA for short, in my electorate. These conversations have spanned many issues, including the condition of northern Victorian roads, the alarming ongoing increases in the incidence of drug driving, and various matters relating to testing and penalties for those and other offences on our roads. These conversations have also centred on the general skills of Victorian drivers, or in many cases the lack of them. Naturally I realised this is a regular experience of other MLCs too, as we reflected, for instance, in last year’s moving debate on the bill to immediately suspend the licences of drivers charged with serious offences like hit and run and excessive speeding. The action I seek is an outline of the Andrews government’s record on defensive driving education and funding, including specifically in relation to the implementation and outcomes of the 2014 election commitment to which I referred at the start of this matter. On that election commitment I must admit that I am finding it very difficult to trace exactly what happened in relation to its delivery, let alone its results. I should add that I know a number of students who were in year 10 in Northern Victoria between 2014 and 2018 who say they do not recall undertaking a compulsory driver education program. I would therefore appreciate any light the minister might be able to shed on these issues for me. WILD HORSE CONTROL Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (17:54): My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change and concerns the joint management plan for the Barmah National Park agreed between the minister, the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning and the traditional owner land management board. The minister’s approved plan is clear on ADJOURNMENT Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 191 one thing: eradicating the historic population of brumbies within the park is essential. The purpose is stated in various places to, quote:

Reduce the impacts and restore the health of the floodplain marshes … And:

… improving the health of Country … restoring Moira grasslands and marshes … The plan quotes the:

… critical need to reduce present and future damage to the park’s marshes and other environments. An important part of the joint management plan solution is the complete removal of the brumby population. It notes:

Removal of feral horses is a high priority that needs urgent action … Given the centrality of protecting grasslands to the case for shooting brumbies, it bears close examination. It does not take long to see its weakness. Firstly, as the plan concedes, it is the changed irrigation of the park which has been the primary cause of habitat loss. Before river regulation the forest was flooded in winter and spring through rainfall and upland melting snow swelling streams. This is acknowledged by the fact that an improved water regime is listed before culling in the actions laid out. Secondly, the remainder of the damage that is done by grazing and trampling cannot be blamed purely on horses, which Parks Victoria treat as scapegoats. Substantial populations of pests— namely, feral pigs, deer, sheep, goats and rabbits—are identified in the document. In my view these populations should be controlled first. They have none of the cultural or heritage value in this place that the brumbies have. In combination with improved water regimes, this would likely solve any degradation without resorting to the potential inhumane slaughter of the brumby population. I will conclude with a further inconvenient argument for those proposing the wholesale eradication of Barmah brumbies—namely, the excellent condition of the moira grasses. At the same time as we are told the horse population is dangerously high and damaging, a senior wetland ecologist in the Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority told the ABC this month that:

It is some of the best moira grass I have seen in years. So the action I seek from the minister is the rapid and complete release of all recent condition reports on the flood plain marshes. The justification for shooting the brumbies was poor enough before. If it turns out the flood plain needs recovering, even in the presence of a healthy brumby population, the argument will collapse altogether. YOUTH MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (17:57): My adjournment matter is to the Minister for Higher Education. The action that I seek is for the consideration of more places to be made available and incentives for undertaking studies in counselling. We are in a mental health crisis. Our youth are suffering terribly, and we are yet to see the full effects of the pandemic and the lockdown on our youth. One in 13 Australian teenagers is taking antidepressants and other prescription drugs for mental illness. One in 25 primary school students has a prescription for anxiety or antidepressant medication. One in seven school-aged children has been diagnosed with a mental illness, a Productivity Commission report has revealed. Suicide is the leading cause of death for young Australians aged between 15 to 24. Kids Helpline has been flooded with a record number of calls for help since the start of the pandemic in March. The hotline received 433 600 calls from children and teenagers, yet only 158 308 calls were answered by counsellors. They have had funding provided to hire an additional 50 counsellors. Life Education, which provides health and drug education to schools, has seen a rise in distress among students since the COVID-19 lockdowns and restrictions. Their chief executive has said that the ADJOURNMENT 192 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021 biggest cry for help is coming from Victoria, where the impacts of the 100-day lockdown will be felt not just now but way, way, way into the future. The Australian Primary Principals Association president said that distressed children are starting to self-harm in primary schools and that they do not have enough psychological support services for their students in those schools. We need to look after our youth and we need to ensure that they are not just physically fit but mentally and emotionally fit as well. To do this we are going to need more qualified counsellors, whether they are through universities or through TAFE colleges. Offering more places to cope with this demand is what we are going to need in the coming years. So, Minister, could you please see it in your heart to actually expand upon the counselling studies? MILDURA TRAIN SERVICES Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (18:00): My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Public Transport, and the action I seek is for the minister to bring back a passenger rail shuttle service between Mildura and Maryborough. There is a rail line running from Mildura to Southern Cross, but there are no passenger rail services that run along it. The only public transport option available for Mildura residents is a bus. Residents of Mildura face up to a 9-hour trip to Melbourne. Originally cancelled by the Kennett government, the policy of ‘No trains for you, Mildura’ has been warmly embraced by every government since. The line between Mildura and Maryborough has been converted to standard gauge as part of this government’s failed Murray Basin rail upgrade, while most of the rest of the state, including the line from Maryborough to Melbourne, remains on broad gauge. This of course is one of the excuses offered for the lack of rail services between Mildura and Melbourne: that you would now need two trains; it is too difficult; it is not worth it. Not worth it! Regional Victorians hear that from this government all too often. You have got $150 billion to spend on rail projects in and around Melbourne but nothing for the regions. The Mildura line is already being maintained for freight purposes, so the additional cost of adding passenger services is marginal. With a modest up-front investment, a rail shuttle between Mildura and Maryborough could be implemented, connecting with Melbourne at the Melbourne train. Such a service running a couple of times a week would be revenue positive in as little as two years. The investment would bring stations up to working condition and would purchase new rolling stock that fits the standard-gauge line. To keep costs even lower, as the trains on the north-east line to Wodonga are upgraded the old rolling stock could be repurposed for the Mildura to Maryborough shuttle. Now, some people may question why a Liberal Democrat is calling for more government spending on rail. However, we believe a Mildura shuttle would not be a drain on the budget while providing much- needed services to our most isolated northern Victorian town. This project would mean a lot to residents of Mildura, and the cost of the tickets would cover the cost of the project. The only thing we actually need is a minister that cares about Mildura. I call on the minister to finally bring passenger trains back to Mildura. RESPONSES Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (18:03): Eight honourable members of this chamber have brought up eight matters directed to six different ministers, and I will ensure that those matters are passed on to those particular ministers. Can I add that I have four written responses to adjournment debate matters: Dr Cumming on 26 November, Mr Meddick on 26 November, Mr O’Donohue on 9 December and Ms Lovell on 10 December. Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (18:03): Deputy President, I draw your attention to the standing orders relating to appropriate times for responses to adjournment matters. I am asking the minister at the table where my response to a matter that was raised for the Minister for Health on ADJOURNMENT Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 193

27 October 2020, 99 days ago, is and where my response to a matter for the Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers, of 12 November 2020, 83 days ago, is. Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (18:04): I cannot off the top of my head give an answer to Mr Ondarchie about those two matters, but I will give him a commitment that I will get my chief of staff to speak to those particular ministers to find out where those responses are and get them to him. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Minister. The house stands adjourned. House adjourned 6.04 pm. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES 194 Legislative Council Wednesday, 3 February 2021

Written adjournment responses Responses have been incorporated in the form supplied by the departments on behalf of the appropriate ministers. Wednesday, 3 February 2021

PANMURE QUARRY In reply to Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (26 November 2020) Mr WYNNE (Richmond—Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing):

The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning has advised me that the planning permit application for the proposed basalt quarry located near Panmure is administered by the Moyne Shire Council. The council gave public notice of the application and referred it to relevant agencies and authorities in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. I understand the permit application does not require a mandatory cultural heritage management plan because the proposed works area does not overlap with the designated area of Aboriginal cultural heritage sensitivity along the Hopkins River. However, this does not prevent the applicant from preparing a voluntary cultural heritage management plan. I note that the endorsed quarry Work Plan, that is administered by the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions through Earth Resources Regulation under section 77TD of the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990, contains conditions that seek to avoid or mitigate disturbance to heritage sites, native vegetation, faunal habitats and waterways, and offsite impacts from dust and noise. The Work Plan also contains conditions for quarry blasting activity. I also note the permit applicant has applied to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) for a review of the failure of the council to grant a permit within the prescribed statutory timeframe. The applicant must notify all persons who objected to the grant of a permit who in turn will have the opportunity to be a participating party to the VCAT review proceeding. VCAT will in due course conduct a hearing of all parties and will determine the matter on its merits. While I appreciate the concerns of the local community about the potential environmental, cultural heritage and amenity impacts of the proposed quarry, and I acknowledge the cultural significance of the area for Traditional Owners and First Nations people, I do not intend to intervene in this permit application matter. At this time, I am unable to visit the area and meet with local community members. POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION AND TRAINING In reply to Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (26 November 2020) Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education):

I thank the member for her Adjournment Matter and her advocacy for the Western Metropolitan Region. I apologise for the delay in responding. The Skills for Victoria’s Growing Economy Review, led by former Federal Minister Jenny Macklin has been released, exploring how the system can continue to support Victorian students, businesses and communities— and drive economic and social inclusion. The review can be accessed on the Department of Education and Training website at: https://www.education.vic.gov.au/about/department/Pages/macklin-review.aspx Importantly, the review sought to provide confidence to jobseekers and employers, especially as Victoria responds to and recovers from the coronavirus pandemic. It is the latest step in the Labor Government’s ongoing work to rebuild the sector after it was left decimated by the last Liberal Government, and contains key recommendations on how to: • ensure all Victorians can access the training they need • provide better opportunities for teachers to improve their practice and support high quality training • strengthen pathways from learning to the workplace • foster collaboration between stakeholders, including training providers and industry WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES Wednesday, 3 February 2021 Legislative Council 195

• respond to roadblocks between training and emerging industries • build a new evidence and data base that supports improved planning and decision-making. The Government will now consider the findings of the review and respond within the coming months. Since 2015, the Government has invested to rebuild TAFE, refurbish campuses, launch Free TAFE for Priority Courses and support disadvantaged students into training and jobs. In the Victorian Budget 2020–21, we invested a record $1 billion to make sure the state has the training and skills system it needs to emerge stronger from the coronavirus pandemic. Work has already begun on a number of reforms to support those disproportionately affected by the pandemic, create pathways for apprentices and trainees to Victoria’s Big Build projects, provide rapid retraining for in- demand jobs and grow the workforce for new and innovative sectors, including clean energy programs. I thank the Member for her continued interest in skills and training in Melbourne’s western suburbs. COVID-19 In reply to Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (9 December 2020) Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine—Minister for Water, Minister for Police and Emergency Services):

The government is always open to exploring new technology and methods that may add value to the COVID- 19 Quarantine Victoria program. BENDIGO SHOWGROUNDS REDEVELOPMENT In reply to Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (10 December 2020) Ms THOMAS (Macedon—Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional Development):

The Government recognises the importance of visitation to our regional Victorian economies and the need for communities to have suitable facilities to host community-based events. The Victorian Government continues to support the vision of the City of Greater Bendigo and Bendigo Agricultural Show Society, to revitalise the Prince of Wales Showgrounds (Bendigo Showgrounds) and ensure the facility caters to current and future user needs, is financially sustainable and continues to generate regional economic and social benefits to the region. That is why in August 2018, the former Minister for Regional Development, the Hon Jaala Pulford MP, approved a grant of up to $50,000 from the Stronger Regional Communities Plan for the City of Greater Bendigo to deliver the Bendigo Showgrounds Masterplan and Business Case project. As part of the 2020–21 State Budget, the Government announced a suite of funding programs which we anticipate will be released early in the new year. Regional Development Victoria will continue to work with the City of Greater Bendigo and Bendigo Agricultural Show Society in identifying appropriate funding options to help progress the revitalisation of the Bendigo Showgrounds.