PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

(HANSARD)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

FIFTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT

FIRST SESSION

WEDNESDAY, 1 MAY 2019

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

By authority of the Victorian Government Printer

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

The ministry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaker The Hon. CW BROOKS Deputy Speaker Ms JM EDWARDS

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leader of the House Ms JM ALLAN

Manager of Opposition Business Mr KA WELLS

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

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

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

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

Legislative Assembly committees

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

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

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

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

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

Joint committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS

PETITIONS BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Notices of motion ...... 1319 DOCUMENTS University of Divinity ...... 1319 Report 2018 ...... 1319 Documents ...... 1319 BILLS Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) Amendment Bill 2018 ...... 1320 Council’s agreement ...... 1320 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Victorian Auditor-General’s Office ...... 1320 Financial audit ...... 1320 COMMITTEES Parliamentary committees ...... 1320 References ...... 1320 MEMBERS STATEMENTS Toorak Road, Kooyong, level crossing ...... 1321 Bendigo West electorate Easter celebrations ...... 1321 Mansfield Living with Parkinson’s Support Group ...... 1322 Anzac Day ...... 1322 Helen Georgiou ...... 1322 Sri Lanka terrorist attacks ...... 1322 Victorian Sikh Gurduaras Council ...... 1323 Monash Interfaith Gathering ...... 1323 Budget ...... 1323 Watergardens railway station access ...... 1323 Regional roads ...... 1323 Warracknabeal Education Precinct ...... 1324 Lara waste recycling site ...... 1324 Llewelyn James Vale, OAM ...... 1324 Sale Water Tower ...... 1325 Jeremy Hearn ...... 1325 Southern Basketball Association ...... 1325 Footscray electorate primary schools ...... 1326 Anzac Day ...... 1326 Royal Children’s Hospital Good Friday Appeal ...... 1326 Deb Rielly ...... 1327 Polwarth electorate infrastructure funding ...... 1327 John Garang Kon ...... 1328 Mildura Base Hospital ...... 1328 Holocaust Remembrance Day ...... 1328 Anzac Day ...... 1329 Thomas White ...... 1329 Anzac Day ...... 1329 Anzac Day ...... 1330 STATEMENTS ON PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS Public Accounts and Estimates Committee ...... 1330 Report on the Appointment of a Person to Conduct the Financial Audit of the Victorian Auditor- General's Office ...... 1330 Public Accounts and Estimates Committee ...... 1331 Report on the Appointment of a Person to Conduct the Financial Audit of the Victorian Auditor- General's Office ...... 1331 Public Accounts and Estimates Committee ...... 1332 Report on the Appointment of a Person to Conduct the Financial Audit of the Victorian Auditor- General's Office ...... 1332 Public Accounts and Estimates Committee ...... 1333 Report on the Appointment of a Person to Conduct the Financial Audit of the Victorian Auditor- General's Office ...... 1333 Public Accounts and Estimates Committee ...... 1334 Report on the Appointment of a Person to Conduct the Financial Audit of the Victorian Auditor- General's Office ...... 1334 MOTIONS

Parliamentary Integrity Adviser ...... 1335 BILLS Owner Drivers and Forestry Contractors Amendment Bill 2019 ...... 1340 Statement of compatibility ...... 1340 Second reading ...... 1342 Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment Bill 2019 ...... 1345 Statement of compatibility ...... 1345 Second reading ...... 1346 Professional Engineers Registration Bill 2019 ...... 1347 Second reading ...... 1347 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Gippsland drought relief ...... 1349 Ministers statements: multiculturalism ...... 1350 Building cladding ...... 1351 Ministers statements: social cohesion ...... 1352 Emergency Services Superannuation Scheme...... 1353 Ministers statements: firearm prohibition orders ...... 1354 Solar Homes package ...... 1354 Ministers statements: employment ...... 1356 Death duties ...... 1357 Ministers statements: gender equality ...... 1358 CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Murray Plains electorate ...... 1358 Macedon electorate...... 1359 Ripon electorate ...... 1359 Carrum electorate ...... 1359 Hastings electorate ...... 1359 Sunbury electorate ...... 1359 Morwell electorate ...... 1360 Broadmeadows electorate ...... 1360 Sandringham electorate ...... 1360 Essendon electorate ...... 1360 BILLS Professional Engineers Registration Bill 2019 ...... 1361 Second reading ...... 1361 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Economic management ...... 1373 The National Party ...... 1376 Waste and recycling management ...... 1380 Macedon Ranges regional sports precinct...... 1382 Morwell electorate employment ...... 1385 Liberal Party ...... 1388 Gippsland drought relief ...... 1391 Extremism ...... 1394 BILLS Professional Engineers Registration Bill 2019 ...... 1397 Second reading ...... 1397 Sale of Land Amendment Bill 2019 ...... 1399 Second reading ...... 1399 Guardianship and Administration Bill 2018 ...... 1415 Second reading ...... 1415 ADJOURNMENT Cross-border policing ...... 1429 Footscray electorate roads ...... 1430 Hy Gain ...... 1430 Somerton intermodal rail hub and freight project ...... 1431 Melrose Drive overpass, Wodonga ...... 1431 Transport infrastructure ...... 1432 Goulburn River ...... 1432 Ivanhoe electorate schools ...... 1433 Wire rope barriers ...... 1434 Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System ...... 1435 Responses ...... 1435

PETITIONS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1319

Wednesday, 1 May 2019

The SPEAKER (Hon. Colin Brooks) took the chair at 9.34 a.m. and read the prayer. Petitions Ordered that petition lodged by member for Mornington on 30 April be considered next day on motion of Mr MORRIS (Mornington). Business of the house NOTICES OF MOTION Notice given. Documents UNIVERSITY OF DIVINITY Report 2018 Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education) (09:36): By leave, I table the University of Divinity report 2018. DOCUMENTS Tabled by Clerk: Bendigo Kangan Institute—Report 2018 Box Hill Institute—Report 2018 Centre for Adult Education—Report 2018 Chisholm Institute—Report 2018 Deakin University—Report 2018 Falls Creek Alpine Resort Management Board—Report 2018 Federation Training—Report 2018 Federation University Australia—Report 2018 GOTEC Ltd (The Gordon)—Report 2018 Goulburn Ovens Institute of TAFE (GOTAFE)—Report 2018 Holmesglen Institute—Report 2018 La Trobe University—Report 2018 Melbourne Polytechnic—Report 2018 Monash University—Report 2018 Mount Buller and Mount Stirling Alpine Resort Management Board—Report 2018 Mount Hotham Alpine Resort Management Board—Report 2018 Municipal Association of Victoria—Report 2017–18 Planning and Environment Act 1987—Notices of approval of amendments to the following Planning Schemes: Boroondara—C289 Casey—C261 Greater Geelong—C386 Hobsons Bay—C125 Kingston—C159 Melton—C199, C200 Mitchell—C127

BILLS 1320 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

Moonee Valley—C204 Surf Coast—C118 Yarra—C225 Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT University)—Report 2018 South West Institute of TAFE—Report 2018 Southern Alpine Resort Management Board—Report 2018 Sunraysia Institute of TAFE (SuniTAFE)—Report 2018 Swinburne University of Technology—Report 2018 University of Melbourne—Report 2018 Victoria University—Report 2018 William Angliss Institute of TAFE—Report 2018 Wodonga Institute of TAFE—Report 2018. Bills FAIR WORK (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) AMENDMENT BILL 2018 Council’s agreement The SPEAKER: I wish to advise the house that I have just received a message from the Legislative Council agreeing to the Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) Amendment Bill 2018 without amendment. Business of the house VICTORIAN AUDITOR-GENERAL’S OFFICE Financial audit Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure) (09:37): I move, by leave:

That: (1) Under section 17 of the Audit Act 1994, Mr Geoff Parker of Nexia Melbourne be appointed for a period of one year: (a) to conduct the financial audit of the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office for the financial year ending 30 June 2019; (b) in accordance with the agreement for the provision of services for the financial audit of the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (year ending 30 June 2019), in appendix 1 of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee’s report on the appointment of a person to conduct the financial audit of the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (PP 24, 2018–19); and (c) at a fixed fee level of remuneration of $38 000 (plus GST) for audit services for the year ending 30 June 2019. (2) A message be sent to the Legislative Council requesting their agreement. Motion agreed to. Committees PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES References Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure) (09:38): I move, by leave: That this house refers:

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1321

(1) an inquiry into the social and economic benefits of seeking to place disadvantaged jobseekers into sustainable employment to the Economy and Infrastructure Committee for consideration and report no later than 30 June 2020; (2) an inquiry into disabled learners’ access to TAFE to the Economy and Infrastructure Committee for consideration and report no later than 31 December 2020; (3) an inquiry into what urban, rural and regional communities in Victoria are doing to tackle climate change and how the Victorian government could support these communities to the Environment and Planning Committee for consideration and report no later than 30 June 2020; and (4) an inquiry into the current and future arrangements to secure environmental infrastructure, particularly parks and open space, for a growing population in Melbourne and across regional centres to the Environment and Planning Committee for consideration and report no later than 31 December 2020. Motion agreed to. Members statements TOORAK ROAD, KOOYONG, LEVEL CROSSING Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (09:40): On 24 April hundreds of local residents gathered at Malvern town hall for a public meeting to discuss the Labor government’s plan to impose sky rail on the community of Kooyong at Toorak Road. This is a proposal which does not have the support of the local community; this was very, very clear. The local community does support removing the level crossing; there is no doubt about that. There is complete agreement that the level crossing needs to go, but what my community wants is for it to be done properly. They want it to be done the way the former Liberal government removed the Burke Road level crossing, which was rail under road. We have seen recently the federal coalition government commit $250 million to remove the Glenferrie Road level crossing in Kooyong and to do it properly, with rail under road. Given this commitment, I call on the government to work with the federal government to ensure we have rail under road at our various level crossings in this area. We need to make sure that it is done properly. We do not want to inflict an urban blight here when it can be done in a way which is environmentally sensitive and which can bring the community together. We have shown at Burke Road the way it should be done. It can be done properly, it can be done in a way which is sensitive to the environment and it can be done in a way which encourages the community to support this project. I call on the government to listen to the community and to put the Toorak Road level crossing underground, where it should be. BENDIGO WEST ELECTORATE EASTER CELEBRATIONS Ms EDWARDS (Bendigo West) (09:41): Easter is a festive time in Bendigo West. This year the Bendigo TAFE Bendigo Easter Festival parade was one of the biggest parades that Bendigo has ever seen. After many years of fundraising and a $250 000 grant from the Andrews Labor government, over 80 000 parade spectators gathered to see for the first time Bendigo’s newest imperial dragon, Dai Gum Loong, the longest imperial dragon in the world. Dai Gum Loong was welcomed by Bendigo’s three other imperial dragons, Sun Loong, Yar Loong and Loong; Loong is the oldest imperial dragon in the world, has not featured in the parade since its retirement in 1970 and is heritage listed. I would like to congratulate Russell Jack on his retirement as director of the Golden Dragon Museum, which he and his late wife, Joan, were instrumental in the establishment of in 1991. Our Chinese culture and community would not be as vibrant without the work of Russell Jack. Another feature Easter fair in my electorate is at Maldon. Maldon hosts a range of community events, including the Great Aussie Scone Bake, billycart races, dancing in the street, a grand parade and football matches. Maldon’s grand parade attracted over 5000 people, and it was fantastic to see so many community groups and residents participating with costumes and floats.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS 1322 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

For almost 100 years the Mount Tarrengower Lookout Tower has been decorated with lights over the Easter period and can be seen from all over the district. With the recent refurbishment and new cabin, funded by the Andrews Labor government, this year was one of the biggest and brightest so far. Events at Maldon and Bendigo could not run without the countless hours of work by volunteers from our local communities, and I applaud and thank them all. MANSFIELD LIVING WITH PARKINSON’S SUPPORT GROUP Ms McLEISH (Eildon) (09:43): April was Parkinson’s Awareness Month, and I had the privilege of joining with the Mansfield Living with Parkinson’s Support Group for their monthly meeting and lunch. And what a fabulous event it was. I was invited by Jenny Heron, whose partner suffers from Parkinson’s; it was coordinated by Deb Smith, who did an amazing job in facilitating conversation so that people could very easily discuss what it is like to live with their condition or to be the carer of somebody living with the condition or a similar condition. The members of the group spoke so openly and frankly and talked about their frustrations with the progression of the disease, how it happens and what it is like to live with it. I really applaud the group for their openness in welcoming me. ANZAC DAY Ms McLEISH: On Anzac Day I spent the morning in the High Country, and the service at Merrijig was really something to see and be a part of. At 6.30 a.m. people and horses all met at the Hunt Club Hotel and then rode up to the memorial. This year there were maybe 75 to 85 horses, and people rode to the memorial and watched from horseback while the service took place. This year there was a new gunfire shelter erected. It was a huge job, and pretty well all volunteer driven. They had a small grant from the Mansfield shire, but it was a wonderful, collaborative effort to get this up and running. HELEN GEORGIOU Mr STAIKOS (Bentleigh) (09:44): Vale Helen Georgiou, late president of Thalassaemia and Sickle Cell Australia. Helen was born in Sydney in 1951, the child of proud Greek-Cypriot migrants. She was diagnosed with thalassaemia, a rare genetic blood disorder at three months of age. Helen had suffered a heart attack at the age of 15 due to iron overload, but this did not hold her back or slow her down in life. In 1966 Helen became part of the first group of thalassaemia patients that started a new medical treatment to remove iron from the blood called Desferal, a lifesaving treatment. During those early years, unfortunately, people living with thalassaemia major had to put up with a lot of stigma and prejudice from the Greek and Cypriot communities. Helen and her beloved mother Lucy would have none of that nonsense. Many families chose to hide their status from family and friends and the community out of fear of judgement, gossip, poor marriage prospects or even the stigma of just having bad blood. Helen’s philosophy was that everyone was to be treated equally, and she educated people with the facts. Because of the education awareness and patient advocacy work undertaken by Helen and Thalassaemia and Sickle Cell Australia, attitudes in the community are changing. Helen made a meaningful contribution as an advocate and mentor to many patients living with leukaemia and hepatitis C, which she contracted from an infected blood transfusion in the 1980s. These, together with a heart condition, took their toll on Helen. After lifelong blood transfusions and iron chelation treatment Helen was in a fragile state when she was diagnosed with Gullain-Barre syndrome, but she lived life to the fullest. Vale, Helen. SRI LANKA TERRORIST ATTACKS Mr ANGUS (Forest Hill) (09:46): Following the atrocious Easter Sunday bombings in Sri Lanka I was honoured to attend the office of the Sri Lankan Consul General on Monday to sign the condolence book on behalf of residents of the Forest Hill district. As I said during my contribution

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1323 yesterday on the condolence motion, the Sri Lankan community both locally and abroad remain in our thoughts and prayers during this terrible time. VICTORIAN SIKH GURDUARAS COUNCIL Mr ANGUS: Recently I was delighted to join with the Sikh community at the Victorian Sikh Gurduaras Council annual parade. The parade went from Parliament House Gardens to Flagstaff Gardens, with several thousand members of the Sikh community participating. My congratulations to all the volunteers involved in organising this event and also to the many members of the Sikh community for attending. This was a great display of our wonderful multicultural city. MONASH INTERFAITH GATHERING Mr ANGUS: I was pleased to attend the Monash Interfaith Gathering harmony and welcome dinner recently. The evening was an opportunity for members and guests of the group to come together and fellowship, share a meal and enjoy various multicultural musical items. This group is an important local group representing various faiths and beliefs and works together to promote understanding, respect, dignity and justice within the City of Monash. BUDGET Mr ANGUS: The state government stands condemned for delaying the delivery of the state budget from yesterday until after the forthcoming federal election later this month. Given this delay, all Victorians should be very concerned about what the budget will contain. If it was good news there is no doubt that this dodgy government would have released it on the previously scheduled date. This clearly indicates that there will be either more taxes, increased taxes, a collapse in the revenue or another blowout in the state’s expenditure resulting in a deficit. Yesterday the Treasurer refused to rule out the introduction of more taxes for Victorians, which would of course be on top of the twelve new or increased taxes already introduced by this dishonest government. The Treasurer needs to come clean and let Victorians know how bad things are financially and what new or increased taxes his government is introducing in the state budget. WATERGARDENS RAILWAY STATION ACCESS Ms HUTCHINS (Sydenham) (09:47): I rise to make a statement today about the Andrews government’s investment in early childhood education and improving disability access at Watergardens Station. I have met with locals over the last couple of years who have raised issues about mobility restrictions, particularly residents who are older, carers and parents with young kids; and also with disability advocate Olivia Briffa, who wants to see disability accessibility at Watergardens station improved, and I share that goal. Can I congratulate Olivia on the work she has done to get over 800 signatures on a petition. Together with the community we have successfully lobbied for further improvements to disability services including a short-term measure to improve the reliability of the lifts, but at this time I acknowledge more needs to be done. Thankfully in the 2018–19 Andrews government budget we committed $16 million to make public transport stations more accessible for people living with a disability at Watergardens and Essendon stations. Public Transport Victoria (PTV) have stated that due to the height of the Watergardens station passengers would need to travel 105 metres to reach the 6-metre high concourse via a ramp. Another disability advocate, Brian, has highlighted that this may discourage some passengers, particularly mobility restricted individuals that would walk the distance. PTV has a preference to double the number of lifts to six. We are still working through this as a community, and I am proud to continue advocating to improve disability services. REGIONAL ROADS Ms KEALY (Lowan) (09:49): I recently received an outstanding letter from a student from Rainbow that highlights the terrible conditions of roads in country Victoria under Labor. I quote:

MEMBERS STATEMENTS 1324 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

Dear Emma Kealy, Hi my name is Heidi and I am 12 years old from Rainbow Victoria. I live on Birchip-Rainbow Road and the last five years the road we live on has been getting worse and worse. All the time on the way to school we pass really big trucks and we are lucky to have a brilliant bus driver otherwise we would crash the bus into the trees. It is not just me and my friends that go on the bus that are effected it is also my parents and other people that travel to work every day. My mum has told me the story of when the big trucks make her get off the road and she has been close to crashing. My mum has reported this to VicRoads multiple times and has been told there is no funding, and I would be sad if one of my friends or family are killed driving along this road, so please can you find some funding to fix our road before something bad happens. Thanks, Heidi … I urge the minister to urgently address the dire need for road repairs on Birchip-Rainbow Road, to listen to our bright youth, like Heidi, and to provide more funding for VicRoads to allow them to fix our roads and save country lives. WARRACKNABEAL EDUCATION PRECINCT Ms KEALY: Warracknabeal Education Precinct is an essential priority for this year’s state budget. It is outrageous that the newest science lab in a public school in western Victoria has been sitting idle for six months with no students able to use it. This lab should be being used to educate our next generation of agronomists, grain research scientists and nurses. Labor have let down the Warracknabeal community by abandoning the project after building just half the secondary college and a third of the special development school. Labor must deliver what local people voted for and provide the funding for the Warracknabeal Education Precinct in the May budget. LARA WASTE RECYCLING SITE Mr EREN (Lara) (09:50): Yesterday I, along with the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, was pleased to announce that the Andrews Labor government has stepped in to clean up the waste stockpile at Lara with the Environment Protection Authority Victoria (EPA). Poor site- management practices by the previous operator, C & D Recycling, have resulted in an unacceptable risk to the community, the environment and emergency services in the event of a fire at the site. The Labor government has provided initial funding of $30 million to maintain fire prevention measures and clean up the site, a job that could take several years as the site contains an estimated 320 000 cubic metres of mostly construction and demolition waste. The EPA will rigorously pursue the previous site occupiers, owners, company directors and any other relevant parties to recover the costs of the fire prevention measures and clean-up. The City of Greater Geelong will project manage the works on behalf of the EPA and the government. Since August 2017 the EPA has had additional powers to support Victoria’s fire services and issue remedial notices to facilities not properly managing potential fire risks. These powers will be strengthened further under the new Environment Protection Amendment Act 2018, which will come into effect on 1 July 2020. It is excellent news for the whole community to know that the EPA will now take control of the clean-up. This site has been a cause for local concern for some time, so it is time to get on with fixing the problem once and for all. I am pleased to have assisted in a solution towards this outcome and proud to be a member of a strong Labor government that listens to the community’s concerns. LLEWELYN JAMES VALE, OAM Mr D O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (09:52): South Gippsland, Victoria and indeed the nation lost one of their best with the sudden death last month of Llew Vale, OAM. Llew Vale had an extensive history of service to his local community and across the state in farming, community work, community banking, local government and, most particularly, water. Llew had a list of community service as long as your arm, from being a councillor and shire president of the former South Gippsland shire to being the inaugural and long-serving chairman of South Gippsland Water and a founding member of the

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1325 board of the Toora & District Community Bank, which only recently celebrated its 20th birthday. He was a founding director of the water industry international charity WaterAid and served in many other water and natural resource management positions. Llew served as chairman of Goulburn-Murray Water between 2011 and 2014 through a difficult period in that organisation and on his departure was described as ‘respected, adored, dynamic, humble, insightful and completely customer focused’. It was not surprising then that the Toora community hall was packed with mourners for his farewell, including senior politicians from all sides of politics and community leaders from across the state. My deepest condolences to his wife of 49 years, Jane, and his children, Louisa, Kate, Tom and Jim. Vale, Llew Vale. SALE WATER TOWER Mr D O’BRIEN: Congratulations to indomitable Sale historian Peter Synan and his crew of helpers for the fantastic job they have done restoring and opening Sale’s historic water tower in Victoria Park. Originally built in 1888, the tower had become derelict but is now a beautiful history museum charting the background of Sale’s water supply. The tower was designed by John Grainger, who is also responsible for the historic swing bridge at Longford and Princes Bridge here in Melbourne. JEREMY HEARN Mr FOWLES (Burwood) (09:53): I rise today to decry the conduct of Jeremy Hearn, the Liberal candidate for the federal seat of Isaacs. The Liberal Party are apparently meeting this morning to strip him of their endorsement, but they should not have to disendorse him because they should not have endorsed him in the first place. Amongst many other vile and offensive things, he said all Muslims subscribed to an ideology of ‘killing or enslavement of the citizens of Australia if they do not become Muslim’. And it is not enough that Mr Hearn is an Islamophobe. He also vehemently opposes marriage equality, describing it as ‘nonsense’—a view shared, sadly, by a number of coalition members in this place and the other place. According to the Liberal Party website, Mr Hearn ‘prides himself on being a good listener and even better problem solver’. Well, he certainly has some problems to solve. His retrograde views are shared by the Liberal candidate for the federal seat of Chisholm, which intersects my electorate. Gladys Liu has been out in force on the Safe Schools program, dishonestly characterising it as being about ‘same-sex, transgender, intergender … all this rubbish’. On top of that she has besmirched non-Chinese immigrants, saying they are ‘not good migrants, if you know what I mean’. Well, we do know what you mean, Gladys. We know exactly what you mean. You cannot hide your racism and sexism behind your ethnicity. I raise all of this not just to shine a light on this appalling language but also to shine a light on the Liberal Party’s complete failure to adequately scrutinise its candidates for office. Mr Hearn is not a new proposition—he contested the preselection for Higgins many months ago. Gladys Liu has been a Liberal candidate before. It simply is not good enough that these bigots hide in plain sight inside the Liberal Party. Shame on them all. SOUTHERN BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION Mr ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (09:55): I was recently pleased to write to the Treasurer and convey for his consideration the 2019 Sandringham district budget submission. It is my role and responsibility to ensure that residents, community groups, schools and sporting clubs in the Sandringham district are adequately supported in their work by the state government. Among many worthy organisations I was therefore thrilled to include the Southern Basketball Association in the Sandringham Victorian state budget submission for 2019–20. Based in Tulip Street, Cheltenham, the association has more than 10 000 registered players and 750 teams and coordinates more than 12 000 games a year. The Southern Basketball Association are seeking an expansion of their stadium precinct—four new indoor courts—to ensure that the association can facilitate the increasing

MEMBERS STATEMENTS 1326 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019 number of young participants and support them in leading active and healthy lifestyles. The state contribution that is requested is $3 million, contributing to the $10 million project. I recently wrote to the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events inviting him to meet with me and representatives of the association, and it is my hope that a bipartisan approach can be taken to resolving how the required funds might be accessed. I await the minister’s response to my invitation, and I look forward to the inclusion of this capital funding in the 2019–20 Victorian state budget. FOOTSCRAY ELECTORATE PRIMARY SCHOOLS Ms HALL (Footscray) (09:56): Today I rise to congratulate two very special schools in my electorate. Last week I was lucky enough to visit St Margaret’s Primary School in Maribyrnong and Dinjerra Primary School in Braybrook. For years St Margaret’s have been trying to get grass to grow in their outdoor play areas. St Margaret’s put in an application for funding for a new synthetic surface for their playground as part of the Andrews government’s Pick My Project program. They were successful, and the Andrews government contributed $200 000, which was matched by fundraising from the school community. It was great to assist them with their application last year, and they were kind enough to invite me to the official opening last week. I cannot tell you how much of a difference it has made. The oval was not the place for kids to play; it was a dustbowl. Now it is an incredible space with soccer, netball, a running track and a T-ball area, which will make a huge difference to the entire community, who will now be able to use it when the school is not open. Dinjerra Primary School are also seeing exciting developments going on at their school. Works are well underway with the Andrews government investing more than $7 million on a rebuild of the school. I was last week joined by Daniel Mulino, the candidate for the federal seat of Fraser and a former upper house colleague, who was able to announce that a Shorten Labor government will provide a further $80 000 for upgraded play spaces and synthetic grass at Dinjerra Primary School. This is really exciting news for the kids at Braybrook, and I look forward to seeing Dinjerra Primary School completed by the end of this year, with a whole new primary school for the kids to enjoy. ANZAC DAY Mr NORTHE (Morwell) (09:58): It was a privilege to once again honour the men and women who have served our country at the 2019 Anzac Day services across the Morwell electorate. It was terrific to see such strong crowds attend our dawn and day services. A massive thank you to the following groups and community organisations for their organisation of our moving local Anzac Day services: the Morwell RSL sub-branch for their support of services at Churchill, Yinnar and Morwell; the Traralgon RSL sub-branch for their hosting of services at Traralgon, Tyers and Glengarry; the Yallourn/Newborough RSL for the Newborough Anzac Day service; the Yallourn North Action Group, Hazelwood Rotary, Tyers & District Community Association and the Narracan East community. We say well done on your coordination and hosting of our local Anzac Day events. Lest we forget. ROYAL CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL GOOD FRIDAY APPEAL Mr NORTHE: Once again the Morwell electorate stands with pride as one of the most successful regions in raising funds for the Royal Children’s Hospital Good Friday Appeal. There are many generous groups and individuals who have worked tirelessly to raise much-needed funds to support ill and sick children and their families. In turn I would like to acknowledge the following groups for their incredible efforts. The dedicated team of REH Cork Club volunteers raised more than $60 000, an amazing achievement, and congratulations to REH Cork Club president Roy Arnold, their volunteers and business partners for their generous contributions. The Moe/Newborough Royal Children’s Hospital appeal raised $33 000; well done to Sue Bechaz and all her team for their fundraising success. Bushies Bakery once again put Glengarry on the map by continuing their enormous hot cross bun extravaganza and subsequently raised substantial funds for the Royal Children’s Hospital appeal.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1327

DEB RIELLY Ms CRUGNALE (Bass) (09:59): I stand to honour Deb Rielly, who left this world on 4 April. She leaves an indelible imprint on so many lives in Wonthaggi and the Bass Coast region and on the many she walked beside, spoke with, assisted and served alongside. A triathlete, a paramedic, an educator, an author and a volunteer, she had lived with cancer for 16 years. She was at the helm of starting the Keeping Kids on Track fun run in 2012, a fundraiser all about connecting communities, uniting clubs and supporting our local youth. Those assisted included the Powlett River Primary School breakfast program, the Wonthaggi Little Athletics, the Bass Coast Boardriders Club, the boxing club, the secondary school, the specialist school, local football and netball clubs, surf clubs, soccer clubs, the library—the list goes on. She was named the 2019 Bass Coast Citizen of the Year, and that night everyone in the town hall stood up in unison. The cheers were vociferous in tone and proud in delivery. ‘I didn’t think I was going to be here tonight’, she said, with her two sons, Dylan and Ben, by her side. Tributes have abounded, and we see just how positively intertwined she was in so many lives: ‘determined, lived life to the full, strong, kind, passionate, a local hero, wonder woman and an inspiration’. She has gifted everyone, even those that met her fleetingly, with zest, determination and courage. ‘Be your best, don’t give up and never give in’, she will always be heard saying. POLWARTH ELECTORATE INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING Mr RIORDAN (Polwarth) (10:01): In our last sitting week before this Parliament hands down the budget for the new financial year I wish to remind this house of the priorities that my Polwarth community has been working long and hard on. I remind the Treasurer that Winchelsea Primary School is still waiting for new windows and complete asbestos removal from many of its older classrooms. The Rokewood Corindhap Football & Netball Club, the home of the Grasshoppers, is in desperate need of modern, safe and appropriate change rooms and facilities. In Colac the South Colac Football Netball Club will be looking for support to match the federal government’s commitments to help upgrade its clubroom facilities. The vibrant and well supported Apollo Bay Surf Life Saving Club has done the hard work and will be looking for support to rebuild its clubrooms on the foreshore that are rusted out and no longer fit for purpose. The Birregurra Recreation Reserve, which at times of bushfire crisis has acted as a support hub, is old—built in 1963—and it is antiquated. They too are looking for new club facilities that can also operate as a community hub. The Forrest community has been working hard to have a bushfire refuge to make that growing tourist town a safe place for visitors all year round. Bannockburn’s emergency services hub also needs to be funded. The shire has secured the land—they have been paying for it—and it is a key project in order to help develop the heart of Bannockburn. Port Campbell emergency services hub is an idea raised earlier this year by the huge volunteer base of the CFA, SES, ambulance and ocean rescue. The need for better services and facilities for this community has been known for a long time. And the Apollo Bay foreshore desperately needs support for a permanent solution to erosion.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS 1328 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

JOHN GARANG KON Mr McGHIE (Melton) (10:02): Today I would like to highlight the great work of John Garang Kon, a local Melton resident and community worker. John came to Melton in 2015 and started working as a volunteer at the electorate office in Melton. In 2016 he was elected as the leader of the South Sudanese community. He was heavily involved in helping South Sudanese families to settle in Melton. John and a team of others initiated the Harmony Walk at Woodgrove shopping centre and other hotspot areas to ensure the safety of the local people within the local government area. In addition his group run a homework club to support young people from multicultural backgrounds and to help improve their performance at school. I attended the homework club about two weeks ago, and there were around 30 children involved and enjoying themselves. As a result of his tireless effort to bring harmony to Melton he was nominated as Melton Citizen of the Year in 2018, and he was awarded a certificate. John now works as a multicultural youth worker at the Centre for Multicultural Youth under the community support group program. It is great to see local residents volunteer their time to give back to their community. I am proud to have John as one such person in the Melton electorate. MILDURA BASE HOSPITAL Ms CUPPER (Mildura) (10:03): Earlier this week the government announced the results of its recent consultation process regarding the healthcare needs of Mildura. This consultation process received over 2000 responses, and 90 per cent of respondents said that they want Mildura Base Hospital returned to public management. The house may recall that Mildura Base Hospital is currently the only privatised for-profit public hospital in Victoria, running under a contract that is due to end in September 2020. For nearly 10 years our community has been fighting to have our hospital returned. Surgeons, GPs and consumers have all shared horror stories. Finally, the government has taken the time to ask the people of Mildura whether they want their hospital to continue to be run for profit, and the response has been a resounding ‘No’. The people of Mildura have put up with this Kennett-era privatisation experiment for too long. The rest of the state has moved on. The time to return our hospital is now, and the community should not have to wait any longer. Let us get the board of directors in place, rebuild the relationships with clinicians, get the staff the salary packaging they deserve and put the people back at the centre of Mildura’s health services. The people of Mildura must no longer be treated like second-class citizens of this state. We are Victorians too, and to extend the contract would be simply unconscionable. HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE DAY Mr WYNNE (Richmond—Minister for Housing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Planning) (10:05): Today we mourn the more than 6 million Jews murdered during the Holocaust and the countless other victims of Nazi atrocities on Holocaust Remembrance Day. Whilst honouring the survivors still with us today we also pledge to keep their memories alive for many more generations to come. As the years progress and the survivors become fewer, our task becomes even more urgent. We must never forget humanity’s capacity for deliberate evil and destruction and the dangers of anti- Semitism, indifference and silence in the face of atrocity. Survivors’ stories must be told and retold. Words too often stand in the place of action. When we vow ‘Never again’ we recommit ourselves to a world that goes beyond tolerance and learns to love its differences. We pledge to also speak out against racism and hate and stand on guard against a resurgence of anti-Semitism and xenophobia. Today I encourage all Victorians to reflect on the bitter lessons of the Holocaust and share the stories of those whose lives were tragically lost and those who of course survived the unspeakable. We must never forget.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1329

ANZAC DAY Mr HAMER (Box Hill) (10:06): I rise to thank the Box Hill RSL for another humbling Anzac Day experience last week. I was proud to stand together with more than 2000 people at the dawn service in the Box Hill Gardens as we paused to reflect on the service and sacrifice of those who have served. For 99 years the Box Hill RSL has run this service, and I sincerely thank them for their hard work and dedication to ensuring that the memory of those that we have lost lives on. Each year the Box Hill RSL also hosts an Anzac Day service for schools in the Whitehorse area. Approximately 750 students from around 20 schools attended this year’s service, and I wish to thank the Box Hill RSL for inviting me to attend and participate in this important event. As the number of veterans from earlier conflicts reduces, this annual event serves a crucial role in teaching local students about the Anzac story and our military history. THOMAS WHITE Mr HAMER: In March I had the pleasure to meet with local year 11 Box Hill High School student Thomas White. Earlier this year Thomas was placed first in the state finals of the UN Youth Voice competition. This competition of UN Youth Australia is a unique public speaking competition in which school students get to speak for a few minutes on issues that affect our community, our nation and the world. During the recent school holidays, Thomas represented his school, the Box Hill community and Victoria in the national finals of the competition. After delivering speeches on reforming the justice system to make it more accessible and affordable for civil disputes and managing Australia’s population growth through revitalisation of country towns— (Time expired) ANZAC DAY Ms WARD (Eltham) (10:08): On the day before Anzac Day, Eltham High School students held a thoughtful, solemn and special ceremony. Thank you to the following students for their participation and leadership: Ella Dickinson, Kai Nolan, Ellena Broadbent, Andeli Zuzic, Manu Ranganathan, Laura Brearley, Zac Sandford and Maggie Stein. I thank the many Eltham College students who put together an amazing service on 24 April. The service had thoughtful and insightful speeches with beautiful music filling the gym, including a special rendition of Redgum’s I Was Only 19. My community came out to the Eltham cenotaph in the thousands at 6.00 a.m. on Anzac Day to mark their respect. Again, it was a beautiful and perfect service made all the more special through the work of a great many volunteers who do so much to make this service so memorable every year. I commend my community for the respectful quiet they brought with them as they crossed Main Road to join their community, gathering in almost complete silence. I thank the Montmorency-Eltham RSL and the Rotary Club of Eltham and their dedicated Anzac Day subcommittee, including the chair, Rob Kilcullen, and supporters Ken Paynter and Alan Field. I thank the students and teachers from Eltham High School, Catholic Ladies College, Eltham College, St Helena Secondary College, Eltham East Primary School and the Montmorency and Lower Plenty scout groups. I also thank David Cretney, Glen Ferrarotto, Madison Borgeest, Ceyda Demir, Rebecca Mason, Melissa Lee, Isabelle Cummane, Lauren Gikas, Mitchel Tandora, Mia Taranto, Beth Williams, Nillumbik mayor Karen Egan, Niamh Pilatti, Victoria Wingjan, Kiara Cameron, Ellena Broadbent and the Reverend Keren Terpstra. At 9.30 a.m. on Anzac Day our local March was again held from Were Street to Petrie Park for the morning service at the Montmorency-Eltham RSL, another moving and memorable service. Duncan Duke, Bill McKenna and Cait Chubb are to be commended for their hard work and dedication this year. Their work, year round, to serve their community is exemplary, and our community as a whole is grateful for their efforts, including Ken Hodgson, Clara Breese, Elisha O’Dowd, Father Terry

STATEMENTS ON PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS 1330 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

Keane, Lieutenant Colonel Mick Sasse, Brayden Ziday, Nick Osborne, Ari Danaher, Aiden Borgeest— (Time expired) ANZAC DAY Mr PEARSON (Essendon) (10:09): I was delighted to join Andrew Seymon, who is the president of the Flemington and Kensington RSL, for an outstanding dawn service. I was pleased to be joined by the very talented and fabulous Labor candidate for the federal seat of Melbourne, Luke Creasey. A big shout-out to Andrew also because the PA system failed and he has got a great baritone, booming voice, which ensured that all and sundry could hear his magnificent contribution. Statements on parliamentary committee reports PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES COMMITTEE Report on the Appointment of a Person to Conduct the Financial Audit of the Victorian Auditor- General's Office Mr PEARSON (Essendon) (10:10): I am delighted to draw the house’s attention to the report by the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee in relation to the appointment of a financial auditor. As members would be aware, the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee have a responsibility to appoint a performance auditor as well as a financial auditor to review the operations of the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office. These are both very important functions, and I am pleased that my colleague the member for Gippsland South, who continues to trundle on earnestly as a member of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, knows very well that you have got two effective functions. One is in relation to the appointment of a performance auditor to look at the way in which the conduct of the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office can be improved. I was really pleased that that was a project that the member for Gippsland South and I worked on with other members of the committee from the 58th Parliament to look at the way in which we can improve the function of that office. In addition to that there is a need to make sure that you appoint a suitably qualified financial auditor. This function is somewhat different. Whereas the performance audit looks at the way in which the office is discharging its duties from a workflow perspective in relation to the way in which it conducts itself in relation to the quality of the performance audits it conducts, the appointment of the financial auditor relates more to the way in which public moneys are accounted for. It is effectively making sure that the organisation has got sufficient reserves to be able to discharge its duties, that it has got a sufficient amount of revenue to be able to discharge its functions and duties and that there is an appropriate level of financial control on the institution, because clearly you must make sure that the Auditor-General’s office is acting in accordance with its fiduciary duties as well as make sure that it can operate in a way that ensures it is discharging its functions and duties. Geoff Parker is the auditor that has been appointed by Nexia Melbourne, and his engagement is ongoing. It is important that these contracts are regularly put out to market and to tender, because you need to make sure there is a degree of contestability. You need to make sure too in relation to auditors that they have at all times an appropriate relationship with their auditee. I think custom and practice and history tells us that where you have a regular churn and cycling through of auditors, that leads to better outcomes as opposed to, say, appointing an auditor to conduct a financial audit for a public sector body or a financial body for a very lengthy period of time. The Public Accounts and Estimates Committee has these two functions that they are responsible for. Again, the financial audit is a fairly routine, fairly anodyne document. It is making sure that from a financial perspective these matters are dealt with fairly and appropriately. It is also an important function of informing the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee about what is occurring inside the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office. For example, if the audit found issues of concern that may point to inappropriate financial conduct—or misconduct—then there is an opportunity for the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee to make further inquiries on behalf of

STATEMENTS ON PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1331 the Parliament of Victoria and to potentially then make recommendations to the Parliament on what action might be appropriate to remedy the situation. That gives the house some sense as to the process by which the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee has its functions bestowed on it by the Parliament and the way in which these can be exercised if required. It is an important element of transparency and accountability, and I commend the report to the house. PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES COMMITTEE Report on the Appointment of a Person to Conduct the Financial Audit of the Victorian Auditor- General's Office Mr D O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (10:15): I too am pleased to rise to speak on the report by the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee on the appointment of a person to conduct the financial audit of the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO). I thank the member for Essendon for his acknowledgement that I will continue to earnestly trundle along in PAEC. I think I have been damned by faint praise. Mr Pearson: You did trundle along nicely. Mr D O’BRIEN: I am absolutely flattered to be referred to as a trundler. I might say, member for Essendon, we would love to have you back as chair, because I think some of the decisions that are being made with respect to the estimates hearings in particular will be very interesting. I think the chair will have some interesting discussions in the month after the budget is handed down. I look forward to rejoining the fight with the member for Mordialloc and others. I am sure there will be plenty to talk about after the budget, not all of it good, as we know, given that the budget has been delayed. This recommendation from PAEC is, as the member for Essendon pointed out, an important one because it is about ensuring that there is someone watching the watcher. This is the appointment of a financial auditor—in this case, the extension of the contract for Geoff Parker of Nexia Melbourne to continue the financial audit of VAGO. We also have the challenge in front of us of appointing a performance auditor to look at the performance of VAGO. This is an equally important role because of course the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office has a critical role in our democracy. It can be forgotten in the current development of the Westminster system that Parliament’s role is not to be the executive, as those on the government benches sometimes think, but to form the executive and keep the executive accountable. VAGO does that through its financial audits but particularly through its performance audits, which make sure that the public service is utilising our money well and efficiently and doing things that are for the benefit of Victorians. It does have that important role in keeping the executive accountable. On that score VAGO may well wish to look at the executive’s response to the newly created Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO), which also had a report tabled yesterday. I note a number of factors in that where the executive is not being particularly accountable to the legislation that was passed by this Parliament for the Parliamentary Budget Office. On the issue of requests to public service bodies, the public service has been fairly poor in responding to the PBO. Most importantly DEDJTR, the then Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources, had some 56 requests from the PBO, 30 of which were not responded to and 22 of which were responded to late. I note that Public Transport Victoria had four report requests that were not responded to. Transport for Victoria had six and the Level Crossing Removal Authority had four. Transport Safety Victoria did not respond to one. There is a theme here, and it comes back to the Minister for Public Transport at the time. All those authorities and portfolios under her keeping were very non-responsive to the PBO. The question is: what has the government got to hide? More consistently across the public sector 38 per cent of requests were late and 18 per cent were not responded to at all. That is something I think VAGO may need to look at in the future.

STATEMENTS ON PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS 1332 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

The other issue in that report that I think was a concern is on pages 11 and 12 relating to the report of a breach of confidentiality by the PBO, where communications in relation to a confidential request were actually shared with the entire Victorian Secretaries Board. The PBO notes that this is a breach of the office’s protocols and the subject of legal advice through the solicitor-general. So this is a concern. This government established the PBO to provide assistance to the Parliament, and if the executive is not going to provide assistance to the PBO then that will greatly diminish its role. This government should be doing more to ensure that the PBO is responsive, and if not, VAGO should look at it. PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES COMMITTEE Report on the Appointment of a Person to Conduct the Financial Audit of the Victorian Auditor- General's Office Mr RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (10:20): It is a pleasure to rise and speak on a report by the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC) on the appointment of a person to conduct the financial audit of the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO)—and if you get that jumbled up, you will get it wrong. But the enthusiasm of the 59th Parliament’s PAEC members is shown by how many have put their names down to talk about the appointment of the financial auditor. It is good to see all of those members enthusiastically taking to their work. I hope the member for Polwarth has got some contributions to make as well; we will see how he goes. It is a bit of a shame that the member for Gippsland South only had about 1 minute 50 seconds in him and then he was on to the Parliamentary Budget Office. He just did not have quite enough to speak about, but this is a really important point on this as well. This is a really important audit to be undertaking because of the Auditor-General’s vitally important work to Victoria and the 195 staff employed there. The 550 financial audits they perform each and every year is an important and critical part of our system of democracy, and it is one of the oldest institutions in the Westminster system. Dating back into the mid-1850s, the Victorian Auditor- General’s Office or its iterations have been critical to our system of democracy and confidence and trust in our system. Mr Edbrooke: Didn’t the Romans have one? Mr RICHARDSON: Member for Frankston, I am not sure if the Romans had one. I have not done my member for Essendon-esque research, but it is really important and critical work. It has been a privilege just in these first few months, with the chair in the other place, Philip Dalidakis, leading this work, and seeing the enthusiasm and work of members and their commitment to really scrutinising each and every element. I think there has been some great camaraderie and some good banter along the way as well, but this first report that has been tucked away sets the scene for the 59th Parliament and the work that will be undertaken. It is a critical institution, the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, and I do not think that is lost on any member of this Parliament, and for any new members that are coming into this Parliament it provides a critical scrutiny of the executive, of budgets and making sure that we get the very most out of our state system and the taxation that we source from our citizens and from the federal government, so that we make that go as far as it possibly can. Underpinning that key structure is the work of the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, and in my role as the Parliamentary Secretary for Schools we see audits that have been undertaken by VAGO that have been a good test on where the education department is up to and the work that they are doing, confirming that we are on the right track—and that was particularly the case in a report in 2015 that looked at transition from early years to primary and then primary to secondary, those critical junctures along the education journey—but importantly that work is probably an impetus, and the education department is constantly looking at ways of improving the work that they are doing. But it was another check, another oversight and another impetus for that work to be undertaken to really see how we can

STATEMENTS ON PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1333 go further in that transition space in supporting children’s education. So that is one example of a number of critical reports and audits that they undertake, and to make sure that that work is done appropriately and done to its best ability comes back to that financial audit and—I think as the member for Gippsland South said—watching the watcher over our system as well to ensure that they are being as effective and as efficient as possible. Getting our first briefing was very informative on all the work that VAGO does and how seriously its officers take their roles in constant accountability and auditing, not just of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee but the performance audits that they undertake and their financial audits. So it is really critical work, and I know that this term can run for a few years as well. I am looking forward to the work that is undertaken in this space and many more reports coming through. To my colleagues the members for Cranbourne and Narre Warren South and Ingrid Stitt and Philip Dalidakis in the other place, and the members for Polwarth, Mount Evelyn, Gippsland South and Prahran, it will be incredible work that we undertake and hopefully we can all get along and find some common ground on the PAEC journey. I am sure we will have some argy bargy, but I think we can continue the work of previous members of Parliament on the committee in bringing together these reports because our work in scrutinising the executive government is so very critical. This is the first report of many, and I look forward to the work that is undertaken by the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee over the course of this parliamentary term. PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES COMMITTEE Report on the Appointment of a Person to Conduct the Financial Audit of the Victorian Auditor- General's Office Mr RIORDAN (Polwarth) (10:25): Like the previous speakers, I am also rising to make comment on the report on the appointment of a person to conduct the financial audit of the Victorian Auditor- General’s Office (VAGO). Auditing the auditor is of course a very important role of a key government committee like PAEC, the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee. It is indeed an important role. There are two recommendations in this report—one that sadly was a bit slow out of the blocks because of this government’s race to government this time around, when it did not see any great need to focus on auditing and focus on committees and focus on scrutiny. So we saw a late start to the PAEC season, and of course it was only really that legislative requirement to have it done by June, or to get it underway by June, that actually saw the committee formed, I suspect, because of this government’s hubris in its win last November. It has sort of seen it a bit shy of scrutiny. It is not one that leaps out of the blocks to have anyone look too hard under the covers to see what is actually going on. I guess that was highlighted pretty strongly this month when the hardworking opposition members of PAEC went out of their way, because predominantly country members made an effort to come to town, and had organised the post-budget period only to find that this government then thought, ‘Oh no, look, we’ll just go and hide the budget. We’ll wait until after the federal election. We don’t want anyone taking too much notice of potential blowouts, cost overruns, new taxes, new charges, new costs’. We are not really sure what the reason is, but we can probably strongly suspect it is that. And so to get the auditor sort of snuck away to get his work done before the budget is even handed down or there is discussion thereafter of what the actual true position of the state is is something we can only ponder the real reasons for. It was interesting that the member for Mordialloc made comment when my colleague the member for Gippsland South was referring to some pretty horrendous suggestions in the Parliamentary Budget Office report which was also tabled yesterday. It was interesting that he wondered why we would want to talk about that. Well, it is not difficult to understand why we want to talk about that because, interestingly, what this government prides itself on being so strong on is infrastructure investment, but they are not very strong at letting people audit that and have a look at that. We have seen very clearly

STATEMENTS ON PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS 1334 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019 that with this instrument of auditing, this sort of watchdog on what government is up to, the government is not very keen to participate in that—massive non-compliance, massive levels of non- commitment in getting back to the auditor. In fact I think in the report the auditor makes the comment that there are just no replies at all. It is important that we discuss this report today and see that the Parliament sets some funds aside to audit the auditor. It is going to have a very long, hard, drawn-out next three years I suspect, because this government, in the lead-up to the last election and immediately after the election, has shown no desire at all to participate in transparency. I think that this auditor for the next three years is really going to have his job cut out keeping up with those requests. It would be an observation that in this state of Victoria, in this large place, we are going to have to look long and hard to find auditors who will be prepared to ask the hard questions and go the extra mile when it comes to keeping an eye on this government, because there are a lot of vested interests at times in this consulting world that this government talks about. Mr Pearson interjected. Mr RIORDAN: We are talking about the auditing of this government and auditing the auditor. It is going to be a tough job, and it is one that is going to need to be well supported, because as we move on VAGO has already made it quite clear that they will be expecting responses from the government, they will be expecting cooperation from the executive, and sadly the evidence after only six short months of government is that there is not a lot of intent by this government to be scrutinised in any way. We have seen poor responses during and after the election period. We have seen the budget moved and sort of hidden from the limelight; we have seen the whole period truncated. As a new member of PAEC, I would hope that the government would have a genuine intent to participate in the public accounts and estimates hearings later this year, where it will be important that they participate. PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES COMMITTEE Report on the Appointment of a Person to Conduct the Financial Audit of the Victorian Auditor- General's Office Ms RICHARDS (Cranbourne) (10:30): It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on the Report on the Appointment of a Person to Conduct the Financial Audit of the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office. Of course it is of particular interest to me as I am a newly elected member of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee. I must say I was incredibly honoured to be appointed to this committee, a fundamental part of the democracy and transparency of this government. I am proud of our commitment to transparency, and I see this as a core element of this highly functioning democracy. Here in Victoria our system of oversight is topnotch, and this only benefits the Victorian community. I speak often about my experiences at citizenship ceremonies, and I must say that there is amazing enthusiasm from people who have recently arrived in this country to experience our democracy. Some people come from places where democracy is certainly very strong, but for some that oversight that we have in Victoria is truly something to aspire to and one of the many reasons that they have chosen to make this state their home. Of course I am tremendously impressed by the committee we have, so ably chaired by the Honourable Phil Dalidakis in the other place, a member for Southern Metropolitan Region. His chairing is done with good grace and I think an incredible good humour. I am fortunate to work with such hardworking committee members, many of them in this place and some in the other place. I commend the member for Essendon not just for his previous commitment and contribution but for what I have seen of the extraordinary role he had in chairing the previous committee, and I can only aspire for us to follow in the footsteps of those previous members. I commend the member for Prahran; the member for Polwarth; the member for Gippsland South; the member for Evelyn; of course my friend the member for Narre Warren South, who shares a neighbouring electorate; the member for

MOTIONS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1335

Mordialloc, whose contribution I certainly enjoyed a minute ago—a very strong contribution; and the surefooted contribution of a member for Western Metropolitan Region in the other place, Ingrid Stitt. Mr Edbrooke interjected. Ms RICHARDS: And I always enjoy the contributions that the member for Frankston makes in this place. In preparing for my role on the committee I was delighted to learn that this committee was one of the first of its kind and was set up in 1895. It is constituted under the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003 and does draw members from both houses, as I said before. There are significant core functions, and the clue is in the name: the public accounts function, which includes of course the functions of following up on the reports of the Victorian Auditor-General’s reports and conducting inquiries into aspects of public sector finances; and estimates, which is probably the role most well known. It is the public-facing role, but it is only one element of this really important committee that we have. It is a credit to our democracy that after each budget—I am certainly looking forward to the budget that is coming up soon—this powerful committee undertakes a process of scrutinising the budget papers. This is a great opportunity to review the outcomes achieved from the budget expenditure, and it will be something we are all looking forward to terrifically. Importantly, an incredibly vital element of the role of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee is to provide independent oversight through the Parliamentary Budget Office and the Victorian Auditor- General’s Office. Known colloquially as VAGO, the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office is a furiously independent office supported by 185 staff. The people in my community of Cranbourne are reassured to know that there is a such a fulsome process undertaken, and the Andrews Labor government of course embraces the opportunity to explore ways that we can improve management systems. It is vitally important there be a presentation of financial statements and systems in a clear way. This Report on the Appointment of a Person to Conduct the Financial Audit of the Victorian Auditor- General’s Office is a key element of the oversight role of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee. I have been fortunate to be able to read about the appointment of a terrific person to undertake this role—well, I am sure they will be a terrific person to undertake this role. As a member of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, I endorse this report and the appointment of Mr Geoff Parker as the person responsible for conducting the financial audit of the Victorian Auditor- General’s Office. Motions PARLIAMENTARY INTEGRITY ADVISER Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure) (10:35): I move: That this house establishes the position of Parliamentary Integrity Adviser in accordance with the following terms: (1) Provision of advice (a) The Parliamentary Integrity Adviser is to advise any member of Parliament, including former members of Parliament, when asked to do so by that member, on ethical issues and integrity matters concerning the exercise of his or her role as a member of Parliament. (b) The Parliamentary Integrity Adviser’s advice may be sought on a range of parliamentary matters including, but not limited to, the application of any legislation or other guidelines adopted by Parliament that are relevant to members in their capacity as members of Parliament, the use of members’ entitlements and declaration of potential conflicts of interest. (c) Any advice given by the Parliamentary Integrity Adviser should be consistent with legislation, regulations and any other rules or guidelines adopted by Parliament, but must not constitute legal advice.

MOTIONS 1336 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

(2) Education and training (a) The Parliamentary Integrity Adviser is to provide periodic education and training to members of Parliament about ethical issues and integrity matters concerning, but not limited to, the functions, roles, powers, and responsibilities of members of Parliament. (b) The Parliamentary Integrity Adviser must provide— (i) training to new members of Parliament at the start of each Parliament; (ii) training to new members of Parliament who are elected at a by-election or appointed to fill a casual vacancy; and (iii) training on any amendments or changes to the parliamentary standards and integrity system. (3) Records (a) The Parliamentary Integrity Adviser is required to keep, for the duration of his or her tenure, a record of all advice given, including any supporting material and information upon which the advice is based. (b) Subject to (3)(e)(ii), the Parliamentary Integrity Adviser must not divulge, to any person, entity or committee of either house, other than the person who requested the advice— (i) any information provided to him or her in the course of his or her duties under this resolution; (ii) the content or details of any advice given in accordance with this resolution— unless the person who requested the advice has given express permission for such information and/or advice to be made public. (c) The Parliamentary Integrity Adviser must not comply with any order for the production of records by either house relating to advice given by the Parliamentary Integrity Adviser unless the person who requested the advice— (i) is a member or former member of the house that made the order; and (ii) in the case of advice given under (1)(a)–(c), has sought to rely on the advice for any reason; and (iii) has given express permission for the records to be released to the relevant house. (d) Subject to 3(e), if the Parliamentary Integrity Adviser considers that the confidential advice provided to a member or former member has been publicly misrepresented, the Parliamentary Integrity Adviser may release a statement to correct the misrepresentation. (e) In releasing a statement under (3)(d), the Parliamentary Integrity Adviser— (i) must not publicise the advice provided unless the person who requested the advice has given express permission for it to be made public; or (ii) if the person who requested the advice refuses permission for it to be made public, may release the advice to the Privileges Committee of the relevant house if that Committee makes a request as part of a related inquiry connected to that person. (4) Reporting (a) At least once every 12 months, the Parliamentary Integrity Adviser will meet jointly with the Privileges Committees of the Assembly and the Council to discuss matters relevant to and issues arising from the operation and application of the parliamentary standards framework. (b) The Parliamentary Integrity Adviser must, every 12 months, report to the Parliament on— (i) advisory functions including— (A) the number of ethical matters raised during the reporting period; (B) the number of members and former members who sought advice during the reporting period; (C) the number of times advice was given during the reporting period; and (D) the amount of time spent in the course of performing duties under the terms of this resolution during the reporting period; and (ii) education functions including—

MOTIONS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1337

(A) the number of training sessions provided during the reporting period, and the number of members who attended each training session; and (B) a brief description of the content of training sessions and any other training provided during the reporting period. (c) The Parliamentary Integrity Adviser may, at his or her discretion, report to the Parliament from time to time on— (i) any issues with the parliamentary standards framework arising from requests for ethics or integrity advice, including suggested proposals to address such issues; (ii) the provision of guidance to members of Parliament on particular issues, including publication of de-identified case studies in order to educate members on their obligations; (iii) any other matter the Parliamentary Integrity Adviser considers appropriate. (d) A report of the Parliamentary Integrity Adviser under (4)(b) or (4)(c)— (i) will be tabled in each house; and (ii) must not divulge or cause to be divulged the identity of any person who has requested advice in accordance with this resolution. (e) A house or committee of the Parliament cannot— (i) refer a matter to the Parliamentary Integrity Adviser; (ii) require the Parliamentary Integrity Adviser to report on the conduct of a specific member or former member, or a specified group of members and/or former members, of Parliament; or (iii) require the Parliamentary Integrity Adviser to investigate any allegations of misconduct. (5) Appointment, resignation and removal (a) A person will be appointed by resolution of the Council and the Assembly, on the joint recommendation of the Privileges Committees of the Council and the Assembly in accordance with (5)(c), as Parliamentary Integrity Adviser. (b) An appointment under (5)(a) must— (i) subject to (5)(b)(iii), be made whenever the position becomes vacant; and (ii) be for a period that terminates on the day that is four months after the general election that is held immediately following the Parliament during which the appointment is made; and (iii) in the case of the first appointment of the Parliamentary Integrity Adviser, be made within four months after this resolution has been agreed to by both houses. (c) Prior to a resolution under (5)(a), a joint report of the Privileges Committees of the Council and the Assembly will be tabled in each house specifying— (i) a person recommended for appointment as Parliamentary Integrity Adviser; and (ii) the terms and conditions of appointment of the Parliamentary Integrity Adviser, including any remuneration, as agreed in consultation with the Speaker and the President. (d) If, within three months of the position becoming vacant, the Privileges Committees of the Council and the Assembly fail to report under (5)(c), a joint sitting of Parliament in accordance with JSO 22 will be held to appoint a person as Parliamentary Integrity Adviser on the terms and conditions, including any remuneration, agreed by the Speaker and the President. (e) The Parliamentary Integrity Adviser may engage in any outside employment that does not conflict with his or her role as Parliamentary Integrity Adviser. (f) The Parliamentary Integrity Adviser may resign in writing to the President and the Speaker. (g) The Parliamentary Integrity Adviser may be removed from office by resolution of the Council and the Assembly for— (i) insolvency; or (ii) proven misbehaviour; or

MOTIONS 1338 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

(iii) mental incapacity. (h) Prior to a resolution under (5)(g), the Privileges Committees of the Council and the Assembly must meet and confer jointly on the alleged grounds for removal and, if the grounds are found to be valid, make a joint recommendation to Parliament that the Parliamentary Integrity Adviser be removed from office. (i) A joint recommendation under (5)(h) will— (i) be tabled in each house; and (ii) include the reasons for the recommendation unless the Privileges Committees agree that it would be contrary to the public interest to do so. (j) The Parliamentary Integrity Adviser may be suspended from office whilst any alleged grounds for removal from office are dealt with under the terms of this resolution. (6) Review The Privileges Committees of the Council and the Assembly must, in the final year of each Parliament— (a) cause a joint review to be made of the operation of this resolution; and (b) table a report of the review in each house before the expiration of the Assembly under section 38 of the Constitution Act 1975. (7) Privileges Committee (a) The Privileges Committee of this house is authorised and required to meet and confer jointly with the Privileges Committee of the other house for the purposes of exercising its role, functions and powers in accordance with the terms of this resolution. (b) The provisions relating to the role, functions and powers of the Privileges Committee under the terms of this resolution constitute a standing reference to the committee for the Parliament during which its members are appointed until the dissolution or other lawful determination of the Assembly. (c) For the purposes of joint meetings of the Privileges Committees of the Council and the Assembly under the terms of this resolution— (i) the chair of the Assembly Privileges Committee and the chair of the Council Privileges Committee are joint chairs; and (ii) meetings shall be chaired by the joint chairs on an alternating basis; and (iii) a joint chair shall take the chair whenever the other joint chair is not present; and (iv) every committee member shall have a deliberative vote only; and (v) the standing orders of the Assembly shall otherwise apply insofar as they are not inconsistent with the terms of this resolution. and this resolution shall continue in force unless and until it is amended or rescinded by a resolution of the Council and the Assembly in this or a subsequent Parliament. I am sure members of the house will understand that it is a very long motion, so I will not re-read it— it is in the hands of members on today’s notice paper. I will just make a few very brief comments on this motion that I am moving. It has been on the notice paper of this Parliament for some time, and it was also on the notice paper of the previous Parliament as well. The trigger for moving the motion today is of course that now we have had the passage through the Parliament of the Victorian Independent Remuneration Tribunal and Improving Parliamentary Standards Bill 2019 there is now the opportunity for us—through the resolution of this place and indeed the Legislative Council, which I believe moved a similar motion with similar terms successfully yesterday—to establish what will be known as the Parliamentary Integrity Adviser. This model of adviser was canvassed in debate of the bill that I just mentioned that is now an act. There are also examples in other jurisdictions, notably New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, where similar advisory roles to give advice, assistance and training to members of Parliament is provided. That is some but not all of what will be part of this adviser’s role.

MOTIONS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1339

It is also important to note that part of the Parliamentary Integrity Adviser’s role will be to provide their advice to members of Parliament in a confidential way. I think we all will appreciate that that is a critically important part—the adviser being able to provide very clear and direct advice to members of Parliament, particularly when it comes to issues such as personal matters and ethical issues which the adviser will need to provide advice on. The model that is being put forward by the government through this motion also provides the adviser with advisory and training functions and an ability to give advice on those important ethical and personal matters. There are also some very strict requirements around the appointment of the Parliamentary Integrity Adviser. It is proposed that the adviser be appointed on the joint recommendation of the privileges committees of both the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly and furthermore by resolution of each house of Parliament. There is other guidance around the appointment and indeed also the removal of the adviser during their role. DifferAs I said, this is something that has been canvassed at length both through the debate of the bill and also in other briefings and conversations throughout the passage of that bill. I hope the motion will be supported; I understand it is likely to receive support in this place as it received support in the Legislative Council yesterday. Therefore I commend the motion to the house. Mr WELLS (Rowville) (10:39): Yes, we will be supporting this motion. We think it is a well- thought-out motion, and setting up a Parliamentary Integrity Adviser in line with the Victorian Independent Remuneration Tribunal and Improving Parliamentary Standards Bill 2019, which has been passed, makes a lot of sense. The Leader of the House made the comment that the person who takes on this role obviously has the role of educating new members coming in or members that come in through a by-election. It will also be a position that can advise members of Parliament on ethical issues. I think it is also important that if advice is given and if that advice is misinterpreted, then the integrity adviser can actually come out and make a statement to clarify what advice was given. I think it is also important that the integrity adviser meets with the Privileges Committee. The Privileges Committee is one of the most important committees in the Parliament. Sometimes it votes along party lines, which sometimes is disappointing, but having the Parliamentary Integrity Adviser come in and discuss a particular issue I think will be a fairer approach to discussing concerns that have been brought to the Privileges Committee. Also, one of the main roles will obviously be to refer to the Parliamentary Integrity Adviser allegations of misconduct. Imagine if the Parliamentary Integrity Adviser had been here in the last Parliament— jumping jeepers! We would have had to employ him or her full-time to deal with the red shirts rorts and to deal with false claims of second residence allowances. So what a pity this role was not brought in in the last Parliament. But all of that aside, the opposition will be supporting this motion. Dr READ (Brunswick) (10:41): The Greens support the motion to establish a Parliamentary Integrity Adviser. The position will improve the integrity of the Parliament, and this reform is as welcome as it is overdue. Numerous past scandals—some very recent—more than justify the government’s various reforms in this area, all of which the Greens support, including modernising the code of conduct for MPs, the independent remuneration tribunal and establishing a compliance officer to oversee MP entitlements. However, the Greens continue to prefer an independent parliamentary standards commissioner as a legislated position, which we have proposed through amendments in the other place, making it a permanent fixture for all MPs into the future. This would mean that the next Parliament would not have to re-establish the integrity adviser position every four years. We are also concerned that the compliance regime proposed by the government is complicated, and the proposal for an independent parliamentary standards commissioner, which could perhaps be adopted in the future, provides a more simple and robust means of ensuring that there are no further scandals that really affect the standing of all of us in the eyes of the public. That said, we support the Parliamentary Integrity Adviser role and look forward to seeing them start work. Motion agreed to.

BILLS 1340 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

Bills OWNER DRIVERS AND FORESTRY CONTRACTORS AMENDMENT BILL 2019 Statement of compatibility Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (10:43): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the Owner Drivers and Forestry Contractors Amendment Bill 2019.

In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement. Overview The Bill makes various miscellaneous amendments to the Owner Drivers and Forestry Contracts Act 2005 (the ODFC Act), including providing for: a. powers of authorised officers to monitor compliance and investigate contraventions of the ODFC Act or regulations; and b. accessorial liability of officers of bodies corporate and imputing conduct to bodies corporate and partners. Human Rights Issues Powers of authorised officers Clause 28 inserts new Part 7A in to the ODFC Act to provide for new powers of authorised officers, including powers of entry to premises and inspection, and the power to require information or documents. These powers are relevant to the right to privacy (s 13) and the right not to be compelled to testify against himself or herself or to confess guilt (s 25(2)(k)) in the Charter. Right to privacy (s 13) Section 13 of the Charter provides that every person has the right not to have his or her privacy unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. New s 60E provides for the power of authorised officers to issue a written notice requiring a person, within a reasonable period, to give any information the officer requires or to produce a document in the custody or control of the person. A failure to comply without reasonable excuse is an offence. New s 60F permits an authorised officer to enter premises with the consent of the occupier, inspect anything on the premises, interview any person on the premises and require production of documents. Although these powers are primarily concerned with business premises and information of a commercial nature, the powers have the potential to interfere into the private and home spheres of a person, and may involve the production of personal information. However, it is my view that any such interferences will not be arbitrary, for the following reasons. The prohibition on arbitrariness requires that any interference with privacy must be reasonable or proportionate to a legitimate purpose. The Government’s review into the ODFC Act found widespread non- compliance with the mandatory requirements of the scheme. These new powers of authorised officers are necessary to monitor conduct in the industry and undertake investigations to ensure non-compliance is detected and deterred. The powers are also subject to a number of limits to ensure their proportionality. New s 60D limits the exercise of these powers, so that the powers may only be exercised to the extent that it is reasonably necessary to achieve the specified purposes, including monitoring compliance with the ODFC Act and investigating possible contraventions. An authorised officer is only provided with power to enter premises by written consent, and before obtaining written consent, must produce their identity card and inform the occupier of the purpose of entry and the occupier’s right to refuse to give consent. Further, an authorised officer entering premises must not remain on the premises any longer than is reasonably necessary to perform functions or exercise powers under the ODFC Act. Finally, any information acquired by an authorised officer is subject to confidentiality requirements which places limits on the use and disclosure of such information. Accordingly, I am satisfied that these powers are compatible with the right to privacy.

BILLS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1341

Right not to be compelled to confess guilt (section 25(2)(k)) Section 25(2)(k) of the Charter provides that a person who has been charged with a criminal offence has the right not to be compelled to testify against himself or herself or to confess guilt. This right has been interpreted broadly as encompassing the common law privilege against self-incrimination, which entitles a person to refuse to answer any question, or produce any document, if the answer or the production would tend to incriminate that person. The privilege is principally concerned with preventing testimonial admissions extracted through oppressive conduct or the inducement of confessions of dubious reliability. New s 60E is relevant to this right as it provides an authorised officer with power to compel a person to give information and produce documents. However, new s 60I of the Bill makes it clear that the protection against self-incrimination applies, providing that it is a reasonable excuse for a person to refuse or fail to give information or produce a document if doing so would tend to incriminate that person. New s 60E provides that an authorised officer must, when issuing a notice to a person to require information, inform that person of their right to rely on the privilege against self-incrimination. It follows that the s 25(2)(k) of the Charter is not limited by the Bill. Accessorial liability of officers of a body corporate and imputing conduct to partners Clause 28 of the Bill inserts new s 60P into the ODFC Act to provide that, in certain circumstances, if a body corporate commits an offence against specified provisions in the Bill, an officer of the body corporate also commits an offence. New s 60Q (which re-enacts and adds to an existing provision in s 62 of the ODFC Act) provides that any conduct engaged by a partner on behalf of a partnership is taken to have been engaged in by each partner to the partnership. These provisions are relevant to the right of a person charged with a criminal offence to be presumed innocent in s 25(1) of the Charter. New subsection 60H(1) provides that a person must not fail to comply with a notice to produce documents or give information under s 60E, or refuse produce documents under section 60F(1)(d). A person may raise a defence of ‘reasonable excuse’ to the prohibition contained in that section. As the offence is a summary offence, s 72 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 will apply. Therefore, an accused who wishes to rely on the ‘reasonable excuse’ defence is required to present or point to evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility of the existence of facts that, if they existed, would establish the excuse. In other words, the provision imposes an evidential onus on an accused when seeking to rely on the defence of ‘reasonable excuse’. Independently of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, the Court of Appeal held, in R (on the application of the Chief Examiner) v DA (a pseudonym) (2016) 263 A Crim R 429, that the proper interpretation of this type of provision is that it imposes an evidential burden on the accused in relation to the ‘reasonable excuse’. Based on the reasoning in that case, such a provision may only be interpreted as imposing a legal onus on an accused where there is a clear statutory intention to do so that is expressly in the terms of the provision. Accordingly, the imposition of a legal onus on the accused is not an available interpretation that can be made on the proper construction of s 60H(1). The Court of Appeal also found that an evidential onus does not limit the Charter’s right to a presumption of innocence. Section 25(1) of the Charter provides that a person charged with a criminal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to the law. The Court of Appeal has held that an evidentiary onus falls short of imposing any burden of persuasion on an accused. The onus in s 60H(a) requires only that an accused point to evidence of a reasonable excuse, upon which the burden falls on the prosecution to prove the absence of such excuse beyond a reasonable doubt. As there is no limit on the right, the ‘reasonable limits’ provision in s 7 of the Charter is not engaged and it is not necessary to take into account any alternative. Right to be presumed innocent (s 25(1)) Section 25(1) of the Charter provides that a person charged with a criminal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. The above provisions are relevant to the presumption of innocence as they may operate to deem as ‘fact’ that an individual has committed an offence based on the actions of another person or body based on their association with that body. However, it is my view that the right is not limited in this context. Both provisions provide that the relevant person (the officer or partner) is only deemed to commit the offence committed by the other body or partner if the person authorised or permitted the commission of the offence or was knowingly concerned in any way (whether by act or omission) in the commission of the offence. In my view, these provisions do not limit the presumption of innocence as the prosecution is still required to prove the accessorial elements of the offence—that is, that the relevant person authorised or was knowingly concerned with the commission of the offence, or failed to exercise the necessary due diligence to prevent the offending.

BILLS 1342 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

In the event that this provision is considered a limit, I am of the view that any limitation is reasonably justified. As stated above, the Government’s review into the ODFC Act found widespread non-compliance in the industry and a need to ensure there was adequate deterrence of regulatory offences that may cause harm to industry participants. Courts in other jurisdictions have held that the presumption of innocence may be subject to reasonable limits in the context of regulatory compliance. These provisions only target persons who have elected to undertake a position as an officer of a body corporate or have become a partner in a partnership, which includes assuming the responsibilities and duties that apply to these roles, and who have the capacity to influence the conduct of the body corporate or partnership. The provisions ensure such persons are appropriately held responsible for all breaches that occur by or on behalf of the entity in which they have responsibility for, enabling offences to be successfully prosecuted and operate as an effective deterrent. Affected persons should be well aware of the regulatory requirements and, as such, should have the necessary processes and systems in place to effectively meet these requirements and not incur accessorial liability. Finally, while the nature of sanctions that apply to ODFC Act offences are criminal, the applicable sanctions are penalty units only and do not involve any sentence of imprisonment. In my view, there is no less restrictive way of ensuring accountability of officers of bodies corporate or partners in partnerships for breaches of the ODFC Act, and it follows that these provisions are compatible with the Charter. Hon. Tim Pallas MP Minister for Industrial Relations Second reading Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (10:44): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time. I ask that my second reading speech be incorporated into Hansard. Incorporated speech as follows: Background The Bill amends the Owner Drivers and Forestry Contractors Act 2005 (the Act) to improve the protections available to small businesses, namely, owner drivers in the transport industry and harvesting and haulage contractors in the forestry industry. The amendments address changes that have occurred in the industry since 2005, and seek to improve the position of owner drivers and forestry contractors, by removing barriers that restrain these small businesses from achieving a fair and reasonable return for their labour and business investment. The Bill will also deliver on a government commitment arising from the Government Response to the Victorian Inquiry into Labour Hire and insecure Work (Labour Hire Inquiry). Owner Drivers and Forestry Contractors Act The Act seeks to improve the financial and social position of owner drivers and forestry contractors, and to reduce the risk of business failure, financial hardship and insolvency. It does this by removing the market conditions and barriers that restrain small businesses from achieving a fair and reasonable return for their labour and business investment. One of the key market failures the Act seeks to address is the lack of information for small business owner drivers and forestry contractors to understand their operating costs and the commercial relationship they are entering. Contractors entering the transport and forestry industries have large overhead costs and liabilities and often a limited understanding of their potential income as well as their legal rights and obligations. The Act establishes a framework for the regulation of contractual dealings between owner drivers and forestry contractors and their hirers. The Act does not apply to employee drivers. The Act sets out legal requirements relating to the provision of information to assist owner drivers and forestry contractors improve their business skills and better understand their cost structures and contracts. Having this information before entering a contract helps contractors assess whether they should accept the rates being offered, and will also allow better informed negotiations. It also provides a framework for resolving disputes in a timely and cost-effective manner, through the Small Business Commission. Two of the key information requirements are for hirers to provide owner drivers and forestry contractors with a copy of the applicable rates and costs schedule for their vehicle class and an information booklet, three days before entering into a contract. This requirement also applies to tender processes and to freight brokers.

BILLS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1343

The rates and costs schedules do not set minimum rates of pay that must be paid. In this respect the status quo has been maintained. The rate and costs schedules provide owner drivers, forestry contractors and hirers with information about typical operating costs applying to the kind of vehicle or equipment provided under the contract. The rates and costs schedules also provide a base hourly rate that would apply for the driver’s own labour if they worked as an employee. The information booklet provides a comprehensive and convenient source of information to assist contractors to understand, how to operate a small business and sets out their legal rights and obligations to ensure they can operate their business safely and commercially. The Act requires that ongoing engagements must be in writing, and the contract must specify the minimum level of income or number of hours of work the rates to be paid. Requirements for contracts, and the provision of the information booklet and rates and costs schedule do not apply to ‘one off’ or short terms engagements. The Act also establishes the Transport and Forestry Industry Councils, which are made up of members from industry and employee associations and government, and are responsible for making recommendations to the Minister for Industrial Relations on commercial practices affecting owner drivers and forestry contractors. Review of the Act and Regulations On 16 November 2016, the then Minister for Industrial Relations announced a review of the Act and the Owner Drivers and Forestry Contractors Regulations 2006. The review sought to identify whether any changes were needed to the Act and Regulations to improve the position of owner drivers and forestry contractors, while ensuring a competitive and fair operating environment for small businesses in Victoria. The Review was undertaken on the basis that contractors operate as small businesses within a framework of commercial laws. The Review also considered recommendations 30 and 31 of the Labour Hire Inquiry, which recommended changes to the Act to improve the position of tip truck owner drivers operating in the building and construction sector. Twenty-five confidential submissions were received, which proposed a range of legislative and non- legislative changes. Throughout the review process, consultation was undertaken with industry associations, unions, owner drivers and affected government bodies. The suite of proposals in this Bill are based on these discussions and the submissions received. Proposed reforms The Bill proposes the following reforms: Purpose of the Act It is proposed that the purpose of the Act be amended to include the promotion of industry best practice, education and training. An associated amendment is proposed to the functions of the Transport and Forestry Industry Councils to specify that they can provide advice and make recommendations to the Minister on promoting industry best practice, education and training for owner drivers and forestry contractors. Definition of freight broker The Bill clarifies the definition of ‘freight broker’ to ensure contractors employed through third-party contracting platforms like Uber Freight which did not exist when the Act commenced operation are covered. This clarification seeks to ensure that the development of these types of modern business models does not result in contractors being denied the protections of the ODFC Act. Provision of information tools The Bill amends the Act to clarify that hirers can provide owner drivers and forestry contractors with information in an electronic form, including an Internet link. Rates and costs schedules The Bill amends the Act to require a hirer or freight broker to provide the rates and costs schedule annually if a contractor is engaged under more than one contract during the 12-month period. The Act already requires hirers and freight brokers to provide owner drivers and forestry contractors with a revised schedule as soon as practicable after the revision is published. Payment of invoices The Bill amends the contracting requirements of the Act to require the payment of invoices within 30 days of receipt of a correct invoice from the contractor, unless there is a dispute over the amount payable. The parties will also be able to agree on alternative arrangements that are fair to both parties.

BILLS 1344 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

Joint negotiations The Bill amends the Act to include a provision that clarifies contractors have the option of being covered by the same terms and conditions of an existing regulated contract that has been jointly negotiated. This amendment ensures that contractors can benefit from jointly negotiated contracts, while at the same time retain the opportunity to negotiate their own contractual arrangements. Disputes Resolution The Bill amends the disputes resolution procedure to specify that the Small Business Commission can arrange arbitration where the parties to the dispute agree. This provides scope for the parties to try and resolve the dispute through mediation, and if the matter cannot be resolved, the parties can agree they can proceed to arbitration at the Small Business Commission. This amendment aims to introduce a fast, low cost and confidential binding dispute resolution process for parties in dispute. The parties can still access the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) if the Small Business Commission has certified in writing that alternative dispute resolution has failed, or is unlikely, to resolve the dispute. The Bill provides that the Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 does not apply to arbitration conducted under the Act. Tip Truck Contractors The Bill amends the Act to include a provision that will trigger the requirement for hirers to provide tip truck contractors with the information booklet and the applicable rates and costs schedules regardless of the period of time they are engaged. The Act currently applies where the owner driver or forestry contractors is engaged for a minimum of 30 days or 30 days within a three-month period. Tip truck owner drivers often do not meet this threshold requirements specified in the Act to receive these information tools. This amendment is limited to contractors who drive tip trucks in connection with excavation work in the building and construction industry. It is not intended to capture to tip truck contractors operating in the rural road transport sector. The change will deliver on recommendation 31 of the Labour Hire Inquiry, which was accepted by this government. Compliance and enforcement mechanism The Bill proposes the establishment of a compliance and enforcement framework, and the introduction of penalties for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of the Act. There are currently no penalties for non-compliance with the mandatory provision of the Act. The review of the Act found non-compliance, particularly in the transport sector, with the mandatory provisions of the Act. Therefore, the Bill proposes penalties for non-compliance with the following mandatory provisions of the Act: • failure to provide the Information Booklet; • failure to provide the relevant rate and cost schedule; • failure to provide a written contract; and • failure to provide notice of termination or payment in lieu of notice. The establishment of a compliance and enforcement framework and the introduction of penalties is considered a necessary and proportionate response to the evidence of limited compliance with these requirements of the Act within the transport sector. It will provide an economic and punitive incentive for hirers to comply with the requirements of the Act. The Bill provides for the Infringement Notices to be prescribed in the Regulations, with court imposed penalties set out in the Bill. The Bill empowers authorised officers to require that hirers produce documents relevant to an investigation. It also includes a power for authorised officers to enter premises with consent of the occupier. The Bill does not introduce of a coercive power to enter premises. Benefits of the reforms The key benefit that will result from these amendments is that they will increase compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Act. This will help ensure owner drivers and forestry contractors can accurately

BILLS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1345

assess the overhead costs of operating their businesses which will mean they are better placed to determine whether an offer will fully cover their operating costs, provide a return for their own labour and a return on business investment. If owner drivers and forestry contractors can cover their operating costs and maintain their vehicles, this will result in greater safety for all road users. Drivers will not need to work additional hours to try and cover their operating costs. Tip truck owner drivers will also for the first time, benefit from the protections of the Act. I commend the Bill to the house. Mr WAKELING (Ferntree Gully) (10:44): I move:

That the debate be now adjourned. Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. Ordered that debate be adjourned until Wednesday, 15 May. PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELLBEING AMENDMENT BILL 2019 Statement of compatibility Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Equality, Minister for Creative Industries) (10:45): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment Bill 2019. In my opinion, the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment Bill 2019, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement. Overview The Bill amends the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (the Act) to remove the requirements in relation to the provision of information before and after HIV testing (and makes other minor miscellaneous amendments). These requirements are no longer necessary, as they are covered by national testing requirements, and removing them will reduce stigma and discrimination against people who may be HIV positive. Thus, promoting the right to recognition and equality before the law is central to the Bill’s purpose. Human Rights Issues Human rights protected by the Charter that are relevant to the Bill Section 8—Recognition and equality before the law This right includes the right of every person to enjoy their human rights without discrimination. Every person is equal before the law and is entitled to the equal protection of the law without discrimination and has the right to equal and effective protection against discrimination. This means that the content of legislation ought not to be discriminatory, in that it should not expressly treat people differently on the basis of a particular characteristic. The Act currently contains provisions which place special requirements in relation to HIV testing. Section 131(1) prohibits registered medical practitioners from carrying out or authorising the carrying out of a test for HIV, or any other prescribed disease, on a person who has requested the test unless they are satisfied that the person requesting the test has been given the prescribed information in accordance with the regulations. Section 131(2) provides an exception to section 131(1) if a pathologist authorises or carries out the test on the authority of another registered medical practitioner. Section 132 prohibits registered medical practitioners or persons of a prescribed class from advising a person who has requested a test for HIV, or any other prescribed disease, of test results if the results are positive unless they are satisfied that the prescribed information, has been given to the person who requested the test. There are no other diseases which have been prescribed for the purposes of these sections, so the requirements apply in respect of HIV only. The Bill repeals sections 131 and 132 and makes consequential and other minor amendments to the Act. The repeal of these requirements will allow HIV testing to be treated in the same manner as testing for other blood borne viruses and many other medical conditions. This will assist in reducing the stigma surrounding the condition. Removal of the ‘person of a prescribed class’ requirements by repeal of section 132 (and consequentially the regulations made under that provision) will also allow training providers and professional associations to develop more modern and flexible training for clinicians that reflects best practice in HIV care, rather than deliver training in line with more static legislative requirements.

BILLS 1346 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

In addition, advances in HIV testing technology—particularly peer-based rapid testing and HIV home testing kits—render the requirements in the Act increasingly outdated, or even a barrier to HIV testing. The health sector, including groups representing medical professionals and consumers of health services, has identified the requirements in sections 131 and 132 and in the relevant regulations as unnecessarily complex, burdensome, expensive, time-consuming and stigmatising. As such, the sector welcomes efforts to streamline and modernise arrangements that bring HIV into line with other communicable diseases. There are no Charter rights limited by the Bill. Martin Foley MP Minister for Mental Health Second reading Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Equality, Minister for Creative Industries) (10:46): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I ask that my second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard. Incorporated speech as follows: Increasing HIV testing is critical to achieving the goals and targets outlined in the Victorian HIV Strategy 2017–2020. To help achieve this, the Strategy contains three priority actions related to increasing access to peer-led HIV testing, home-based self-testing, and modernising the requirements for testing providers. Among the barriers to expanding peer-based testing are the current requirements under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 relating to pre- and post-testing requirements and competencies for persons of ‘prescribed class’. The need to review and modernise these requirements is an issue that a range of sector stakeholders have been raising for some years. Overwhelmingly, the sector has supported a repeal of relevant sections of the Act relating to pre and post HIV testing. I am pleased that, with this Bill, the government will address the concerns of the sector and repeal these provisions. Section 131 of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 currently makes it mandatory for a registered medical practitioner to ensure a person is given prescribed information, before carrying out or authorising a test for HIV or any other prescribed disease. Section 132 requires a registered medical practitioner, or a person of a prescribed class, to ensure prescribed information is given to a person before advising them the results of the test are positive. By singling out HIV for special requirements, the provisions have contributed to stigmatised views of the virus. Barriers to increasing HIV testing include fear of stigma and discrimination in health settings, difficulty in getting an appointment at HIV high-case load clinics, lack of access to easily accessible testing in local settings and not knowing where to get tested. The repeal of these sections will support the achievement of the government’s commitment to targeting zero stigma and discrimination experienced by people living with HIV. It will reduce structural stigma associated with the virus and normalise regular screening for HIV and remove a barrier to the expansion of cost-effective peer-led testing models, particularly in rural and regional Victoria. Victoria is currently the only jurisdiction in Australia to impose requirements on who may conduct HIV testing. All other jurisdictions are silent on the matter. The sections that will be repealed are covered by the National HIV Testing Policy. Removing the Victorian requirements will harmonise Australian policy on HIV testing and would allow HIV testing to be treated like testing for all other comparable blood borne viruses. This Bill will support the achievement of the priority actions set out in the Victorian HIV Strategy and will allow training providers and professional associations to develop more modern and flexible training that reflects changing workforce needs rather than deliver static training that is legislatively required. In addition, it will remove the regulatory uncertainty around HIV home testing, which is not contemplated by the current legislation and regulations. The Bill repeals sections 131 and 132 and makes other clarifying amendments. These repeals will come in to operation on a day to be proclaimed. This will enable consultation with the sector to determine the most appropriate timing for the repeals to take effect. The Bill also makes some minor statue law revision amendments. I commend the Bill to the house. Ms STALEY (Ripon) (10:46): I move: That the debate be now adjourned.

BILLS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1347

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. Ordered that debate be adjourned until Wednesday, 15 May. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS REGISTRATION BILL 2019 Second reading Debate resumed on motion of Mr PALLAS: That this bill be now read a second time. Ms STALEY (Ripon) (10:46): I rise to speak on the Professional Engineers Registration Bill 2019. This bill is substantially the same as the bill that was introduced in 2018 and did not pass the Parliament. As a result, I plan to devote my remarks today to two broad categories: the results of consultation I have undertaken with stakeholders and a summary of the Liberal-Nationals approach to regulating professional services. As the current bill is so similar to the 2018 bill, with the addition of the word ‘professional’ and a couple of minor definitional changes, I draw the house’s attention to the second-reading speech given by my predecessor as shadow Treasurer, the now Leader of the Opposition, on the 2018 engineers bill. He more than adequately covered the significant elements of that bill, which have not changed in this one. If we turn to the consultation that the Liberal-Nationals have undertaken on this bill, the primary organisations in favour of this bill are Engineers Australia and Professionals Australia. Engineers Australia strongly supports a compulsory registration scheme for engineers being introduced in Victoria. They argue that a national registration scheme could be decades away and therefore they would prefer registration on a state-by-state basis. They compare engineers to other professions such as doctors, architects and lawyers who have to be registered to carry out their work and note that there is nothing to stop a person from calling themselves an engineer even if they are not an engineer. They assert that this poses a significant risk to consumers as well as to community safety. Professionals Australia similarly supports this bill. However, I have had a significant number of individual engineers, some of whom are members of Engineers Australia, write to me and come and see me with their concerns in relation to this bill, and in fact they oppose this bill. The reasons they give for opposing it are many and varied, and they also note that they believe that Engineers Australia in particular has had no real commitment to having discussions with the government in relation to concerns that engineers have put to them last year and through this year. Engineers who are opposed to this bill and who have contacted me note, for a start, that building engineers in Victoria are already registered under the national building registration scheme. This is not true in other jurisdictions such as New South Wales; therefore no comparison can be made with engineering failures such as the Opal Tower in Sydney. They also note that this bill sets up a co-regulatory regime, which means that Engineers Australia and Professionals Australia are likely to be the organisations who are approved by the Business Licensing Authority (BLA) to undertake the assessments needed for applicants to become registered engineers. This would mean that these organisations, Professionals Australia and Engineers Australia, would be put at a level where they would be determining the capacity of people to work as engineers in this state. Many individual engineers believe that this should be a primary responsibility of government rather than being contracted out to a private organisation. They also note that this model that is proposed in the legislation also requires ongoing professional development. Again, Engineers Australia and Professionals Australia are the two organisations which would benefit from a model where all registered engineers had to continue to have professional development and pay for that professional development. While it is true to say that the peak bodies of Engineers Australia and

BILLS 1348 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

Professionals Australia support this bill, it is not true to say that engineers themselves overwhelmingly support it. We undertook a series of other consultations, and the only other organisation who came out in favour of this bill was the Civil Contractors Federation Victoria. They support this bill, but they did put through a few suggestions to me, including that they believe there should be a statutory authority rather than the bill providing for Consumer Affairs Victoria to do the licensing. The Civil Contractors Federation, while supporting this bill generally, does not think that that is the right body. If we then move to some of the other organisations that we consulted with, I begin with Consult Australia. Consult Australia opposes this legislation. They note that one of the reasons the government has given for bringing forward this legislation is that it is spending a lot on infrastructure and public safety and making sure that that infrastructure is developed to a high quality requires the passage of this bill. As Consult Australia says, if public safety was an issue, surely a registration scheme would be required before spending such significant sums of taxpayers money. Consult Australia goes on to note that this bill will deliver significant costs to the engineering community, which they estimate to be at least $27 million for the initial assessment. Then the actual registration they think would be a further $27 million, and then the renewal period, even set at every three years, they estimate would be an additional $9 million per annum of costs to be borne by the broader engineering community. When we talk about the broader engineering community, there are of course engineering practices, and they would all be required to be registered under this legislation, but there are many, many other employers of engineers who work within teams. Engineering is a very team-based discipline where not only engineers work. They work with designers, they work with architects—they work with a number of other professionals to produce a safe bridge or a safe building. Whatever it is that they are doing the engineering on, safety is at the core of their profession. Every single submission from an engineer—or, I may add, from Engineers Australia or Professionals Australia—made that point. Engineering is an absolutely safety oriented profession, and that is why we do not see the sorts of engineering failures in Victoria that we have seen in other jurisdictions around the world. This is a profession very, very focused on safety. The very fact that we have not seen any significant engineering failures in Victoria suggests that the current model is working well. Moving on to the Association of Consulting Structural Engineers Victoria, they are also opposed to this bill. They note that they are extremely disappointed by the Treasurer’s reading of the bill on 6 March. The government’s commitment to work with relevant stakeholders on the introduction of a mandatory statutory registration scheme and work with other jurisdictions to develop a nationally consistent scheme was noted. They are particularly annoyed that the Treasurer mentioned the Opal Tower because, as they say, they fail to see how a relatively unregulated construction industry in New South Wales can be compared to an already regulated industry in Victoria. They also note that the consultation process for the preparation of this bill—that is, the 2019 bill—and the 2018 bill had not included their organisation or, as far as they can determine, the general engineering profession. Off their own bat they put a response to the Department of Treasury and Finance, but other than an acknowledgement of that they have had no further involvement in the preparation of this bill. They are concerned about what appears to be minimal consultation within the profession regarding this bill and its effect on the engineering profession overall. The Victorian Automotive Chamber of Commerce is also opposed to this bill. They believe that the bill in its current format will create significant regulatory risk for automotive engineers. And they believe it is poorly designed against its stated aims. It creates an additional level of regulation. Their view is that Victorian engineering signatories should dedicate themselves to transitioning from the vehicle assessment signatory scheme, which is the regulatory scheme, to a national heavy vehicle regulator. That will allow for harmonisation amongst the states and reduce the burden of red tape. This may be a good time to further elucidate on the point around national regulation. A number of people we consulted with support national regulation of the engineering profession. Their problem

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1349 with this bill is that it is state-based regulation, and in some cases they are also opposed to the fact that there is no mutual recognition with other regulatory regimes. And of course there is only one other state which regulates in this area, and that is Queensland. There are some people who, while supporting a regulatory licensing regime of engineers, are particularly concerned that this is adding state-based regulation where they believe Victoria and others should be going through the COAG process towards national regulation. The Real Estate Institute of Victoria is also opposed to this bill. They do not have a view generally on the regulation of engineers. However, they do not approve that Consumer Affairs Victoria should be the regulator or even a co-regulator in the construction industry or the property industry. They believe the primary focus of Consumer Affairs Victoria is—or if it is not already, should be—the protection of consumers in Victoria. This focus is at odds, the Real Estate Institute of Victoria believes, with effective regulation of the property and construction sector. They would argue that the BLA is an inappropriate licensing body for the construction and property industry because it is largely a record keeper and that CAV—Consumer Affairs Victoria—does not adequately perform the function of a licensing authority. Similarly the housing association is against this bill. They believe it introduces some duplication of the regulatory process and— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The time has come for me to interrupt business under sessional orders for questions without notice and ministers statements. Business interrupted under sessional orders. Questions without notice and ministers statements GIPPSLAND DROUGHT RELIEF Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (11:01): My question is to the Premier. At the request of the members for Gippsland South and Gippsland East I recently visited their area and met with farmers who are severely impacted by nearly two years of drought. There is nothing like meeting these farmers and their families and listening to them to really understand what they are going through. It is now nine months since the Premier acknowledged that there is a drought in Central and East Gippsland. And yet while he has visited the Latrobe Valley on at least five occasions in that time, he has not noticeably travelled further east to inspect these drought-affected areas. Why won’t the Premier meet with the farmers in Central and East Gippsland to hear firsthand the devastation that is unfolding? Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (11:02): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I reject the assumption in his question that anybody will not meet with anybody—that is simply not right. While the Leader of the Opposition is seeking to score political points it would seem, I can advise him that the government is delivering a $45 million drought relief package. And I tell you what: support from this government trumps you turning up anywhere, Leader of the Opposition. The package of funding is all about providing support and assistance to those in the Wellington and East Gippsland local government areas and— Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! Without the assistance of members on my left. Mr ANDREWS: A $45 million drought relief package and— Ms McLeish: They know that. Mr ANDREWS: Well, I am not entirely sure that those opposite do know that actually.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 1350 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

The assertion is that people will not meet with drought-affected farmers, and that is simply incorrect. The basis of the question is simply incorrect, and while some would seek to score political points, the government will continue to provide support—real support, not just politically convenient support— to all drought-affected farmers. Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (11:03): Given the financial ruin that these farmers are facing, can the Premier give them a commitment that there will be an announcement of real drought support such as rate relief in the upcoming budget? Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (11:03): The notion that the substantial package of support that is being provided is not, to quote the Leader of the Opposition, ‘real drought support’ is simply incorrect. Mr M O’Brien interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr ANDREWS: I tell you what: I am not taking lectures on country Victoria from the member for Malvern. I will give you the hot tip there. Members interjecting. Mr ANDREWS: Well, turning up in your brand-new moleskins— Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! I ask members to resume their seats! Members will not shout across the chamber. I ask members on my left not to interject while the Premier is answering the question. Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, I ask the Premier to come back to answering the question. Perhaps remind him that even though he thinks the country roads and bridges program should fund bridges in Mulgrave, that is not actually country Victoria. The SPEAKER: Order! That was not a point of order. Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! I warn members to cease shouting across the chamber. There was no point of order. I do ask the Premier to resist attacking the opposition during his answer to the question. Mr ANDREWS: Indeed, Speaker, the government has provided substantial support, and as conditions worsen in a number of drought-affected regions of our state, all farmers and all members of those communities can be assured that the government will continue to provide strong support to them in very difficult circumstances. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: MULTICULTURALISM Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (11:05): I rise to confirm our government’s support for the rich, diverse and precious multiculturalism that is our most precious asset—our most precious asset. A member interjected. Mr ANDREWS: Well, we did indeed talk about it yesterday. While we were saying fine things in this place yesterday, there were others who would like to pretend to be moderate, would like to pretend to be mainstream and would like to pretend to support diversity, inclusion, respect and harmony. They would like to pretend that a multifaith, multicultural community is something they support. But what is becoming increasingly clear is that there is a pattern of extremism in this federal election and in this state going on right now as we speak. We have those who would seek to cling to office doing deals with extremists around preferences.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1351

Members interjecting. Mr ANDREWS: Well, apparently I can quote none other than the Deputy Prime Minister on the One Nation preference deal: ‘It just makes sense’. Beyond that we have very, very serious questions that need to be answered—and they can only be answered by the Prime Minister in relation to the alleged engagement of convicted extremists to interfere in the Victorian election conducted last year, to pit one Victorian against another. Would Scott Morrison be more interested in the Victorian election than this lot? Maybe they have got some questions to answer as well. Only the Prime Minister can answer these questions. BUILDING CLADDING Mr T SMITH (Kew) (11:08): My question is to the Minister for Planning. Retired teachers Jennifer and Kevin Opie were recently issued with an order to pay $92 000 from the Victorian Building Authority within three months or face further fines or eviction from their South Yarra apartment because it is clad in dangerous combustible material. Why did the minister back the VBA’s demand that these retired public school teachers pay $92 000 to remove dangerous combustible cladding on their home? Mr WYNNE (Richmond—Minister for Housing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Planning) (11:08): I thank the member for Kew for his question. I noted that the member for Kew actually tweeted on this matter some weeks ago. In fact the basis of his question is inaccurate—it is actually inaccurate. A building order has been placed upon the Williams Road property by the VBA. The VBA has not— Mr T Smith interjected. Mr WYNNE: You are simply incorrect. The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will address his remarks through the Chair. I ask the member for Kew to cease interjecting. Mr WYNNE: Speaker, the VBA has placed an order upon that building for the body corporate to make sure that it puts in place some initial remedial actions to ensure that people can in fact continue to live in the building safely. That is an entirely appropriate response by the VBA. The VBA has not— has not, I repeat—sent a bill to the Opies or to anybody else, nor— Mr T Smith interjected. Mr WYNNE: That is simply not correct. And they have not suggested that they would be in danger of being evicted from their property. The member for Kew ought to, rather than just use these poor people as some sort of political cannon fodder, actually— The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will resume his seat. Mr T Smith: On a point of order, Speaker, the minister is misleading this house. A bill has been sent to these individuals. They are most distressed by it. Hence I am asking on their behalf why that bill was sent to them. Stop misleading the house. The SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. The minister will come back to answering the question. Mr WYNNE: Thanks very much, Speaker. There has been no bill—no bill has been sent to the Opies. This is simply wrong. You are wrong. The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will address his remarks through the Chair. Mr WYNNE: There is an order being placed on the Williams Road property by the VBA. An order has been placed on the property to make good on a situation, and I am very sympathetic to the Opies

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 1352 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019 and many others who find themselves in this position. Can I say, Speaker, in relation to further opportunities that the government will have to do further work in relation to rectification, the government is actively considering further options at this moment. When the government has resolved what it intends to do in the future, I will let the member for Kew and others know. Mr T SMITH (Kew) (11:11): Given that dangerous combustible cladding on the minister’s own office at 8 Nicholson Street was removed as soon as possible, what action will the minister take to assist Mr and Mrs Opie, who cannot afford to pay $92 000 to make their home safe? Mr WYNNE (Richmond—Minister for Housing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Planning) (11:11): Yet again the member for Kew is deceptive, as always. So he tweets a proposition that somehow I have ensured, through my intervention, that the building at 8 Nicholson Street, where my department and indeed my other colleagues are housed—that somehow I have intervened in that process to ensure that the cladding was removed. Completely and utterly false! A member interjected. Mr WYNNE: And where the State Control Centre is. Completely and utterly false! The owner of the property, Dexus— Mr T Smith: On a point of order, Speaker, he seems to be confusing my tweet with my question. The question was regarding what support he will be giving the Opies to remove the cladding from their property. I would ask you to draw the minister back to answering my question. The SPEAKER: Order! The minister has been relevant to the question. The minister, to continue answering the question. Mr WYNNE: As I indicated in my earlier answer, Speaker, the government is actively considering what further actions it may take in this space. We will be taking advice from our bipartisan cladding task force. There has been no intervention by this government to rectify the building at 8 Nicholson Street—none whatsoever. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: SOCIAL COHESION Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education) (11:13): I rise to update the house on the critical role that schools play in making Victoria a socially cohesive and peaceful place to live, work and raise a family. Following the recent tragedy in New Zealand, I agreed to chair a round table with principals and leaders from our Victorian Islamic schools for a meaningful discussion about how best to support our young people. I held that forum last week. Principals talked about great examples of engagement between students at government schools and Islamic schools coming together to break down barriers. We discussed issues faced by schools and students regarding personal safety as well as social and emotional wellbeing. I am delighted that at this successful round table we agreed to a series of actions to address student safety and staff safety and wellbeing. We all need to take a stand against hate. Make no mistake, hate speech leads to hate violence. So it is unconscionable that there are those who not only provide a platform to people who hold racist views but endorse those people for high office—who endorse someone who describes all Muslims as being of ‘bad character’ and says they should be banned from gaining Australian citizenship, someone who says that Muslims are rebelling ‘against the government’ and that Muslims subscribed to an ideology of ‘killing or enslavement of the citizens of Australia’. These are abhorrent, racist views that clearly seek to incite violence held by a person who should never have been given an endorsement by any political party.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1353

I note that those opposite are now saying that they are going to sack this disgraceful candidate for Isaacs. They have not done it yet. The Prime Minister is nowhere to be seen. The question is why did they endorse him in the first place when his views were clearly in the public realm. It is a disgrace. EMERGENCY SERVICES SUPERANNUATION SCHEME Mr ANGUS (Forest Hill) (11:15): My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Last Wednesday, VCAT senior member Elisabeth Wentworth rejected an attempt by United Firefighters Union (UFU) secretary Peter Marshall to inflate his retirement benefits by more than $1 million at the expense of Victorian taxpayers. In her judgement, senior member Wentworth found that Mr Marshall’s claimed ‘superable salary was difficult to reconcile with the payroll evidence’, that remuneration totals previously advised to the board ‘were difficult to reconcile with Mr Marshall’s payroll advice slips’ and that Mr Marshall relied on an email from his own personal assistant, who reports to him, as evidence of his claim. As the minister responsible for the Emergency Services Superannuation Act 1986, will he now refer Mr Marshall’s bogus claims to Victoria Police to determine if it constitutes obtaining financial advantage by deception or other criminal activity? Mr SCOTT (Preston—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Veterans) (11:16): The Emergency Services Superannuation Scheme undertakes its activities in relation to its members, of course, independently and treated Mr Marshall as it would treat any other member of the ESSS in relation to the case without any government interference. There was a VCAT case in relation to this hearing. I will be frank; I have not given consideration to the referral that is made by the member. It is a highly unusual reference since of course this matter came before a tribunal of the state, a division of the Supreme Court, so therefore that is not my intention at this point. I will examine it, but it seems a highly unusual request in the circumstances. Mr ANGUS (Forest Hill) (11:17): Given Mr Marshall has been caught out seeking to artificially inflate his salary—to increase his defined benefit superannuation payout—and is currently negotiating a new employment contract, what action will the minister take to ensure that Mr Marshall and the UFU do not collude to rort his new agreement in order to raid the ESSS at the expense of Victorian taxpayers? Mr SCOTT (Preston—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Veterans) (11:18): I will be frank; I find the question slightly odd because as to the ESSS I do not have a specific role in relation to members and their relationships. That takes place independently. I do not provide direct instruction to the ESSS on individual cases. So therefore the tenor of the question is unusual, to say the least. I may have responsibilities for the operations of the organisation’s act, but if there is a suggestion being made that as minister I should have direct involvement in decisions of the ESSS about individual members of the scheme, that would be highly unusual. Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, in the judgement of Senior Member Wentworth she noted that the UFU and Mr Marshall were currently negotiating a new contract of employment, so the member for Forest Hill’s question is: given there has been a previous attempt to rort these arrangements, to rip off the publicly funded ESSS, what action will the minister take to prevent this from occurring? He is the Assistant Treasurer. He is responsible for the public purse in relation to the superannuation scheme. The member for Forest Hill’s question is: what will the minister do? And he has not addressed that. The SPEAKER: Order! I do not uphold the point of order. The minister is being relevant to the question asked. Mr SCOTT: I would note in response to the question that in fact the ESSS defended the decisions they had made in relation to Mr Marshall successfully at VCAT. It is not the practice to interfere in

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 1354 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019 individual organisations, but of course the ESSS, with the full support of the minister, defends the legal rights that it has. Mr Wells: On a point of order, Speaker, under sessional order 11 the answers have to be factual, succinct and accurate. The reality is that the integrity of the ESSS is the direct responsibility of the Assistant Treasurer. If there is rorting going on within the ESSS, then it is the responsibility of the Assistant Treasurer to take action to ensure that that rorting does not take place, and because Peter Marshall is a mate, there should be no exceptions. The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The minister has concluded his answer. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: FIREARM PROHIBITION ORDERS Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine—Minister for Water, Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (11:21): I rise to update the house on the implementation of our firearm prohibition orders, the FPOs, which we developed hand in glove with Victoria Police to tackle gun crime in our state. So far since May last year we have had 165 approved FPOs, and they have been focused on our crime gangs, on our counterterrorism persons of interest, on our outlaw motorcycle gangs, and they have been able to do warrantless searches, seize guns, seize ammunition, drugs and money, and it is really working well. These are about to roll out more broadly to regional police centres in order to tackle and focus on even more of these high-risk and serious criminals. Victoria Police have indicated to us that they believe the package of measures that we have done in relation to gun crime—FPOs, the gang squad, the trafficking laws in relation to guns and also some of the changes to the National Firearms Agreement— are what they need to be able to tackle gun crime in this state. Unfortunately we nearly did not get these changes through the Parliament. We had some people— those opposite, actually—who were very focused on the civil liberties of criminals and making sure the balance was right for some of our criminals. We also had unfortunately some comments recently in February of this year in relation to the National Firearms Agreement when we were trying to control access to the lever action guns. I thought we could all agree that we should not allow everyone to access lever action guns, but apparently not. In fact we had a comment made in the Parliament that this change is not one based on evidence but based on kneejerk reactions in response to events like mass shootings. You might have thought it was Fraser Anning or Pauline Hanson, but no, it was the member for South Gippsland, so it is no surprise that there is a preference deal being done between the National Party and One Nation. Gun laws in our state—we will protect them; we will protect the National Firearms Agreement. SOLAR HOMES PACKAGE Mr R SMITH (Warrandyte) (11:23): My question is to the Minister for Solar Homes. Minister, Sam Kent, director of Sky Energy Systems, had to lay off 25 workers last week with another 15 jobs in danger because the minister announced without warning a cap on the number of rebates for the installation of residential solar panels. Despite causing this mess the minister today blamed the job losses on poor business planning. With these 25 workers sacked and dozens of other jobs across the state at risk because the minister has botched this program, will the minister now lift this damaging cap on rebates to give these small businesses and their employees secure work? Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes) (11:24): I thank the member for his question, but he is absolutely wrong on so many levels— A member: As usual. Ms D’AMBROSIO: As usual, absolutely. I do note the sudden interest, the sudden support, for our Solar Homes program, a scheme that they went to the election saying that they would actually axe. Let me be very clear, let me be absolutely clear. Since our Solar Homes program was initiated in August last year we have actually seen 910 jobs, new jobs, created in this state.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1355

Mr R Smith: On a point of order, Speaker, political rhetoric is great, but 25 people have lost their jobs with more people in danger of losing their jobs because you botched the program. So if you want to talk about new jobs under your policies, why don’t you talk to those 25 people— The SPEAKER: Order! That was not a point of order. Ms D’AMBROSIO: The fact is this: we went in August, the Premier and I, and made this fantastic announcement—24 000 rebates in the first year. We will be delivering 32 000 rebates this year. It was always known that there would be a cap in the first year, absolutely. Let me be clear. This is a program that is being rolled out over 10 years and not 10 minutes, and businesses and the industry ought to also ensure that they make their business decisions based on that same premise. Let me also be clear that the business that the member refers to, Sky Energy, since August last year have accessed 69 rebates— just 69 rebates. They have got a pipeline of 73 ready to install that still have not been installed, plus 60 extra between now and the end of June. So we need to be careful when we talk about what the facts are here. The fact is this: Victoria is leading the country in terms of installation of solar on people’s roofs for the first time ever. Mr R Smith: On a point of order, Speaker, if the minister wants to talk facts, 25 people out of work because the minister has botched the implementation of this program— Members interjecting. Mr R Smith: It is wrong? The minister is saying that is wrong. Well, let us get Sam Kent on the phone to find out how many people are actually without a job. The SPEAKER: Order! The member will come to his point of order. There is no point of order. Ms D’AMBROSIO: This program has been so successful. It has met all of our expectations plus, and more. The facts are these: Victoria for the first time ever is leading the country in installations of solar photovoltaic on residential roofs. We have gone from a business as usual 3000 installations a month to 6000 installations a month. Let me also be clear that we have significant numbers of installations that have yet to be done—14 500 are to be done between now and the end of June. There is a significant pipeline of work available to all businesses, and from 1 July it will be bigger and better still. Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: The minister will resume her seat. Mr R Smith interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member for Warrandyte to raise a legitimate point of order. Mr R Smith: On a point of order, Speaker, the rant is impressive, but the question was: is the minister going to remove the cap or not? We can hear all about the program as long as we like, but at the end of the day the question is: is she going to remove the cap? The SPEAKER: Order! I understand the point of order. The question referred to or suggested the minister had botched the program. The minister is entitled to talk about the entire program. Ms D’AMBROSIO: Thanks very much, Speaker. The fact is this: this is a successful program that has surpassed all of our expectations. It is leading to jobs being created—more than 900 so far in less than one year. It is putting new energy generators on people’s roofs—32 000 in less than a year—and right now it is reducing energy costs for every Victorian that has applied for the scheme and been eligible for it. I am absolutely delighted that from 1 July it will be bigger and better still. Mr R SMITH (Warrandyte) (11:28): On 9 April the Premier said that the government was capping the delivery of solar panel rebates because ‘safety has to come first’. Minister, what safety issues forced

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 1356 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019 the government to suspend the solar panel rebate program, or is the real reason the program was capped because the government just ran out of money? Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes) (11:29): I thank the member for the supplementary question. This is a program that is being rolled out over 10 years at a value of $1.3 billion. Let me be clear: we have been clear all along that the caps would apply— Mr R Smith: On a point of order, Speaker, I ask you to bring the minister back to the question. The Premier himself, on 9 April, said that the cap was in place because there were safety concerns— Mr Andrews: No, I didn’t. Mr R Smith: Yes, you did. You were on 774, on the news. Mr Andrews interjected. Mr R Smith: Yes, you were. You are always denying what you say. The SPEAKER: Member for Warrandyte, through the Chair! Mr R Smith: If there are safety concerns, which the Premier said there were, then with a program that has been running since August last year I think Victorian people would want to know what those safety concerns are. What are the safety concerns to which the Premier referred on 9 April? The SPEAKER: The minister had only just begun her answer, but I do ask her to come to answering the question. Ms D’AMBROSIO: I thank the member again for the supplementary question, but he is absolutely wrong. We made it clear from the beginning that the rollout of this scheme would have some very important fundamentals in place. Number one: safety. Everyone wants to know that the scheme will be run safely every single day. That is why we have put stringent conditions in place in terms of the qualifications of installers. An orderly rollout is one important way of managing any safety matters that may arise—actually mitigating against safety issues occurring in the first place. We are absolutely proud of our program. It will be bigger and better, and Victorians are absolutely flocking to this program in record and unprecedented numbers. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: EMPLOYMENT Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (11:31): I rise to update the house about the challenges facing Victorian workers and the work that this government is doing to protect them. Yesterday the Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) Amendment Bill 2018 passed the other place to provide a greater level of consistency and fairness for public sector workers right across our great state. It was a momentous day for Victorian workers, and it could only have been delivered by an Andrews Labor government. I was disappointed of course that those opposite, true to form, once again opposed the fair work bill. The Liberal Party of course have never been a friend of workers. They have never cared about ensuring secure employment for Victorians. It is no surprise that the federal Liberals here in Victoria and across the country have done a dirty deal with Clive Palmer’s vanity project—sorry, I mean Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party—a deal so dirty Bon Scott would have gained inspiration. Once again Australian workers have been done dirt cheap. The Andrews government is proud of its continuing efforts to improve the protections and rights of workers right across this great state. As a consequence of this bill becoming law, more than 130 000 Victorians, including teachers, child protection workers, speech therapists and legal aid staff, will be able to access bargaining rights like negotiating for secure employment. Across this state we have created, as a government, 460 000 new jobs since being elected, with more than 70 per cent of

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1357 those being full time. That is what secure employment looks like. That is how you promote secure employment, not by doing dodgy deals with Clive Palmer, the battlers’ billionaire who, in his own words, does not give a stuff what anybody thinks—but caring has never really been his strong suit. (Time expired) DEATH DUTIES Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (11:33): My question is to the Premier. In 2017 in this place the member for Essendon stated, and I quote:

… death duties should be instituted. … if a person passed on and their estate was worth $1 million, for argument’s sake, we would say, ‘We will allocate 5 per cent of your estate to the state … Given the member for Essendon’s strong support for death duties, why has the Premier appointed him as his personal parliamentary secretary? Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! This is probably the worst time for members to be removed from the chamber, because it will mean they will probably miss a fair bit of tomorrow’s question time. I ask members to stop shouting across the chamber so that the Premier can answer the question that has been asked. Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (11:34): I do thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. The member for Essendon put forward a view. Many members put forward many views in this chamber. I note that the Leader of the Opposition thought there was no such thing as putting a view that was not the endorsed view of your party if it was uttered in Parliament. Now if you take that to its logical conclusion, I remember sitting here listening to what must have been one of the finest inaugural speeches I have ever had the great privilege of witnessing, where I heard the newly elected member for Brighton indicate that duck shooting should be banned. Am I to take it that that is your position, Leader of the Opposition? The SPEAKER: Order! Through the Chair! Mr ANDREWS: Is that your position, given that there can be no utterances made in this chamber without them being the express policy reflection of that person’s party leader? If we were to take that even a step further, every word out of Bernie Finn’s mouth is on you. The SPEAKER: Order! Through the Chair! Mr ANDREWS: Speaker, I would not find fault with the point that you just made about not wanting to be ejected from question time at this very late hour in question time, because I for one look forward to question time and questions like this one. Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (11:36): On a supplementary, and noting the Premier had 3 minutes and refused to distance himself from the member for Essendon’s views, refused to say he did not support them, I ask— Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! I need to be able to hear the question. Mr M O’BRIEN: given that yet another member of the Premier’s parliamentary party, the member for Burwood, recently spoke in favour of death duties in this place, my question is: how many other members of the Premier’s parliamentary party also support death duties? Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (11:36): This is almost unfair now. I tell you what: I am more than happy to support the role, the election and the contribution of the current member for Burwood, as opposed to the person he took over from—a bloke who would not stand up for Rosie

CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS 1358 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

Batty. You can bag the member for Burwood all you want, Leader of the Opposition. Is there anything you will not do to support Scott Morrison? Seriously. The only things dead today are your tactics. The SPEAKER: Order! I am going to take the opportunity— Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Euroa, the members for South-West Coast and Geelong! I remind members to address their remarks through the Chair. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: GENDER EQUALITY Ms WILLIAMS (Dandenong—Minister for Prevention of Family Violence, Minister for Women, Minister for Youth) (11:38): I rise to update the house on the Andrews Labor government’s commitment to driving gender equality. Over the break I was very proud to launch the next phase of our Respect Women: Call It Out campaign encouraging Victorians to call out sexual harassment in public spaces. Our government calls out sexism and disrespect because we know that bad attitudes towards women lead to bad outcomes for women. That is why we have to call out the despicable comments made by One Nation recently. Within hours of launching that ad campaign, Mark Latham saw fit to add his 2 cents, as he so often does. He said, ‘If you don’t have a good look at a beautiful person of the opposite sex, then there is something wrong with you’. He then speculated that the antagonist in the ad might have just been thinking, quote: ‘Did I used to root her at uni?’. Wow! And just last week we learned about comments by One Nation’s candidate in the federal seat of Hunter. He said, ‘The only thing worse than a gay person with power is a woman’. Speaker, that homophobia, that misogyny is abhorrent. It is absolutely abhorrent, and that is ignoring the fact that Pauline Hanson is indeed a woman and James Ashby is indeed a gay man, so that is awkward for everyone. But in light of these comments it is baffling that the National Party would seek to strap themselves to this outfit—absolutely baffling. Add to this the Prime Minister’s comments on International Women’s Day, add to this the lack of female representation on coalition benches and we can only conclude one thing, and that is that only Labor truly believes in gender equality and only Labor will stand against the sexist and racist and homophobic One Nation party. Constituency questions Ms Kealy: On a point of order, Speaker, in relation to constituency questions: I have question number 379, which was asked on 20 March and due on 18 April, to the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change regarding rock climbing bans in the Grampians National Park. This is something that is causing great consternation and putting a lot of pressure on small businesses and our local Aboriginal groups, and I ask for an urgent response from the minister to that question. The SPEAKER: I thank the member for Lowan for that point of order, and I will follow that matter up on her behalf. MURRAY PLAINS ELECTORATE Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (11:41): (511) My constituency question is to the Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers, and it is on behalf of the Rochester community and follows on from a number of letters over the last 18 months requesting that the Andrews government do something about the deteriorating condition of Random House in Rochester. When is the minister going to inform the Rochester community of his decision as to whether Random House will be sold, or will the Andrews government restore it to its former glory?

CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1359

MACEDON ELECTORATE Ms THOMAS (Macedon) (11:41): (512) My constituency question is for the Minister for Roads in the other place. Minister, the Fixing Country Roads program has been a much-needed and much- celebrated initiative in my electorate. Round one of the program saw many local projects receive funding, including surface upgrades to Potts Road in Elphinstone, reconstruction roadworks at Romsey Road and Kyneton-Metcalfe Road; a pedestrian crossing upgrade at Victoria Street, Trentham, and improvement and realignment to the intersection at Trentham-Spring Hill Road and Spring Hill Road. These projects are making our roads safer for all road users, and the Fixing Country Roads program is a great example of the Andrews Labor government’s commitment to minimising the regional road toll. My question for the minister is: with the resounding success of round one of the Fixing Country Roads program, what projects will be funded in the electorate of Macedon in round two? RIPON ELECTORATE Ms STALEY (Ripon) (11:42): (513) My constituency question is for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, and the question I ask is: will the state government’s upcoming, delayed budget include funding of $90 million to match the federal government’s announcement of $360 million to finish the duplication of the Western Highway between Ararat and Stawell? This project, as members would know, has been delayed. The federal government has now come out and funded the final section of the road. There is an overarching funding agreement in place for this road which means that the federal government funds 80 per cent and the state government funds 20 per cent. I therefore want to know: are we going to see the extra $90 million to get this road finally finished in Ripon? CARRUM ELECTORATE Ms KILKENNY (Carrum) (11:43): (514) My constituency question is for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure. I have been contacted by a number of constituents regarding the roundabout at Thompsons Road and Frankston-Dandenong Road in Carrum Downs. The roundabout sits at the end of the newly duplicated Thompsons Road. My constituents want to know what the next steps are for improving safety and traffic flow at this location. I was very pleased last year to announce that we were fast-tracking works to replace this dangerous and congested roundabout with a fully signalised intersection, making it much safer and improving traffic flow for the thousands of motorists who use this corridor every day. But concerns have been raised that the lanes are difficult to navigate, and with only one right-turning lane onto Frankston-Dandenong Road there is significant congestion in the afternoon and evening peak. Minister, what are the next steps for this location? HASTINGS ELECTORATE Mr BURGESS (Hastings) (11:44): (515) My question is directed to the Minister for Mental Health, and the information I seek is on behalf of the Western Port Men’s Shed, which is seeking funding for a dust extraction system at the shed that will be based in Bittern. This wonderful men’s shed, like so many men’s sheds across the state, is growing in numbers with new members and visitors and is open to people from all walks of life and of varying ages, abilities and experience. These people breathe in the fine sawdust materials that come naturally from the woodworking activities, and as such they need a system to help capture that sawdust. The men’s shed regularly holds community barbecues, raising much-needed funds for equipment, maintenance, machines, running costs, insurance et cetera; however, they require roughly $30 000 to purchase this important health aid. SUNBURY ELECTORATE Mr J BULL (Sunbury) (11:45): (516) My question is for the Minister for Health and Minister for Ambulance Services. What is the latest information on performance data for ambulance response times in the Hume local government area in my electorate? Members would recall that under the Liberals lives were at risk because ambulances were not arriving at critical emergencies fast enough.

CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS 1360 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

I also want to take this opportunity to remind an incoming federal government that Victoria has not received its fair share of hospital funding over the past five years, further putting lives at risk. I would also like to take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to our hardworking paramedics, our doctors, our nurses—Jenny Orr is one of those and she is here today—and also all of the health professionals for continuing to do an outstanding job in health and emergency services across our state. I look forward to the minister’s response. MORWELL ELECTORATE Mr NORTHE (Morwell) (11:46): (517) My question is for the Minister for Agriculture in the other place. Minister, what is the latest information in regard to the level of government assistance that is being provided to farming families in Latrobe city who are experiencing ongoing debilitating drought conditions? The state government has announced some programs of support for farmers in Wellington and East Gippsland; however, Latrobe city farmers have been excluded from these same programs. The reality is that drought has no arbitrary lines. I have been contacted by multiple farmers in my community who feel disappointed and aggrieved that their plight has not been recognised. Whilst there is an inequity based upon the location of one’s farm, the efficacy of the said programs also needs to be questioned. Farmers want real and practical assistance. An exemption from paying council rates for 12 months is one such initiative. A $2.6 million commitment from the state government would deliver such an outcome and provide the most appropriate practical assistance and support for Latrobe city farmers, and I call upon the minister to give this proposal urgent attention. BROADMEADOWS ELECTORATE Mr McGUIRE (Broadmeadows) (11:47): (518) My question is to the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events. What information is there on the Broadmeadows Netball Association’s application to the 2018–19 sporting club grants program? The program is part of the government’s commitment to sport and active recreation and offers a range of grants, including up to $5000 to successful applicants to improve operational effectiveness and efficiency. The Broadmeadows Netball Association plays an important role in my community, running netball competitions out of the Broadmeadows Aquatic and Leisure Centre and helping bring people together to improve their health. I ask the minister for an update on the progress of the association’s application. SANDRINGHAM ELECTORATE Mr ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (11:47): (519) My constituency question is to the Minister for Planning. Will the minister advise my community of when he intends to release his decision regarding future use of the former gas and fuel land on Nepean Highway, Highett; and further, will the minister please arrange a briefing for my community on the advice he has received before his decision is made? Since October 2017 I have called on the Andrews government to reserve the majority of this land for our community. On 23 March the minister wrote to me indicating that whilst advice had been received from the Government Land Standing Advisory Committee, his decision had not yet been reached. This currently vacant 6.3 hectares could provide much-needed recreational space for local residents. I encourage the Minister for Planning to choose sporting fields, open space and more train station car parks over 26-metre-high residential towers that the Andrews government currently has earmarked for this site. ESSENDON ELECTORATE Mr PEARSON (Essendon) (11:48): (520) I direct my constituency question to the Minister for Water, and I ask: what is the latest information about how the Andrews Labor government is investing to improve the environment around Maribyrnong River and Moonee Ponds Creek? Ms McLeish: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, we have just finished question time, and I note that for some time there have been departmental staff in the chamber. I would like to seek some clarification about them being in here during question time.

BILLS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1361

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Spence): I will refer that to the Speaker and seek that he provide a response to you. Bills PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS REGISTRATION BILL 2019 Second reading Debate resumed. Ms STALEY (Ripon) (11:49): Before the break I was talking about the Housing Industry Association, another group that has concerns about this bill. Their concerns are around who the regulator is, and in particular they do not believe that the current way this bill is set up is an appropriate way to create that regulatory model. They think that this model of having the Business Licensing Authority manage the scheme needs to be reviewed because usually it is a regulator for occupations where there are moral probity issues, and that is a consumer protection issue. That is not necessarily the right model when we are looking at a regulator who is responsible for the skills and experience of the registered person, and it is not clear that the model is actually going to deliver what they are requiring. In addition to those industry associations and individual engineers, I also undertook extensive consultation with local government and water authorities, particularly rural local government and rural water authorities. Both of these types of organisations are significant employers of engineers and significant instigators of a lot of engineering work in the country. In both cases the water authorities I spoke with and the local governments I spoke with are not in favour of this bill. They see it as adding an additional level of regulation to their already highly regulated engineering practices within their organisations. They also noted that this sets up a mechanism where you get regulated as a particular type of engineer. In the country often people undertake different types of engineering works; they are more general engineers. The water authorities in particular are concerned that this bill will mean that they will have to buy in different types of engineering expertise just to manage the projects that they already do. That brings me to the end of the consultation part of my contribution. As you can see, in summary Engineers Australia and Professionals Australia, both of whom may be co-regulators and therefore may benefit under this bill, are supportive of this legislation, as is the Civil Contractors Federation. However, all the other bodies—and we sent our letters out very widely—came back opposing in various ways this model that the government is seeking to bring in. It was not the same opposition from every group, but none of the other organisations supported the bill in its current form. If we now turn to the Liberal-Nationals view, as I suggested at the outset, this bill is substantially the same as the one that came before the Parliament in 2018, and our view therefore is substantially the same. We have not changed it. We do note that engineering regulation in this state has to date been extremely effective when you look at the outcomes. We have safe buildings, we have bridges that do not fall down, we have safe roads. Therefore the overwhelming question is: what is the demonstrated need for this legislation? What is the demonstrated need to increase regulation of engineers? Because it is clear that this bill will impose a regulatory burden, and therefore the onus is on the government to make the case for why imposing that regulatory burden is in fact in the public interest. We do not believe that that has been demonstrated. One of the reasons that in fact it is very difficult for anyone to stand up in this place and say it has been demonstrated is that the cost-benefit analysis of this bill, the legislative impact statement, has not been released. Therefore we have to continue to ask: why would you do it and not release it? If it is as good as the government says it is in terms of its benefits, why not release the legislative impact statement? We do need to see that cost-benefit analysis. The public needs to see that cost-benefit analysis, and it is for that reason that I now move:

BILLS 1362 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

That all the words after ‘that’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until: (1) the legislative impact assessment/cost-benefit analysis, including details of the additional cost to individual engineers and infrastructure projects, is publicly released; (2) the potential negative effect of the proposed scheme on rural communities by restricting access to engineering services is identified and addressed; and (3) the government holds an inquiry into regulatory failures of flammable cladding’. We believe that there are significant problems with this bill. They run to the legislative impact statement not being released. It is clear that there will be significant, potential and identified impacts on rural engineers and those working in country areas. Some of those are particularly acute in cross- border areas. Our final point in relation to the reasoned amendment is that the biggest issue facing the building industry and safety in buildings is not the regulation of engineers. It is in fact the flammable cladding issue, and we are not getting answers on that. Therefore we think that that is where the government should be putting their attention. There is no demonstrated need to regulate engineers in Victoria; that case has not been made. The impact of this bill is that it will require engineers to undergo a positive licensing regime in addition to all the other regulatory regimes we already have at significant cost to the engineering profession and those who employ them. Yet at the same time there is no demonstrated benefit to Victorian consumers from this legislation that we are debating today. For those consumers who are living in a building with flammable cladding—which is not there because of the engineers but actually because of the building industry generally—the government has not addressed the issue. They have not addressed the elephant in the room in terms of unsafe buildings. It is not on the engineers; it is the flammable cladding issue, which the engineers are not part of. So we do not believe that this bill addresses a demonstrated need, and at the same time the government is refusing to address a demonstrated need. Their priorities are entirely wrong, and that is why we are moving this reasoned amendment. There are three parts to this reasoned amendment; we should not forget that. It is good international legislative practice when you are regulating an industry and when you are introducing a new regulatory regime to undertake a legislative impact assessment and a cost-benefit analysis and then release them. The point is for people to see them. If it stacks up, then that is part of the argument. If it does not stack up, then you should go and have another look at it. But because the government refuses to release that analysis, one can only come to the conclusion that it is not stacking up for it and that in fact what is driving this new regulatory regime will not actually improve the outcomes for Victorian engineering consumers—i.e., people who employ engineers or consumers who have houses or other buildings that have engineering work done to them. The bill is not to do with that. It is actually to do with something else: a licensing regime that enables the associations—perhaps otherwise known as trade unions—that cover engineers to gain from this. We think that at the very least the government does need to demonstrate that the legislation they are seeking to have pass through the Parliament has a positive benefit for Victoria. They have done the analysis; the analysis exists, but they will not release it. It does not make sense that they would not release it if it showed a positive benefit. Therefore we require through this reasoned amendment that that analysis be put forward. The other point is in relation to rural communities. This was canvassed in the 2018 debate, so I will not go through it in excessive detail again, but there are clear problems that have been identified for rural communities in their employment of engineers. The government has now introduced very much the same bill. I had the department send me a document comparing the 2018 bill with the 2019 bill— a tracked changes document. I can inform the house that the differences are the insertion of the word ‘professional’ before the word ‘engineer’ at every point in the document, the change from ‘2018’ to ‘2019’ on every page of the document and two additional definitions. There are the same number of clauses and the same number of pages. This bill is largely—in fact overwhelmingly—the same as the 2018 bill, and therefore the defects identified in the 2018 bill are still there. The government have had plenty of time to go away and look at the—I will give them the benefit of the doubt—unintended

BILLS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1363 consequences their proposed regulatory regime might have in country areas, because of course the government are well known for not really understanding and in fact caring less about country areas. Therefore it is not surprising that they have failed to take into account that you have multidisciplinary people in the country, and the way they have structured this legislation is a real problem. For all of these reasons I commend the reasoned amendment to the house. I indicate that should the reasoned amendment not be successful—and I very much hope that it will be successful; I look forward to getting the overwhelming support of the house for it—if by chance it does not succeed, the Liberal-Nationals will be opposing this bill. Mr DIMOPOULOS (Oakleigh) (12:01): It is a pleasure to speak on this very important bill and in doing so refute some of the ridiculous and fanciful arguments put forward by the lead speaker on the other side, the member for Ripon. This is a really important bill. This is not only important because the industry has asked for it, it is important because the community needs this protection. This is a bill that made an appearance in the last Parliament. This is a bill that seeks to enact an election commitment we made in 2014. As we have come to know of the Andrews Labor government, we do enact our election commitments with gusto and with principle, and this is one that we continue to support. I would ask the opposition to be a bit more circumspect in their consideration of this. They seem to be looking for a reason not to support the bill—nothing substantial in my view, but they seem to be looking for reasons not to support it. If you ask any Victorian right now whether they think an engineer has to be registered in order to practice as a professional engineer, I think people would generally think, ‘Of course’ and would be stunned and surprised to know that in fact you do not have to be registered or licensed to practice as a professional engineer. Of course there is a carve-out in the building industry in Victoria, but other than that you do not need to be registered. The Andrews Labor government has made a huge investment in infrastructure—our historical infrastructure spend in Victoria for the decade prior to our government coming into power in 2014 was about four and a half billion dollars a year. From 2014 to today it is averaging about $9 billion to $10 billion a year and I think in the forward estimates about $10.6 billion a year on average. That is a huge, huge investment in infrastructure. If you do not have a licensing scheme for the engineers involved in all of this construction of public facilities, facilities that are used by thousands and millions of people every day, you are really being negligent, in my view. This is a problem that the other side never had because they did not do much. They did not build much and therefore they did not feel the need, and they still do not for some strange and peculiar reason, for a registration scheme. Ms Staley interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Spence): Member for Ripon, you have had your turn. Mr DIMOPOULOS: But we understand how important this is. Do you know what is amazing about this? The free marketeers on that side. In what other industry would the government be approached by the industry saying, ‘Please regulate us and provide a mandatory registration scheme’? In what other industry? We are actually listening to the industry, and we are also trying to protect the Victorian public. Ms Ryan interjected. Mr DIMOPOULOS: The member for Euroa says they are not, and she is selectively picking. Of course in any cohort of people you will not get universal agreement; it is impractical. She is selectively picking areas that suit her argument. I commend Engineers Australia and Professionals Australia for seeking this for various reasons, seeking it for their own professional development as a profession. If you do not have a protection around that profession, how on earth can you protect its reputation in the future against bad engineers

BILLS 1364 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019 or engineers that need to be disciplined in some fashion? I also commend Engineers Australia and Professionals Australia for their support of something that protects the Victorian public, and that is effectively what this does. Just a couple of details about the bill before I address a couple more of the issues raised by the member for Ripon. It is a co-regulatory model, and I would have thought that would be something that both sides of Parliament could agree on—a co-regulatory model. I think there was a hint by the member for Ripon that one of the consulted parties said that the government should run this. Yes, the government is running this. The government will retain ownership of the registry of engineers. The government alone will be the one that has the power, through the Business Licensing Authority and through Consumer Affairs Victoria, to deregister an engineer. However, it is a co-regulatory model, so we rely on the approved professional bodies to provide the assessment criteria around eligibility for engineers; that is why it is a co-regulatory model. We approve a regime provided to us by the professional bodies, they conduct the assessment for eligibility and then we as a government or as a state register the engineer and also take disciplinary action when required. This bill is vital for the continual professional development of engineers as a cohort and as an industry. It is vital for the protection of consumers. We are starting with civil, structural, mechanical, chemical and fire safety engineering and will move to other engineers by regulation, which is provided for in the bill. A couple of points about this government’s commitment to infrastructure and protecting the engineering profession. We have established the Office of Projects Victoria, we have established Infrastructure Victoria and we have established the chief engineer as an office effectively providing professional, independent advice. The chief engineer is an outstanding person, and I have spoken with her about this bill. She is obviously in full support of the bill. Her office will promote the regime once it passes the Parliament and is in operation and will make sure that they provide the best quality information and advice to Consumer Affairs Victoria, the Business Licensing Authority and the professional associations to make this system and this registration scheme work well. I just want to address a couple of other points, or what I would loosely call points; I think they were just really ridiculous arguments made by the member for Ripon. One is the fact that there is no demonstrated need. For me that is like saying, ‘My house has not yet been robbed, therefore I do not need insurance’. This is the most ridiculous argument. We have just demonstrated an expenditure on public infrastructure of $10 billion a year in the context of an unlicensed, unregistered professional cohort. That in itself would be an appalling arrangement if it were allowed to continue; that is a demonstrated need right there. You cannot with any intellectual honesty proceed on the basis that plumbers, electricians and a whole bunch of others have to be registered and licensed but somehow engineers do not. I do not know where the member for Ripon feels that there is no demonstrated need, but obviously she is on a completely different page to the government and to the industry bodies. Just to address the costs of registration, again I do not know where the figure of $27 million came from. It is an absolute furphy from our perspective. The model we do have is Queensland. Queensland’s current fees for registration are $227 a year. We are looking in this bill at a three-year registration model, so the fees will be, I imagine, slightly less on an annual basis, if you look at a three- year time frame. The other question that the member for Ripon raised in relation to Opal was that somehow the Opal Tower in Sydney is not a good example—is an irrelevant example. It is completely relevant, because right now geotechnical engineers are not covered under the building regulations, so if there were geotechnical issues in the Opal Tower they would have been covered if this bill were enacted. Number two, this bill also makes sure that one professional engineer cannot move from an industry into the building industry or into another industry without being traced—without having some public scrutiny around their behaviour in different industries—like a phoenix rising from a bad incident

BILLS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1365 somewhere else without any public scrutiny and coming to a new area of work. There is a whole range of disasters that could happen in Australia and in Victoria if we do not have mandatory registration for engineers. It is surprising that we have not had it so far, but of course it takes an Andrews Labor government to do that—to be bold and to actually join the Queensland jurisdiction and start something which is very, very vital for the protection of consumers and industry. Ms McLEISH (Eildon) (12:11): I rise now to speak on the Professional Engineers Registration Bill 2019, and I will support very passionately the reasoned amendment that was put forward by the lead speaker, the shadow Treasurer. I note also that should that be unsuccessful in its passing, we will be opposing the bill. This bill has had a bit of an interesting and lengthy passage to get to this point, because prior to the 2014 election, which was quite some time ago, the Labor government committed to doing some work in this area. They did bring this bill into the house, and I remember it being debated, but like many other bills it lapsed in the upper house. So this is a reintroduction, and as has been pointed out already, this is substantially the same bill—just adding an extra few words and changing a year is very, very minimal. What it appears to be is very typical of the Andrews Labor government—establishing another level of bureaucracy. We saw time and time again in the last four years that they would bring in different departments and create different authorities—different bodies—to undertake certain things that were perhaps a little bit over the top. I notice here that they had money in the last budget, $610 000. Half of it would have been expended by now, but they did not get their act together and get it through the upper house during the last Parliament. I am concerned because I have had a number of engineers speak to me about this bill, and also I do not believe that the need for this has been clearly established. I thought that some of the comments made by the member for Oakleigh were indeed quite flimsy. I will touch first of all though on a couple of the main components here of the registration of engineers. It will be an offence to provide professional engineering services in Victoria unless you are registered or you are actually under direct supervision, and there are significant penalties here. It is the Business Licensing Authority that can do the assessment. Obviously, as in all of these sorts of matters, there is an appeals process, and here that will be through VCAT. They will hear appeals against decisions of the Business Licensing Authority in relation to the granting of registration. We know that often when people get deregistered or apply for registration, they are not granted that first-up and there does need to be this appeal mechanism. The director of Consumer Affairs Victoria—whether or not it is the right body is still probably debatable—does approve the codes of conduct for registered engineers. I guess the demonstrated benefit remains unclear. What we do know is that this registration represents a large increase in the red tape and cost to individual engineers and businesses for little demonstrated return. What would we be looking for for a demonstrated return? We would look for perhaps improved engineering standards or perhaps improved consumer standards. The scheme in Queensland has not been able to demonstrate that that has certainly been the case. I do note that in 2012 the Gillard government started to look at a national registration scheme, but they dumped that fairly quickly because there was a lack of support for it. What is also being pointed out is the issue of how this may affect country people within the country. We have not just people in country areas but also people that move within Victoria and interstate or overseas, and we know that major projects are key drivers of jobs for engineers. I worked very heavily in the mining and construction sector, and you would see that where there was a big project, if it was in New South Wales, everyone with particular skills bases would move to New South Wales. Then they would go to Brisbane or they would go to Perth, and you would see this time and time again. This registration is only going to be in a couple of states, and it could cause some areas of grief.

BILLS 1366 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

In country areas the concerns are that they will suffer from reduced access to engineering services due to a lack of registered engineers in particular areas. I look at all of the smaller shires—I think I represent two small shires, Mansfield and Murrindindi—and I know they have difficulty attracting highly qualified engineers and sometimes they need to get people that have got multiple skills and that may not just have this registration. Interestingly, regarding the degree of consultation, it appears the government really has only gone with Engineers Australia and Professionals Australia, and they are the bodies that do support it. But the Association of Consulting Structural Engineers have commented to me, and they represent sole practitioners and small businesses—people that do specific small-scale engineering work—that they have not been consulted. They are happy for the reputation and professional standards of engineers to be actually improved so that we do have quality, but they have a lot of issues—considerable issues— with definitions, the disciplinary process, the powers of entry and search and other offences, and they have detailed quite extensively some of those issues. I have also been contacted by another person who is an engineer in electronic and computer systems. They have a degree from Monash University. They feel that this bill ‘disenfranchises professional engineers not in the construction or building services’. They believe that:

If the bill is enacted, only these engineers who can register can refer to themselves as ‘professional engineers’. Electronic, computer systems, chemical, materials science and aerospace engineers all risk losing their professional standing— if this is the path that they are being pushed along.

The long-standing term “Professional Engineer[s]” differentiates those qualified with a four-year Bachelor of Engineering degree from other members of the engineering workforce. The opposition have done a lot of work around the consulting here, and as we have heard from the shadow Treasurer, she has been driving that, and I commend her for that process, because I believe she has done a lot more consultation than the government has in fact done. The lead speaker also commented on the legislative impact assessment, which has not been done. You would want to be sure that you are going to get bang for your buck here, that it is good practice to do these sorts of assessments, including those cost-benefit analyses. We need to know: is it going to bring us the benefits or not? As it was pointed out, if it is not going to have benefits, then you need to go back to the drawing board and work out why not. But it is not just about what is good practice for bodies in Australia; it is also about it being internationally recognised that that is something that you would ordinarily do. But we do know that this government has a history of bypassing any sort of cost- benefit analyses just to push through its agenda. Also there is a possible negative impact on rural communities by restricting access to engineering services. The Treasurer also cited in his second-reading speech the Opal Tower. Now, engineers are already covered in Victoria via the Victorian Building Authority, and this is not the case in New South Wales. He quoted the number of apartments that remain empty; I think there are 169 empty apartments four months after the evacuation of the Opal Tower. I am not sure that him raising that in his second-reading speech is actually going to make any difference to this bill and to the people who have issues with potentially combustible cladding. I support the reasoned amendment put forward by the shadow Treasurer and also support the coalition’s view that we will not be supporting this piece of legislation as it moves through. Mr HAMER (Box Hill) (12:21): I rise today to speak in support of the Professional Engineers Registration Bill 2019. As the only engineer in this house, as only the 32nd engineer to have ever been elected to the Victorian Parliament and as someone who has worked in the profession for many years, it is a great honour to speak on this bill and about why I think that it is important that this bill is passed.

BILLS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1367

As members would know, this is not the first time that the bill has been introduced to this house. The introduction of a bill to introduce a mandatory statutory registration scheme and work with other jurisdictions to develop a nationally consistent registration scheme for engineers is a Labor election commitment from 2014, and I am pleased that this has been reintroduced for discussion at this time. This bill represents a historic and positive reform for the engineering profession in Victoria which will significantly enhance community safety. Although he is no longer a member of the other place, I wish to thank Daniel Mulino, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer in the last Parliament, for doing a lot of heavy lifting in getting this to the line. Unfortunately the member for Essendon is not in the chamber at the moment, but I do want to acknowledge his contribution when a version of this bill was formerly presented, when he discussed the history of the engineering profession, particularly dating back to Roman times. The engineering profession obviously goes back far further than that, and it is amongst the earliest professions. ‘The ancient wonders of the world’ is not a term that was coined in recent years; it was coined in antiquity, back in the times of the ancient Greeks. The ancient wonders did not refer to any legal marvels or political marvels but engineering marvels which had already at that time stood the test of time. Even in Australia we have examples of Indigenous engineering dating right back many thousands of years, particularly in south-west Victoria, where canal systems and fish traps were developed. When the bill was previously introduced, in response to the member for Essendon’s contribution some opposition members suggested that the engineers in ancient times were not registered and yet their structures had stood the test of time, so why should we go down the path of registration at this point in time? Well, notwithstanding the outstanding work of these earliest engineers, we do not live in ancient times. Engineers remain the only profession in this country without a mandatory registration scheme. When you buy a car, the person you buy the car from has to be licensed, yet the engineer who designed the car or the bridge or the road you drive on does not. Doctors, nurses, teachers and architects need to be registered, as do electricians, plumbers and other trades, yet some of the people who arguably have the biggest impacts on public and worker safety do not. Despite the fundamental role that engineers play in the economy, the complex and important work they perform and their pivotal role in ensuring public safety, most engineers are not required to hold any kind of formal registration or licence. Currently consumers have no real way of knowing whether they are dealing with a qualified, competent engineer who maintains standards through ongoing professional development and is bound by a code of conduct. The compulsory registration of engineers will ensure that only competent, current, degree-qualified engineers can independently provide engineering services. This will build and enhance community safety across Victoria and safeguard against engineering failure. There are a number of reasons why this bill is important and why I am speaking in support of it. The first is that it duly recognises and protects those who have the qualifications and continued professional development to call themselves a professional engineer. The engineering profession would be the first to recognise that it has not necessarily been the best at protecting its own interests and restricting the use of its name to those who have recognised qualifications. Anyone can call themselves an engineer. In fact anyone in this house can call themselves an engineer. At pre-poll in the election campaign I met someone and they said, ‘What do you do?’. I said, ‘I’m an engineer’. They said, ‘What do you make?’. I said, ‘I don’t make anything. I just plan and design infrastructure’. They said, ‘You’re not an engineer’. I said, ‘What do you do?’. ‘Well, I make parts for machines’. So an engineer means a lot of things to a lot of different people. Why is it important that we protect the name of the engineering industry and protect the term ‘professional engineer’? Sadly I am sure everyone in this chamber remembers the devastating 2011 earthquake in Christchurch. One of the biggest incidents in that earthquake was the collapse of the CTV building in Christchurch CBD. What you might not be aware of is that that building was designed by an unqualified engineer. The individual stole the identity of an engineer and went on to

BILLS 1368 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019 enjoy, some might say, a prolific or infamous career. In 2014 he pleaded guilty to 146 charges related to unqualified engineering works in Australia and New Zealand. The scheme also reflects that the engineering profession is increasingly globalised. Some of Australia’s trading partners, such as Japan, some provinces in Canada, some states in the United States, Korea, Singapore, New Zealand and Malaysia, have registration schemes for engineers. A registration scheme will help Victorian engineers compete in this global marketplace by giving consumers of engineering services the assurance that the engineers they engage are suitably qualified and experienced and will comply with well-recognised and internationally understood professional benchmarks such as Washington Accord level degrees. The registration of engineers will promote the development of the Victorian engineering industry, increase the export of engineering services and facilitate labour mobility with respect to jurisdictions in Australia and elsewhere that have registration schemes. In Queensland it has been compulsory to register as an engineer since 1930. During the recent New South Wales state election both major parties committed to introducing a register of engineers. The ACT and WA governments are also looking into engineering registration schemes. Having a Victorian engineering registration scheme will enable Victorian engineers to use the knowledge gained in delivering the major infrastructure projects of the Andrews Labor government to help build the cities and infrastructure of the future. In closing, I would like to deal with some of the objections raised by the opposition to the bill when it was presented to the previous Parliament. It was mentioned that certain organisations support this bill, and I would point out that both Professionals Australia and Engineers Australia, both organisations which I am a member of, nationally have 100 000 members each. Based on population you would expect that means about 25 000 members in Victoria. These are organisations that represent large numbers of the engineering community within our state. Not only do they support it as an organisation but over many years, in their publications and the letters that are sent to the organisations, individual members have been crying out for a scheme that actually recognises the profession. One of the objections that had been raised was about the cost of registration and the cost of professional development and who might stand to benefit. Perhaps we should ask the community whether they would like their doctors to be unregistered to cut back on red tape, or perhaps we should ask the doctors themselves whether they would like to be deregistered to save some money. Given the registration fee is around $200, a similar fee in Victoria would be a very small price to pay for greater community safety across Victoria. If the opposition do not want to take their advice from me, perhaps they can follow the advice from one of my compadres from university, who posted this message on Facebook:

I did engineering with you and for a long time thought that I was the only civil engineering graduate with an interest in party politics—but then was dismayed to see that you had joined the wrong team! … As a proud Liberal Party member, I will say that I think the Coalition’s response to this Bill … was completely clueless! Ms RYAN (Euroa) (12:31): It is a pleasure to rise to speak today on the Professional Engineers Registration Bill 2019, to put some of my concerns about the government’s direction here on the record and to support the reasoned amendment that has been moved by the member for Ripon and the shadow Treasurer that the house actually refuses to read this bill a second time until there is a proper cost-benefit analysis released to the public for proper scrutiny, until the negative effect on rural communities, which is something that greatly concerns me, is actually looked at and properly addressed and until the government actually holds an inquiry into the regulatory failures around flammable cladding, which of course continue to dominate a lot of our question time sessions at the moment. This bill is virtually a carbon copy of the bill that was introduced into the last Parliament, and therefore I suppose it is unsurprising that our opposition has not changed, given we were quite clear in our opposition to the bill in the last term of Parliament.

BILLS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1369

I have to say I have spoken to engineers across my electorate who are deeply worried by the direction this bill is headed in. They are deeply worried about the cost imposition that the government is seeking to place on them for no gain. The bill seeks to establish a scheme for the registration of professional engineers—effectively a compulsory registration. That registration will initially cover engineers practising in the fields of structural, civil, mechanical, electrical and fire safety engineering. That list can be amended by regulation, and I think it is a significant concern that we do not know the full scope and the full width of this bill. The government is effectively seeking to give itself the power to add to that what it will over time, and members in this house have already flagged that the scope of this bill will be expanded under regulation. The member for Oakleigh, who is not currently in the chamber, in his contribution said that the bill is needed, but he cannot actually point to any evidence as to why the bill is needed. I guess, as the shadow Treasurer spoke about extensively in her contribution, that is one of the key concerns for us: we cannot see where there is any demonstrated need to force engineers into a compulsory registration scheme. We do not see the evidence of failure within the Victorian community. If there is such evidence, the government has failed to bring it forward. Instead there are several professional associations which will get a very good deal out of this bill. So I think it is a legitimate question for members of this house to ask what the government’s motivation is in bringing forward this legislation. I think it also should be noted that engineers working in the building sector, as the law currently stands, are required to be registered with the Victorian Building Authority. So again this is either a duplication or it is the government effectively expressing a vote of no confidence in the VBA and in their role. I think that is something that perhaps we should examine more thoroughly. Under the legislation not every engineer has to be registered, but any engineer who wants to provide a professional engineering service will have to apply for registration, and upon registration they will be required to pay a fee. They will also be required to undertake a minimum of 150 hours of training over three years to maintain their registration. So there is a huge impost in terms of the regulatory burden and cost upon individual engineers as a consequence of this bill—and on industry—and I think to that extent it is a real concern that the government has refused to release any cost-benefit analysis for this legislation. That is good practice. It is standard practice to do a regulatory impact statement when schemes like this come before the Parliament. Again, it makes us question, very legitimately, what the government is hiding and why they are unwilling to put out for public scrutiny and public debate the impact that this will have on engineers, on the broader sector and also on the Victorian community who rely on the services of engineers and indeed on our infrastructure projects, for which engineers perform a vital service. The other issue I want to mention is the impact on rural communities, which is of deep concern to me. Because this bill requires people to register under particular categories I think we are going to see real problems in rural Victoria where we have a thin workforce. In Benalla there is one, maybe two engineering firms. We do not have 10 different firms to choose from with a range of specialist skills. Instead that one firm has to perform the functions across those different specialisations as required by the community. I think it is interesting to note that an estimated 20 to 30 per cent of engineers in a rural context do work outside their areas of specialty. The government is effectively accusing those people of being shoddy, of doing a job that is not fit and that they should not be doing, when in fact in the vast majority of cases they deliver very fine work and services that our communities desperately need. I think it is very interesting if you have a look for further evidence in the data out of the federal Department of Jobs and Small Business. When you have a look at the engineering trades in their latest update for Victoria, from December of last year, they say that regional employers generally have more difficulty recruiting into engineering trades. While metropolitan employers can fill about 58 per cent of their vacancies, regional employers fill 25 per cent of their vacancies. So we already have a workforce problem in regional Victoria where we do not have a workforce that is big enough to meet demand.

BILLS 1370 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

Now the government is threatening, via this legislation, to create a greater impost that is going to see a greater restriction of those businesses in regional Victoria. I know, as the shadow Treasurer has said, water corporations are quite concerned about this legislation. So are rural councils, who struggle to attract and retain engineers in their communities and whose engineers often operate virtually as generalists across a range of different fields because they simply cannot afford to employ engineers across each of the specialisations which they might require. So there are great concerns for me about the impact that this bill will have on rural and regional Victoria, and that is being reflected in my discussions with engineering firms across the electorate of Euroa, who believe that it will drive up costs, it will limit employment opportunities and it will drive up expenses for those who are seeking their services. I would say that one of those firms in particular is engaged in doing government work at the moment and they are vehemently opposed to this legislation. Mr Dimopoulos interjected. Ms RYAN: The member for Oakleigh, who has come back into the chamber, says that it has not driven up costs in Queensland. Well, equally the member for Oakleigh cannot point to anywhere in Queensland where compulsory registration has actually delivered a benefit, and that is the exact point that we are making here. The one state in Australia that has gone down the path of compulsory registration—because the others, when it came to COAG, actually rejected this approach—the one state which has adopted it, being Queensland, has not been able to demonstrate any real benefit from going down this path. Yes, it is good for those opposite—it is good for trade associations as it gives them a guaranteed source of revenue and it has virtually forced union membership, so we understand the motivation behind why they want to see this legislation pass—but we have real and legitimate concerns about what it means for engineers on the ground and what it means for the Victorian community, and the fact is that we do not believe compulsory registration will actually deliver any benefit to the Victorian community in terms of safety. The government has failed to make that argument to this point, and it is for that reason that I wholeheartedly support the reasoned amendment moved by the shadow Treasurer. Mr FOWLES (Burwood) (12:41): It is my pleasure to rise and make a contribution on the Professional Engineers Registration Bill 2019, which of course establishes a registration scheme for professional engineers. The opposition says there is no need to license engineers in Victoria. That is the framework of this debate. That is despite the fundamental role in the economy that engineers have, the very complex nature of their work, the importance of that work, the importance of that work to public safety. Despite all that, most engineers are not required to hold any kind of formal registration or licence. The contrast could not be starker, because we extend that sort of regime to participants in a whole bunch of other professions: lawyers, doctors, nurses, teachers, architects. It is hardly a novel idea that we might for a profession as important as this extend a basic set of licensing safeguards around the practitioners of that profession. It matters because engineers are important. They are key drivers of our future. They are building our cities. They are driving our economy. A good chunk of our national wealth hinges on the contribution of our engineers and their ability to derive new ideas, products and solutions to the many challenges facing us as a nation. As a nation, as a state, we are dealing with substantial challenges, particularly in infrastructure. Right at the very heart of our ability to address those challenges is the competence, the efficacy, the professionalism of engineers. The risk of course—and the member for Ripon is keen to find out the answer to this—is that without a registration scheme, without those professional standards being maintained, we will see a slip over time. If we do not have the ability to say that engineers are of a particular standard, if we do not allow consumers to access professional engineers as opposed to people purporting to be engineers, then there is that risk. The engineering profession I think broadly in Australia is little understood, it is undervalued, and there are too many non-engineers working in jobs that should be performed by professional engineers.

BILLS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1371

Staggeringly we produce just a third of our engineering workforce requirements each year, and in many countries engineers are amongst the most respected of professionals; indeed the title is often protected by statute. Equally there is an opportunity here notwithstanding the shortage. We have great IP in this country around engineering, particularly civil engineering, and it has a huge potential as an industry. It has huge potential for us to harness that domestic expertise in specialised infrastructure delivery and actually build this as part of the great history of Australian IP exports. The Liberals have supported multinationals in their arguments on this ultimately, the ones who benefit most from an open and unprotected Victorian market. They have ignored community sentiment around the need for practitioners in important professions like this to be properly registered. The reality is if you go out the front—Liberals would not do this often—and ask people outside this place, ‘Did you know that it’s possible to call yourself an engineer without being an engineer?’, they would be staggered, in the same way that you would be staggered if someone purported to be a nurse that was not a nurse, a teacher that was not a teacher, a lawyer without a law degree or perhaps even an adjunct professor who actually is not an adjunct professor. It is interesting, isn’t it, when it comes to passing, when it comes to pretending to be something you are not, the form of the member for Caulfield on this matter, where he holds himself to be an adjunct professor when in fact he is nothing of the sort. So it is no surprise then that the coalition are going soft on passing yourself off as something that you are in fact not. The coalition have listened to a handful in industry, a handful of the disaffected and, as is always the case in this place, they are letting the great be the enemy of the good. Parroting the views of a select few bodies while turning your back on the people of Victoria and while turning your back on the profession itself is not reasoned debate. It does not support the amendment. It is in fact just the classic reversion to form of those opposite when it comes to very sensible reforms like this one. Multinationals hate registration because they just cannot shuffle their workers around the world with the same ease. It is not the job of this place, it is not the job of this government, to facilitate super-high levels of labour mobility in furtherance of the profit aims of multinational organisations. It is the role of this place to ensure that engineers are appropriately registered, have the skill set they purport to hold and are operating in a way that is in service of the needs of not just their clients but the community more broadly. At the moment there is no way to know whether skilled migrant engineers are in fact qualified to do their job. Seventy per cent of new engineers each year are migrants. That is nearly 17 000. The most recent data shows that nearly 5000 are temporary migrants who underwent no check of their qualifications. That is clearly problematic— Ms Staley interjected. Mr FOWLES: It is xenophobia now. Isn’t it great? We have cracked it open—fantastic! The member for Ripon wants to have a go about xenophobia. It has already been mentioned a few times in this place today. When it comes to xenophobia, I would much rather be standing over here with the government than standing with the opposition, given the Islamophobes, the racists and the bigots that they preselect. When it comes to xenophobia, there is no doubt whatsoever that the worst record on these matters is the record held by members of the Liberal and National parties. Once again, in the context of this federal election, they are off and running with the bigotry, the Islamophobia and racism. They are not even dog whistling. They do not even need to dog whistle. They just come out and say it. They just come out and inject this vile language into these debates and in doing so only reaffirm what those members who sit largely to your right, Acting Speaker, know to be true and that is that lurking in plain sight in the Liberal Party are a bunch of racist, bigoted Islamophobes. Despite the fact that these candidates have been around the block multiple times, they get preselected again and again. Those opposite are soft on Islamophobia. They are soft on racism. Ms Staley interjected.

BILLS 1372 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

Mr FOWLES: It is an extraordinary set of interjections from the member for Ripon. She is seeking to defend the indefensible. The Liberal Party once again in the federal seats of Isaacs and Chisholm preselects these dolts—these racists and Islamophobes—to seek high office in this nation, and I say shame on them. Before I was waylaid by the stunning contribution by the member for Ripon I wanted to talk about the importance of gender equity in the STEM disciplines. The Liberal and National parties have a shocking record on gender equity too. It is interesting that half of the female representation of the coalition have spoken on this bill already. That is only three of them, because there are only six women that sit in the coalition. Can you believe it? They go out there and they say, ‘We’re a meritocracy’, but they turn their back on half the population because of the systemic sexism that runs broad and deep inside the Liberal and National parties. Do not take my word for it, just take the word of the former federal member for Higgins. Ms Staley: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I ask the member to come back to the engineers bill. The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Ward): I call on the member for Burwood, and I ask him to come back to the bill because he has strayed slightly. Mr FOWLES: I stray on a path laid out for me by the member for Ripon, who has been interjecting most vociferously throughout my contribution to this debate. It is interesting, isn’t it, that in the STEM disciplines we have very low levels of female representation. That concludes my contribution. Ms HUTCHINS (Sydenham) (12:51): It is my pleasure to rise to speak to the Professional Engineers Registration Bill 2019. This is a bill that I was involved in many years ago in policy development. I had the opportunity to speak directly with Engineers Australia about the importance of a registration scheme for engineers not only across our state but across Australia. Yet again we have a federal government that is currently void of being able to take up the challenges such as this around registration. Of course the Queensland government has been able to move ahead with this, and like always Victoria is at the forefront of developing a new scheme to protect consumers and to give the kudos to the profession that it deserves in terms of registrations that are going to be available under this scheme. Of course last year we saw in Sydney the Opal Tower disaster. Sydney’s cracked Opal Tower eviction showed how small acts of negligence on the part of engineers can have disastrous consequences for consumers. Opal Tower residents who were uprooted from their new homes on Christmas Eve experienced both mental, physical and financial stress due to their situation. We know they were given the all-clear to move back in and then told to move back out after some works were done. We do not want to see that situation develop here in Victoria. I never want to see any Victorians in the position of those residents of Opal Tower. Those opposite say that there is no evidence for this scheme. I would say that is a pretty big piece of evidence, not to mention the calls that have come from Professionals Australia in backing this scheme and from Engineers Australia as well—and this is a big reason why I am supporting this bill. I believe the registration of engineers is a really important step in Victoria’s history. Engineering is one of the few professions that does not require mandatory qualification or licence checks in Victoria. The previous speaker, the member for Burwood, made a very good point when he talked about those that are coming from overseas to work here. They are probably hoping for a permanent future here in Victoria, but they are taking up those jobs without a check being made of their qualifications. Presently anyone can call themselves an engineer, with few checks to their claim, and this needs to change as soon as possible. If you have taken a walk down Swanston Street recently, if you have taken a walk around any of our major train stations in suburbia, you will see that there is new development going up. Melbourne is

GRIEVANCE DEBATE Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1373 booming, Victoria is booming with its population and we are seeing more and more high-rise towers and multistorey apartment blocks. All of that work is underpinned by the professionalism of engineers. If we get that wrong and we get someone that is not qualified to be giving the advice, we are putting lives in danger, but also we are putting an unfair cost burden back onto the consumer. The fast pace of construction is also evident in our regional centres, and those opposite have said that is one of the reasons that they are opposing this bill and suggesting changes, because there is a shortage of engineers in rural Victoria. I do not see how this correlates, how by saying, ‘Don’t regulate them’ actually delivers more engineers to rural and regional areas. What it does is put a greater burden on the consumers in those areas and says that they have lesser rights by not supporting this scheme. We know that Victoria is undergoing a huge transformation through the largest investment in infrastructure ever. That is making it more and more competitive to get engineers. That is why more than ever it is important for Victorians to have a system they can trust, where the government is overseeing a licensing system that engineers will be required to register with. Really it is about promoting best practice in providing engineering services and providing consumers with the protection that they deserve. By establishing a registration scheme for engineers, the state government can assure Victorians that only the best qualified engineers are working on projects in our states, in our suburbs and in our regions. I believe all Victorians deserve to feel safe in our state. They need to be able to trust that the infrastructure that is being undertaken is going to deliver safe outcomes during the construction stage and beyond. This bill being enshrined in law is mutually beneficial for all engineers and Victorians alike. Foreign companies can hire local engineers with more confidence after mandatory qualification checks. We know that our engineers are in great demand overseas. They are being picked up in other countries, and this qualification will help them continue to build their skills overseas and bring those skills back to Victoria and implement them when they work on jobs in our suburbs, in our regions and across our state. With our increasing population, engineers will continue to contribute to Victoria’s infrastructure and economy boom. Engineers are invaluable to our state and deserve to be recognised as such. There are many other jurisdictions that have taken this up, not just Victoria and not just Queensland, and as I said before, there is a need for the whole of Australia to pick this up. We know countries like Japan and Canada have also implemented mandatory qualifications and have seen the standard of their engineers improve. The majority of engineers are calling out for their profession to be regulated, and they are calling out for that to happen now. I am so pleased that the Andrews government is delivering on this policy and listening to the experts. I commend the bill to the house. Sitting suspended 12.58 p.m. until 2.02 p.m. Business interrupted under sessional orders. Grievance debate The SPEAKER: The question is: That grievances be noted. ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT Mr NEWBURY (Brighton) (14:02): A strong Australian economy ensures prosperity—prosperity for our state and for our community to reach their full potential. As a nation we have had almost 30 years of consecutive economic growth. But a strong economy should never be taken for granted. Many in our community have only ever experienced a flourishing economy where interest rates are low, as too is unemployment. They have never experienced a contracting economy, let alone a recession. Those that lived through the last recession know that economies are not always prosperous. That is one of the reasons it is so important to be represented by a fiscally responsible government,

GRIEVANCE DEBATE 1374 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019 because governments have a role to keep the economy strong and a role in ensuring that a strong economy delivers community benefit. As we know, governments have control of some policy levers that can stimulate growth or undermine it. By its delaying of the state budget we now know that the Victorian government intends to pull the wrong policy levels. We know because the government has delayed the budget in the hope of political advantage until after the federal election. The budget delay is in addition to turning this Parliament into a part-time Parliament. In comparison to the rest of Australia, in terms of sitting days this Parliament is almost the least active in the country. This government has set a part-time parliamentary pace to hide from accountability and it has delayed the budget to hide the growing financial challenges of profligate spending as parts of the economy soften. Unfortunately we must endure this ongoing charade for a further month, until 27 May. What we already know is that Victoria is the highest taxed state in Australia and this government has introduced 12 new or increased taxes. It is now safe to assume that the government will announce new and higher taxes in their budget later this month. We know because the Treasurer has effectively confirmed it. Last month the Treasurer said that the budget would be ‘a budget of hard choices’, and only yesterday he would not deny making changes to tax arrangements. We know that it is safe to assume that Victorians are about to be hit by new taxes because the government is spending more than it has to spend. That projected spend led the Treasurer to reveal in the final minutes before the election that the government intended to double the state’s debt ceiling. That intention will lift the debt ceiling from 6 per cent to 12 per cent of gross state product. Not long after the election we learned from the Parliamentary Budget Office that Labor’s policies will blow out net debt from $22.5 billion to $38.8 billion over the next three years. In other words, Labor’s net debt to gross state product will increase from 5 per cent to 7.3 percent over that period. Although the government would have you believe that all of their spending is on infrastructure, we know that is not true. As we saw in the Victorian Public Sector Commission report, the state’s bureaucracy has grown by over 30 percent in less than four years. This level of spending is only sustainable if money keeps pouring into the state coffers, and we now know that rate is slowing and will slow further. There is growing concern that if federal Labor is to implement its policy agenda, that slowing will become more profound. At a state level stamp duty makes up about 30 per cent of the total tax take. We know that the slowing property market and the real reduction in property prices will have a growing structural impact. Part of that gap is currently being filled by other property taxes, including taxes on investors who own multiple properties, taxes on overseas investors and taxes on vacant properties. Under this government land tax collections have increased from $1.7 billion to $3.4 billion—a 96 percent increase. Despite a slowing property market, the land tax bills arrived this year based on property valuations made in early 2018. Constituents have looked at their bills and repeatedly asked why those bills are based on above current market value. Almost two months ago I wrote to the Premier and asked him directly, and it took him a month to refer the letter to the Treasurer. The Treasurer still has not shown the basic courtesy of responding. With a delayed budget you would think the Treasurer has had the time to attend to basic courtesies. Almost a month ago I wrote to the Treasurer about the vacant residential land tax—another letter the Treasurer has disappointingly failed to respond to. One of the most short-sighted effects of that tax is that it does not account for diplomats and defence workers who travel overseas to represent our state or our country. It is unreasonable for the government to expect Australian families willing to represent our country to choose between selling their family homes and incurring a heavy tax punishment for their service. Because economic responsibility has been a hallmark of the current federal government I believe this government has been constrained from some of the more extreme views in their party room, including a push to introduce death taxes. By contrast, the federal Labor opposition has unashamedly modelled itself as a big-spending and big-taxing alternative. Setting aside whether this approach is electorally

GRIEVANCE DEBATE Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1375 appealing, federal Labor’s fiscal policy approach is a genuine risk. Labor’s underlining intention to redistribute assets is a risk to Australians who have worked hard for their whole lives—Australians who will be self-reliant in their retirement. But more than that, Labor’s policies will not only impact upon private assets. Labor’s aggressive policies were designed to curb aspects of a strong market, especially in the area of property and asset holdings. That aggressive approach will have a profound impact on those areas as they have now softened. Many, including business, are now concerned that federal Labor’s policy approach, described by some as the politics of envy, might tip the scales on a fragile economy. A federal election campaign is a cauldron where weaknesses in our politicians and their policies are exposed. During the campaign federal Labor’s policies have been exposed as lacking depth. This should worry Australians because policies need to be more than sound bites. Despite the federal Leader of the Opposition brushing off these issues as well meaning, it is clear that Labor knowingly intends to implement punitive policy and in some cases implement policy that it does not fully understand. That is why when asked about the real cost of Labor’s election policies, the federal Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly refused to answer the question. If we look to their state Labor counterparts, it is safe to assume that the real cost will not be fully revealed until after the election, and it will surely be a massive cost blowout. Like this government with its hiding of the state budget, federal Labor will do everything it can to hide its true intention. What we do know is that if federal Labor is elected, new taxes will start on 1 July. In fact a vote for the federal Labor Party is a vote for $387 billion in additional taxes. That is equivalent to an extra yearly household tax bill of $5400 within a decade. It is worth looking closely at some of those policies to see what impact they will have on this country and on this state, especially as the federal opposition leader has publicly forgotten what his own policies are. Only recently, when asked if Labor planned to introduce new taxes on superannuation, the federal Leader of the Opposition claimed they had ‘no plans to increase taxes on superannuation’. No plans? In fact Labor has announced four superannuation policy taxes, four taxes that will see a $34 billion hit to 1 million Australians. Those policies include abolishing concessional catch-up contributions, hitting 230 000 people; reversing deductions for personal contributions, hitting around 800 000 workers; reducing the non-concessional contribution cap from $100 000 to $75 000, hitting around 20 000 people; and reducing the threshold on concessional contributions from $250 000 to $200 000. When challenged on his claim that Labor has no plan to increase superannuation taxes, the opposition leader bizarrely suggested that he must have forgotten those four taxes. That is right—the alternative leader of this country has a policy platform that will hit hundreds of thousands of Australians and he would have us believe that he has forgotten they exist. But Labor has not only been forgetful with policy. Over the election campaign we have seen their policies unravel, policies that have been shown to lack substance or depth. It is clear that those policies appear to have been announced without a responsible understanding of their impact. One of those areas is carbon emissions and renewable energy. Labor has announced an intention to cut carbon emissions by 45 per cent and set a 50 per cent renewable energy target. Despite those policies requiring a significant economic transformation, the policies disturbingly lack a plan for delivering them. When asked about the cost of the policy, the Leader of the Opposition said: I can’t tell you what that cost will be … It gets worse—one of his own shadow ministers said that the policy is ‘impossible’ to cost. But we know that is not true, because BAEconomics has costed them. BAEconomics recently released its report Economic Consequences of Alternative Australian Climate Policy Approaches. The report found that under a worst-case scenario, Labor’s policy approach will cost the Australian economy $472 billion, cut more than 336 000 jobs and increase wholesale electricity prices by more than 58 per cent. And Victorians should know what a lack of policy detail in this space looks like, because this

GRIEVANCE DEBATE 1376 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019 state government’s own renewable transformation policy similarly lacks policy depth. This state government is yet to develop the strategic infrastructure planning pieces that will support widescale renewable transformation. Effectively, both state and federal Labor have aspirational targets but are yet to develop the infrastructure roadmap to get us there. The BAE report should serve as a wake-up call. Transformative change must be planned and done responsibly. Alarmingly, the environmental policies that Labor has announced are not the only ones that lack depth or that have the potential to cause economic damage. Labor has announced its intention to change negative gearing and capital gains tax arrangements. Currently, 1.3 million Australians access negative gearing measures. Two-thirds who negatively gear a rental property have a taxable income of less than $87 000 and almost three-quarters have just one investment property. In short, Labor’s housing policies will hit some of the hardest working in our community. Industry has also exposed the broader danger of the policy. Moody’s Analytics economist Katrina Ell has said that ‘already-slowing conditions in the investor segment of the market would be exacerbated’, and that: As investor participation had already slowed, national home values would be expected to reach a slightly deeper trough and have a slower recovery ... In addition, the Master Builders Association of Victoria has reviewed the policy and found it would lead to up to 42 000 fewer new dwellings being built, 32 000 less full-time jobs and an $11.8 billion drop in building activity. Master Builders Association chief executive Denita Wawn has said there is no longer a need for Labor’s policy, as the property market has cooled and investor activity has curtailed. When the blowtorch was turned up on Labor’s policy, they simply deleted it from their own website. Victorians should not only be concerned about what Labor means for the federal economy; they should also be concerned about aspects of their world view. We must never forget that Labor’s deputy leader, Tanya Plibersek, once described Israel as a rogue state and its prime minister as a war criminal. Similar views have recently been expressed by a growing chorus in their ranks. Former Labor member for Fremantle, Melissa Parke, was forced to quit as a candidate in this election after claiming that Israel has a fully fledged system of apartheid. Alarmingly, Western Australian Labor MP Josh Wilson was also exposed for suggesting at a meeting attended by Labor senator Sue Lines that Israeli checkpoints were a place that Palestinians went to die. In addition, Labor’s Northern Territory Senate candidate resigned after sharing videos of a known anti-Semite. Disturbingly, in my own community Labor has preferenced a candidate in Goldstein who is the convenor of a Melbourne fan club of that anti-Semite. And Labor did not just preference him once—the same candidate ran as a candidate in my electorate in the state election, and Labor preferenced him then too. On several occasions, the Brighton Labor campaign made official complaints about the preferencing deal to their party’s head office—Labor’s head office knew. Not only did they maintain their preferencing arrangement, but they did a deal with the same candidate six months later. Shame! These repeated examples of anti-Semitism show an alarming pattern of behaviour. Only today, another candidate, Luke Creasey, who is Labor’s candidate for Melbourne, has reportedly been exposed as having shared rape jokes and pornographic material. He has not been disendorsed. Australians need to think long and hard at this election about the policies offered and about who they trust to keep the economy strong. A federal Labor win will embolden this state government even further. In fact I think this state government forever dreams of being bigger spending and bigger taxing. A federal Labor win will absolutely guarantee it. It will lock it in. The choice on 18 May is not between the status quo and perfection. The current government is a competent government and a government of good character led by a Prime Minister who is a very, very good man. Again, the choice at this election is not between the status quo and perfection; it is a choice between the current government and Bill Shorten. THE NATIONAL PARTY Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure) (14:17): I rise this afternoon to grieve—I could be flippant and say with some pleasure, but indeed I actually

GRIEVANCE DEBATE Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1377 grieve with genuine sadness—for regional communities. I grieve with some pleasure for the demise of the National Party, let me make that very clear, but I grieve with genuine sadness for those communities that year after year, decade after decade, have continued to be let down by National Party representatives who claim to come from the country and who claim to represent regional communities but by their actions and their words let regional Victoria down badly. And do you know what? Country communities are onto them. Country communities are well onto the National Party. They have worked them out; they have seen through them; they have seen them for what they are. Country Victoria is abandoning the National Party in a not too dissimilar way to the way the National Party always abandoned regional communities whenever they had a chance to jump into government with a Liberal Party coalition and get the perks of office and abandon those communities that they purport to represent. If you look at some recent election results you see where this is coming into stark relief. The National Party at the 2014 election lost their party status in the Victorian Parliament; they lost a couple of seats. They lost their Western Victoria Region upper house seat. They also lost the jewel in the crown, the state seat of Shepparton. Previously they held it by a whopping 25.8 per cent margin—a 25.8 per cent margin the National Party had held the seat of Shepparton by—and they had not just held it for one or two terms, they had held this seat for half a century in their current form as the National Party. Not only that, during that last Baillieu-Napthine term of government Shepparton also had two ministers sitting at the cabinet table. Two ministers purporting to represent Shepparton were sitting at the cabinet table. Did that get their train line upgraded? Did that get their hospital rebuilt? No, it did not. It took the election of the Independent member for Shepparton to come and knock on the door of the Andrews Labor government and get the support for those important projects. The National Party wondered, ‘Well, why did we lose Shepparton?’. Could it be that you abandoned the Shepparton electorate year after year, decade after decade? I turn to the 2018 election. Not only did the National Party fail to win back Shepparton—they gave it a bit of a crack, with no help from their Liberal supposed colleagues of course who decided that they wanted to join in the fun and have a three-cornered contest with the National Party, bleeding some votes off them—but they did not win back Morwell either. They had a bit of a crack at that, promising things like a train tunnel all the way to Gippsland for their trains. They had a bit of a crack, but again, the Liberal Party got in their way there as well, and we see that Morwell is once again held by the Independent member for Morwell. Things also went a bit further south for them when they lost the seat of Mildura. I have always wondered if the former National Party member for Mildura ever did move south of the Murray—if he had taken that big step and actually lived in Victoria—what would have happened? But we will never know, and he is not here to defend himself so I will let him be. However, they did not win Mildura. Who won Mildura? An Independent won Mildura because that community was fed up with not having their voice heard in the Victorian Parliament and not seeing action on the ground when those members had the chance when they were in government. Also, things went even a bit further south for the National Party in northern Victoria; they lost their one and only member for Northern Victoria Region. Bless him; he tried so hard to get into this place. We did make him wait a little bit longer than he would have liked, but he got in there. Again, maybe it was because regional communities could see that they were not getting the representation they needed or deserved from the National Party. The former member for Northern Victoria Region, Luke O’Sullivan, also lost his seat. So what is the cumulative total of that outcome over the last two elections? Under the watch of the current leader of the National Party, the National Party representation in the Victorian Parliament has dropped by 40 per cent. There has been a 40 per cent drop in the representation of the National Party in the Victorian Parliament, and I look forward to that dropping even further in the future.

GRIEVANCE DEBATE 1378 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

But it is not just here in Victoria that the National Party have suffered massive humiliation, massive losses and massive turnaround in their vote in regional communities. If you look at the recent New South Wales state election, again, their representation in New South Wales has gone backwards by four seats. The seat of Murray that they held by 27.8 per cent and the seat of Barwon that they held by 21.5 per cent, those seats are now also in the hands of an alternative. In this case I believe it is the Shooters, Fishers and Famers Party, again, because those local communities had been taken for granted. They were sick to the back teeth of being taken for granted by National Party representatives who were more interested in being in office than doing something with the privilege that comes with holding that office. They have abandoned those communities. I now turn to the federal election. In preparing for this contribution I was struck when I saw the close of nominations for my own federal seat of Bendigo. The nominations had come in and the nominations closed. Despite having called in January for nominations for the National Party for the federal election and despite having all sorts of people in the local papers saying, ‘Oh, I am thinking about it, I am having a look at it, I might have a go’, the National Party could not find anyone to put their name against their brand in the federal seat of Bendigo; they could not find anyone. When I tell you a few stories over the next couple of minutes, I suppose it is no surprise. Why would you want to put your name to an outfit that has abandoned the communities they are supposed to represent and have also caused themselves a little bit of embarrassment on the way through? I could reflect on the chaos of the leadership of the National Party. I have had to deal with my federal Nationals colleagues a bit. I have had four federal infrastructure ministers of the National Party that I have dealt with over the last four years: Warren Truss; Darren Chester; there was the Barnaby period—that was a great period; and then there has been the era of Michael McCormack, and I will come back to him in a moment. There has also been Andrew Broad. I must declare I have known Andrew Broad for a very, very long time and over the journey I have had quite a bit of regard and time for Andrew Broad, so I shared the disappointment of so many when Andrew Broad had to rule himself out of his plum seat of Mallee because he got caught out behaving badly. Now what do we see in the seat of Mallee? The National Party under all sorts of pressure. And guess who is there to help them, guess who is there to help screw them down even further. That would be the Liberal Party. You are in there having a crack. The Liberal Party are in there having a crack at the National Party. The Petroviches are having a go up there in Mallee, and I will be watching the seat of Mallee on election night with great interest. Then of course we had the lack of discipline and the antics of the federal Deputy Leader of the National Party, Senator McKenzie, who played footsies with the communities of Mallee and Indi: ‘I might run. I might come down and stand in the lower house. I might come down and be the great challenger and take those seats for the National Party.’ But she did not. She did not have the courage of her convictions. She did not run for a lower house seat, but what she did do was she moved her electorate office that had been in Bendigo for quite some time to Wangaratta— Ms Thomas: Wodonga. Ms ALLAN: Wodonga, sorry. Even that is a much longer drive from Elwood. It is a long drive for Senator McKenzie from Elwood to Wodonga, much further than Bendigo. She might be struggling a bit with that one. And of course it was just astonishing this morning to read the observations of the Deputy Prime Minister, the federal Leader of the National Party, talking about his preference arrangement with One Nation in these terms, saying it ‘just makes sense’ and that the parties’ policies closely align: The fact is [Pauline Hanson] acknowledges that our policies are more closely aligned with the interests and wants of her voters …

GRIEVANCE DEBATE Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1379

He also said that the same applied in reverse—the One Nation policies align more closely with the desires of coalition voters—which is why his party is giving preferences to One Nation above Labor. He said: We want to win. No road is now too low for the National Party in the pursuit of saving their own political skin. When their backs are against the wall, the National Party know one way out and that is to save their own political hide. This is why I put to you that they are betraying the regional communities, because the policies of One Nation, the policies of the National Party, the policies that they claim they are in unison on, are completely out of step with what regional communities stand for. Look at the results of the marriage equality survey. Of all those electorates that voted against that proposition, only three were from regional communities, yet we continue to hear homophobic observations from the National Party and we continue to see National Party MPs not support marriage equality. We see the comments. The policies of One Nation on respect for our multicultural communities and way of life are just appalling. We have seen in recent days that on this side of the house we are as one in rejecting One Nation’s policies on immigration and multiculturalism and rejecting outright those stunts of the leader of One Nation that she has performed in the Senate over recent years. Then you look at the National Party, who have gone into a preference arrangement with One Nation on the basis that their policies are as one, and then you look at the communities of Mildura and Shepparton and you look at so many of our regional communities whose way of life has been enriched for decades by those very same migrants that the National Party are now saying, through this deal with One Nation, they do not support. That is another betrayal of their regional communities. Then there is the experience at state level. Every time in the last 25 years the National Party have been in government with the Liberal Party they have been enthusiastic supporters of the cuts to schools, the closures of country schools, the closures of country train lines and the cutting of funding to country hospitals. They did not stand up. They never stand up when they are in government. I want to provide what I think is a great example of the betrayal and the neglect that the National Party inflict on their own communities. Following the 2014 election, through the redistribution I had the pleasure of picking up the small rural district of Dingee and the East Loddon P–12 College. I visited that school after that election, and the principal took me around that school and showed me the damage that had not been fixed at that school from the 2011 floods. This was despite their local member at the time being the Deputy Leader of the National Party, a minister at the cabinet table who could have at any moment turned around and said to his mate the Minister for Education, ‘Hey, give us a few bucks to help us fix up a school that has flood damage that is causing white ants and parts of the building to fall down’. He did not. I am proud to say that not only did I manage to secure funding from the education minister to get the maintenance problem fixed but we have made a $4.5 million commitment to East Loddon P–12 College to fix those buildings permanently by building new ones. It has taken a Labor government and a Labor member of Parliament to fix the problems at East Loddon despite this community being represented for decade after decade by the National Party, by someone who sat at the cabinet table, someone who could have secured them funding. For me there is no better example of how the National Party are more interested in the trappings of office and holding office than in doing something with it. So I grieve for those country communities that they have represented, but I am proud of those country communities who are turfing out those National Party MPs and who are saying, ‘We’ve had enough of your abandonment of us. We’ve had enough of you getting into bed with the Liberal Party and cutting our school funding and cutting our hospital funding’. But most of all, country communities have had enough of the National Party being out of touch with them. The National Party are grossly out of touch with them. The deal with One Nation says that. This deal with One Nation does not

GRIEVANCE DEBATE 1380 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019 represent what regional communities stand for, and I look forward to regional communities sending the National Party a very strong and powerful message on 18 May. WASTE AND RECYCLING MANAGEMENT Mr MORRIS (Mornington) (14:32): From the party that preferences the Greens ahead of anyone else just about every time that is quite an amazing exposition. I grieve for the state of the waste and resource recovery sector in the state of Victoria and particularly for the people and indeed for the environment that has been placed at risk because of its failure. We had an effective and efficient waste and resource recovery system, one that in just a few years has been transformed from the pre-eminent system in Australia to one that stumbles from one crisis to the next. We had the kerbside recycling crisis: part 1, the China changes; part 2, the SKM Recycling problems. The government’s bungling has seen the near collapse, as I said, of what was the pre-eminent kerbside recycling system, and we have seen the environmental cost. The toxic waste crisis has been a series of environmental disasters that could have been foreseen. We have had three major hazardous waste fires in two years, and not only have we seen enormous fires spewing toxic fumes into the atmosphere, we have seen a stream—a chemically sterilised stream— flowing into the bay with no life in it. Nothing has survived. We have seen literally thousands of tons of materials that should have been used, should have been recycled, discarded to landfill, again at an enormous cost to the environment and an enormous cost to the community. Yesterday we had the environmental and financial disaster that is the Lara stockpile. The government have known for more than a year that this was a disaster in the making, yet they sat on their hands. They did nothing until they were forced to act by the liquidators’ entirely appropriate withdrawal. And now, despite sitting on millions and millions, indeed half a billion, dollars or more—raised exclusively to deal with the waste crisis—they have offered a fraction of the projected cost of the clean-up and of the fire protection. They are going to leave it to the local community to foot the bill for that issue. The recent history of the waste system is indeed a tale of lost opportunities, and it is a total failure of public policy. We have current active policies that encourage rogue operators to conceal stockpiles and not deal with them. These events are not simply a coincidence. It is not just bad luck. The crisis is a direct result of the government’s failure to proactively manage the waste issues that the state is confronting and has been confronting for a number of years, but the policies the government are pursuing are simply making this problem worse. Let us have a look at the history. In July 2017 we had the fire at the Coolaroo recycling plant. It took 20 days to extinguish, and 16 people had to seek medical attention as a result of that fire. In August 2018 we had the West Footscray fire. More than 50 schools and childcare centres had to be closed on that day. We had toxic smoke billowing across the suburban area. I was driving across the West Gate Bridge on my way to a meeting with the Transport Accident Commission board in Geelong, and apart from a couple of major bushfire events during the course of my lifetime I have never seen anything like it, certainly not in a suburban environment. Just last month, on 5 April, we had the Campbellfield fire. This one was dealt with very, very quickly, but it could have been so much worse. There were reports of exploding barrels of burning waste, of black smoke filling the air and drifting to adjacent suburbs. I was up here at Parliament just a little after lunch, and it was certainly pretty hazy then. Schools and businesses closed. In that event two men were hospitalised. There were 400 000 litres of chemicals stockpiled on that site; the permitted volume to be stockpiled was 150 000 litres. So almost three times the permitted volume was stockpiled on that site. It took 175 firefighters to battle that blaze. Of course that fire is the subject of a coroner’s investigation, but I do want to commend the agencies involved, particularly the first responders, for their very, very effective management of the fire. But it was a fire that did not need to happen, and it would not have happened if this government had had its eye on the ball.

GRIEVANCE DEBATE Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1381

Then of course, as I mentioned earlier, there was the news of Lara yesterday. It was identified by the government’s own stockpile task force in early 2018. They identified the site then as a high-risk location but did nothing. It was left to the City of Greater Geelong to take the matter to VCAT. When it went to VCAT those proceedings revealed that there were 350 000 cubic metres of waste on that site, including, by some reports, 4000 used tyres, several drums of oil. Stockpiles that were supposed to be capped at 9 metres were routinely exceeded by one third or more. Yet the government sat on its hands and did nothing. Almost a year ago we knew the cost of cleaning up that site was going to be $100 million and it was going to take 18 to 24 months to do it. So what did we get in yesterday’s announcement? We got $30 million to maintain the fire prevention measures and to start the process. The government was asleep at the wheel throughout this whole process. Who is going to take responsibility for that site? Will it be the ratepayers of the City of Greater Geelong who are going to be slugged with a $70 million bill to clean up something that they tried to do something about but the government simply ignored? The waste industry itself wants this problem fixed. We had the head of the Victorian Waste Management Association, Peter Anderson, a couple of weeks ago calling for a tougher line against these cowboy operators. We had, courtesy of the journalist Heidi Murphy, comments from Bill Shorten on the day of the most recent fire: Too many cowboys … too unregulated … we’ve gotta get more eyes on these operations … Federal Labor seem to understand this issue; the people actually charged with the responsibility to manage it do not seem to have a clue. True, a multi-agency task force has been formed. They have identified eight sites in Epping and Campbellfield. To its credit that group is starting to get a grip on the problem and those sites have been identified in the last four months or so, but how many more are we going to see before this crisis is over? Epping and Campbellfield are not the only places where waste is illegally stored. The northern and western suburbs are not the only parts of Melbourne where toxic chemical cocktails are illegally stored. They should not be illegally stored anywhere, but we know they are in those two locations. Yet the government persists with the fiction that these are the only problem sites. I do not buy that for a second. The government has to identify every problem site, and they have got to get it done by yesterday. The outcome of these fires has been bad enough, but the reality is that, compared with the genuine risk that exists, we got off lightly—we absolutely got off lightly—and we are not going to continue to be so lucky if we do not deal with this risk. Ms Britnell: It goes to demonstrate that they do not care about the environment at all. Mr MORRIS: Exactly. And then of course there is the related issue of the kerbside recycling crisis. Now the kerbside recycling crisis is not the total cause of the problems I have identified; clearly there are a range of factors. But it is certainly a contributing factor at some of those sites, a significant contributing factor. For the second time in less than two years we have had the kerbside recycling scheme placed in danger. This time it was not the actions of China; it was the actions of one of the major recyclers that led to its licence being suspended. Now I do not criticise for a second the decision of the Environment Protection Authority Victoria (EPA) to suspend that licence. They did what they had to do, and clearly there is a problem. It is a problem that has been coming for a long time. The February crisis simply confirmed again what we do know—that is, the government has done absolutely nothing to address the problem. In July last year, via a media release, the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change claimed that the problems in the kerbside recycling scheme had arisen because of the decision of China to restrict the import of recyclable materials. China has not banned the import of recyclables. It has banned the import of mixed paper and it has placed much tighter contamination thresholds on all recyclable commodities. So there is a twofold problem. We have global stockpiling of recyclables— that stockpiling is driving the prices down, and that has been going on for a long time—and we have

GRIEVANCE DEBATE 1382 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019 an excessive contamination level that makes the product of our recycling bins difficult to sell on world markets because the quality is so low. Of course in a perfect world we would not be seeking to export our recycled product; we would in fact be reusing it locally. But one of the other aspects of this whole debacle is that the government has failed comprehensively to support the development of markets for recycled product, and it has comprehensively failed to deal with the contamination issue. This is not something that happened six months ago or even in January or February last year. In January 2015 the price of mixed paper was $170 per tonne. By January 2018 it was below $100 a tonne. Again in January 2015 the price of high-density polyethylene plastic was $920 a tonne. By January 2018 it was down to $600 a tonne. The price for PET slumped from $700 a tonne to under $300 a tonne in the same period, and the price for mixed plastics collapsed from $400 a tonne to less than $100 a tonne—all of this before China changed its rules. This was a structural adjustment to the global markets, yet the government thought it could solve that problem, the structural adjustment, by means of a temporary assistance package of less than $15 million. The government itself has facilitated a market that is heavily reliant on exports, yet when the export prices collapsed and the very future of the market was threatened, it did next to nothing. All we have heard from the government is claims about how much money it is spending from the rubbish bin tax—the municipal and industrial landfill levy. So let us have a look at the truth of that. The fact is that in 2015–16 almost $151 million came in through that tax, $207 million in 2016–17 and almost $219 million last year. Over those three years $155 million has been paid to the EPA, $53 million has been paid to Sustainability Victoria, almost $26 million has been paid to the waste and resource recovery groups, $25 million—almost the same amount—has been paid to Parks Victoria, a smaller amount for the commissioner for environment sustainability and a tiny amount for committees of management. The fact is total payments to agencies for their ongoing operation—not initiatives related to waste— over the last three financial years were $263 million and a further $313 million transferred into the Sustainability Fund. Now when you look at the operation of the Sustainability Fund, what are the big- ticket items out of there? Are they to do with waste? In 2015–16, $3 million went to the Living Victoria water rebate program and $6 million to the threatened species protection initiative. In 2016–17 preserving Victoria’s unique biodiversity received $17.5 million. The reinstating Victoria as the national leader in climate change export initiative received $4 million; Saving Energy, Growing Jobs—$6.37 million; and just $150 000 in that year on the Victorian litter plan. In 2017–18 over $20 million was spent on the energy storage initiative; $18.8 million for biodiversity; $14.67 million for the solar certificate tender and $4.44 million for Landcare. These are worthy initiatives, but they are the core business of government. They are not areas that should be funded from the proceeds of a levy designed to deal with our waste issues. Worse still, the amount that is expended from the Sustainability Fund is significantly less than the receipts to the fund. In fact over those three years the balance of the fund has risen from $383 million—almost $384 million—to $511 million. The fact is the government is collecting this money. It is spending it on things that it was not intended for. It is using it to prop up ordinary spending and ordinary operations. It is not spending it on solving our waste crisis, and until it fronts up and actually does spend this money on dealing with the problem we face, that crisis will be ongoing. MACEDON RANGES REGIONAL SPORTS PRECINCT Ms THOMAS (Macedon) (14:47): I rise today to grieve for the people of my electorate and to outline the very real threat to the health and wellbeing of my communities should the Morrison Liberal government be re-elected on 18 May. I have spoken many times in this place about the Macedon Ranges regional sports precinct and its importance to my community. It will be an absolute game changer for the people of the Macedon Ranges. As our premier sporting facility we expect that it will cater to over 250 000 visitors every year as a sporting destination able to cater for regional, state and

GRIEVANCE DEBATE Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1383 elite competitions and carnivals. It will deliver for the physical, mental and social wellbeing of people in my community. We are crazy about sport in the Macedon Ranges and in Gisborne in particular. I often comment that people move to Gisborne because they want their children to have healthy and active lifestyles, and I have certainly worked to support my community to achieve that aspiration. Whether it is basketball, netball, futsal, football, soccer or tennis, they are all exceedingly popular in my community. We also love gymnastics, dancing, acrobatics, group exercise and martial arts. But the fact is as a growing community that is immensely popular with families we are simply running out of room. We need new ovals and indoor courts. We need multipurpose spaces and community facilities. We need spaces for performances and events, and the Macedon Ranges regional sports precinct will deliver all of this and more. This project has been led by a band of passionate local volunteers. Helen Sankey, Megan Condron, Tamara Collins and Allan Spencer-Stewart for nearly 10 years have campaigned for the delivery of this project. Of course, as with any project like this, there have been some stops and starts along the way. Coalitions have come together and then fallen away and so on. But we have now definitely reached a point where we have a fabulous vision for a regional sports precinct. And in March of last year the shire really stepped up their advocacy and made the decision that they were ready to seek some serious money for this project. The precinct will be built in two stages. Stage 1 is $31.4 million. It will deliver four indoor sports courts, a community cafe and seating, public amenities, athlete and referee changing rooms, administration offices, undercover cycle racks, car parks, landscaping, outdoor furniture, multipurpose community spaces for dance, martial arts, acrobatics and so on, and fixed spectator seating. The sports field component will deliver a synthetic surface oval, pavilion, cricket practice nets and tennis/netball courts, a new reserve entry, an internal road and car parking, a dam and tree planting, a natural grass surface oval, a large, vehicle-free spectator concourse, traffic management facilities, and spaces for young people—play spaces—picnicking and barbecue facilities and so on. You can imagine how passionate my community is about realising this wonderful vision for a regional sports precinct. I was very proud of course to be able to bring our then Minister for Sport, the member for Lara, up to share this vision with my community. He was without a doubt very impressed. Our minister at the time could see the benefits immediately. He understood the importance of investing in a project of this size and so, after he had seen what we wanted to achieve, it was time for the Premier to come and visit. And of course my community was, as you can imagine, full of expectation at news that the Premier was going to come and visit, and indeed he did visit and he made a commitment. Firstly, a $5.6 million commitment was made to the sports field component of the project. Then later a further $6 million commitment was made to the hub component of the project. The Andrews Labor government—in response to some of the heckling I was receiving earlier, let me be clear—has committed $11.6 million to this project. Stage 1 is $31 million. We have committed $11.6 million and the council understands that they will need to contribute an amount of around $10 million. The people in my electorate understand that the Andrews Labor government—like all Labor governments—is about getting things done. So with this commitment they voted, and in fact they voted with their feet and returned me as their local member—comprehensively, I might say— and I was very proud and privileged to be returned, as was the Andrews Labor government. That $11.6 million commitment is locked in for the people of my community. But here is the rub. The precinct can only be delivered if all three levels of government make commitments. So, as I said, the shire is locked in and the Andrews Labor government is locked in. The missing link has been a federal government commitment. So while I was doing that work, while I was working hard to get those commitments, my federal colleagues Rob Mitchell, the Labor member for McEwen, and Lisa Chesters, the Labor member for Bendigo, were both advocating very strongly to the Liberal coalition government to deliver funding for this project.

GRIEVANCE DEBATE 1384 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

Now you need to understand that the Morrison government has already had two opportunities, through two rounds of the Building Better Regions Fund, to put their money where their mouth is on this project. Both times they have missed that opportunity. They have neglected my community and we have received not a cracker from the Building Better Regions Fund under the Morrison Liberal government. Lisa Chesters and Robert Mitchell have been advocating to the federal government, but that is like banging your head against a brick wall, so I am glad to see that they were doing the work that is necessary within our own Labor Party internal processes in getting ready for this federal election. So, again, there was excitement in my community when both Rob and Lisa were able to host Labor’s federal shadow sports minister, Senator Don Farrell, to come and visit and have the benefits of this major infrastructure project outlined to him. Senator Don Farrell, I am very pleased to say—like the former Minister for Sport and like the Premier of Victoria—could immediately see the benefits. He came, he had a look and he went away. He did the work that needed to be done and he came back not that long ago—in fact in February of this year—and announced that a Shorten Labor government will deliver the missing piece, the $10 million that will see the realisation of this amazing community-led sporting precinct. So it is quite clear, it is quite simple: the Liberals have delivered nothing to my community. They have had ample opportunity to get behind this project—six years—but they have given us nothing. In one sense it gets worse. I do need to say, I suppose, to be a little bit fair, that they did kick in $100 000 back in 2017 for the development of a business case. They dispatched the junior duty senator James Paterson to spruik this incredible largesse, and he announced that the business case had been delivered in September 2018. This is what he said in his press release back in September 2018: blah, blah, blah, blah, it has been fantastic to work on this business case, but let me be clear, and I quote: There’s still a long way to go before we make this facility a reality but the feasibility study is a really important first step, That is what he said. So what he really meant to say, let us be clear about this, is, ‘We have no intention of ever funding your sports precinct because we are not interested in the people of Macedon’. Do you know why? We have seen it with the rollout of this car parking fund—they are not interested in the people of my electorate because we are in Labor territory. In my community three seats are held by Labor, and this government is so partisan in the way in which they distribute funds that they have no interest in the real needs of communities. They play politics every step of the way. It is very, very clear that the current person we have, who is allegedly representing our interests—that is, Senator James Paterson—is completely incompetent at doing that because he has been unable to deliver for the people of my community. It is very clear, and that is why I rise to grieve today that only a Shorten Labor government will deliver a regional sports precinct for the people of the Macedon Ranges. Further, while I am on my feet I might also grieve about the calibre of candidates selected by the Liberal Party in my region. My electorate includes parts of, as I said, the Ballarat, Bendigo and McEwen electorates, all very ably and capably represented by good, strong Labor members of Parliament: Catherine King, Lisa Chesters and Rob Mitchell. But the Liberal Party have delivered up to us what I call the cut-price candidates. They are the ones you get when it is so late in the piece and they been unable to secure a candidate that they have had to slash the nomination fee. As I understand it, to nominate for the Liberal Party required a down payment of around $1500. They could not find anyone that would put their hand up at that price. They could not find a single person, and so they cut the price to $400. Mr Staikos: Bargain! Ms THOMAS: Bargain basement prices, bargain basement candidates. They were delivered to us just in the middle of March. I am glad to see the member for Bendigo West has joined us in the chamber—she can attest to everything that I have to say. I must say that since they were preselected they have pretty much been in hiding for the entire time. Indeed the Liberal candidate for McEwen failed to show up at a candidates forum last night, while the candidate for Bendigo is really struggling

GRIEVANCE DEBATE Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1385 in his role. When our representative, Lisa Chesters, made it very clear that under a Shorten Labor government the contribution of the commonwealth to hospital funding would be restored to 50 per cent, he then made a rare appearance to say, ‘Well, why haven’t you already done that?’. Because, candidate, it is your party that is in government. It is your job. You are the ones who are in government. He really struggled to understand that. Of course over in Ballarat the candidate there—and the member for Wendouree is also in the house— has similarly failed to attend a candidates forum and he refuses all media interview requests. One must say that given the outbursts from Liberal candidates in Macnamara, in Isaacs and in Chisholm, is it any wonder they are being gagged? I am not surprised at all about that, but we have got to say this: the people of my electorate deserve the opportunity to understand what it is that the people who want to represent them stand for, and yet they are in hiding. It is pretty clear to me and to the people of my electorate that the federal Liberal Party has absolutely no interest in my community and in the needs of the people of Macedon, the electorate that I am so privileged to represent. Indeed this lack of interest in my community was demonstrated clearly at our recent state election. As we know, the Liberal candidate running against me failed to secure a single commitment to any government school in my electorate despite the fact that we had committed and have a commitment to build a brand-new primary school in the south of Gisborne. They failed to make any commitments to roads in my electorate while we have a commitment to fix two very dangerous intersections in Gisborne. While we committed to Solar Homes, they were committing to dismantling the Victorian renewable energy target. Can I just conclude by saying that I started speaking about the Macedon Ranges regional sporting precinct and I will come back and conclude on this note: it is very clear the Macedon Ranges regional sporting precinct, something our community has been fighting for for more than 10 years, is on the cusp of being a reality. But only a Shorten Labor government will deliver it. Let us be clear: this is entirely what is at stake. If Scott Morrison and his crew are returned, there will be no regional sporting precinct because we will be $10 million short of stage 1. The choice is very clear. I urge my constituents to get behind those that have represented them so well for so long—Lisa Chesters, Catherine King and Rob Mitchell. MORWELL ELECTORATE EMPLOYMENT Mr NORTHE (Morwell) (15:02): It is my pleasure to rise this afternoon to participate in the grievance debate. My grievance is with respect to the concerns of my community about future employment opportunities, particularly in the areas of energy and resources, agriculture and the timber industries. These industries are absolutely crucial to not only the Morwell electorate but the wider Gippsland region. Unfortunately we are experiencing constant threats through various forums to those particular jobs. Energy, resources and timber—agriculture, collectively—are just so crucial to not only our region but also Victoria’s and Australia’s economy. The threats that I refer to can be in the form of poor government policy or representations and advocacy from specific groups, particularly environmental groups putting pressure on those particular industries. I raise unemployment in the Morwell electorate as a key issue, and it is something that I have highlighted in this chamber on many occasions over the past few years. Whilst in some quarters the state government is doing things in my electorate to try to improve that situation, such as investing in some infrastructure projects, there is still a long way to go. When you reflect upon the unemployment statistics within Latrobe city, which is the major municipality within my electorate, you will get some sense of the challenges that we have. If you reflect back to December 2014, a month before there was a change of government, the Latrobe city unemployment rate was too high at that time—anyone could see that—at 7.2 per cent. It is now at about 8 per cent. Some of our towns and communities within Latrobe are experiencing some

GRIEVANCE DEBATE 1386 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019 enormous challenges when it comes to unemployment. Again if you look at specific towns, such as the township of Morwell, unemployment has risen from 13.3 per cent four years ago to 15.3 per cent now. Moe-Newborough has gone from 9.6 per cent to 10.6 per cent. If you quantify that by the number of people who are on the unemployment line, what we have seen in that period of time is that Morwell has an extra 133 people unemployed, Moe-Newborough has an extra 91 and Traralgon has an extra 87. That is just a demonstration of some of the challenges we are confronted with at the moment. I note that the Treasurer quite rightly—it is his right to do so—will come into this place and talk about regional unemployment figures and note that across the regions of Victoria unemployment is down. But the reality is that that is not occurring and is not accurate with respect to what is happening in the Morwell electorate. My concerns are shared by many people. We are concerned about government policy going forward, and we are concerned about activists and their role in trying to diminish those particular industries. One only has to look back at the closure of the Hazelwood power station. It is not something I like to harp on about, but it is an issue of bad government policy. One example is introducing an extra $252 million in taxes to a specific industry in a specific region with already high unemployment and closing those doors within six months. You do not have to be Einstein to work out what that meant for not only the local community but also the state of Victoria through high electricity prices and security of supply being under threat. From a local perspective the impacts of that are still being felt quite substantially, because the reality is that when you have 750 or 800 individuals who were remunerated quite well and you take that remuneration away and do not replace it, there is less disposable income in your community. Again you do not have to be Einstein to work out the flow-on effects that has on other businesses, suppliers and contractors within our region. The other concern moving forward, and again I raised this issue in question time earlier this year, is government policy settings. In this case the state government has set a 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030. Again it is the right of the government to set that, but from my community’s perspective, what impact will that have on our workers, our families and our local businesses? The reality is that the latest statistics show that coal and gas provide more than 80 per cent of Victoria’s energy needs. If you reduce that to 50 per cent, then quite rightly we ask, ‘What are the impacts? Does that mean another power station has to close? If so, how are we going to do that? When is that going to happen?’. These questions come in the context of the fact that all our power stations in the Latrobe Valley have operating licences beyond that target of 2030. In this particular conversation I get very frustrated that you are either lumped in as a coal supporter or a renewables supporter. Personally I am supportive of renewables, and I am happy to support worthy projects in my electorate that are renewables. The fact is that the percentage of renewables compared to coal gas is increasing. It is happening. I like to think that I have common sense; I realise that in future years there will have to be a mix of them. But unfortunately some want to target you as being one way or the other. We get very frustrated as a community when the Greens come into this place and ask questions. Now not surprisingly they are saying, ‘We want to close Yallourn power station’. They basically want to close the industry by 2030. They want that to start happening from next year. There is just no regard for the individuals or the people in the communities involved. The jobs that are being undertaken in the energy industry and at our local power stations are actually being done by real people with real families. I think sometimes the lobbyists who are anti-coal just completely and utterly forget that and the impact that Hazelwood’s closure and any future closure will have on real people, real families and real communities. Any future closure that is proposed has to be long, has to be slow and has to be respectful of the workers and their families. The Greens want to simplify the closure of power stations by making the motherhood statement, ‘We will just transition all those jobs into renewable jobs’. Rhetorically I ask the question of the Greens

GRIEVANCE DEBATE Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1387 and others: how many former Hazelwood workers and contractors are actually working in renewable jobs now? I think it is a fair question, and I can tell you that there are not too many at all. To make these statements without having a plan in place and so forth is, I think, outrageous. I think they forget the fact that there are real people involved here. I was speaking to a former Hazelwood worker last night, and one of the programs we talked about in relation to unemployment or employment in the sector was the fact that there was a commitment made to a worker transfer scheme, which was something I strongly supported. There was a commitment made by the government before Hazelwood closed that 150 workers would be part of this worker transfer scheme. At this point in time we have only had approximately 80, and it is two years down the track. So it has not worked as well as we would have liked. There are still a number of former workers and contractors doing it tough. I had an email from a former worker just last week. He said he is unemployed and asked if I could offer any guidance or assistance. This is what is happening on the ground. The worker transfer scheme needs to be enhanced, and that commitment to 150 workers needs to be supported. If the current criteria is not making that happen, then change the criteria to make it work. In the timber industry we saw the closure of Carter Holt Harvey. We saw the government step in and purchase a sawmill at Heyfield. It was disappointing from our perspective that the same support was not gleaned in the Morwell electorate for timber workers. Again, talking about the worker transfer scheme, which I should clarify was to transfer workers from one power station to another, the same was touted as a way for workers at Carter Holt Harvey to go to Australian Paper. That was never realised. That was a great disappointment to people within that sector. Last week we had an announcement of the $110 million new plantation proposal that the government had touted a couple of budgets ago. Mr D O’Brien: It was a sham. Mr NORTHE: Yes, as the member for Gippsland South said, ‘a sham’. It is a sham by the fact that it was proposed as a new plantation. There is a little bit of history there. The land they are now talking about was previously leased by Hancock Victoria Plantations from the government for plantation purposes. After the logging coupes were harvested there, HVP could not come to an agreement with the government on re-leasing it. The next minute we heard that the government had entered into an arrangement with one of its own agencies to do the work. Potentially we have a number of HVP employees and workers not knowing their future now because the government has now basically said, ‘Go away’ and has got into bed, if you like, with VicForests on this particular proposal on land that was already harvested. It was going to be replanted anyway. It is little wonder that there is not a great deal of confidence in some of the decisions made by the government with respect to the timber industry. As I said earlier, from a local perspective I do give the government credit. There are some things happening within our community, and they have made contributions to those—the regional aquatic centre, Latrobe creative precinct, Traralgon basketball stadium and some of the school upgrades that are happening—and they are very, very much welcome. Of course they are welcome, but a concern that was expressed to me when I caught up with a number of local builders and contractors just recently was that while they were pleased on that front—that there is activity happening—they are really, really concerned the locals are not getting the opportunities to participate in the work. While I understand there are policies in place through the Victorian Industry Participation Policy, or VIPP, and otherwise, they are concerned that they are not being adhered to as they should and that local contractors and workers are not getting those opportunities. From my perspective it is really important that where there are government-related projects, we should not be shy about saying we should be using local content at every single opportunity that we can. Obviously there will be situations where that is not possible— I understand that—but there is a level of frustration from local builders and local contractors that they are not getting to see that work themselves from a local perspective.

GRIEVANCE DEBATE 1388 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

One of the missing opportunities, which I have spoken about previously, is that there are a number of approved projects within our community that have been endorsed by council, by the relevant authorities, but they have not proceeded on the basis that we need to get infrastructure to site. One of the ideas that I suggested was a Latrobe essential services fund, where government departments and agencies for water infrastructure or road infrastructure could apply for funding to make sure that we could get that infrastructure to site, and the proponents then could get on with doing the job. It would create massive employment within our region, which is something that is desperately needed. Again opportunities are being missed at the moment with resources in the quarry sector. The quarry sector is a substantial industry within the Latrobe Valley, and all of them—all the quarries, the five that I can think of—want to grow and expand. But they have been held up, for years in some cases, from doing so, and my fear is that if we do not assist and support them with those resources, then Victoria will just end up importing produce and material from other states, and that is not good for anybody in this state. The last thing I would like to say concerns other issues that I have raised around where I believe Latrobe Valley people are missing out in comparison to other programs that are running. I mentioned one issue in a question today about our farmers, where programs are being run and eligibility is being denied to them on certain programs, and that should change. There are issues around public transport as well. If you are a student or senior within the Latrobe Valley, you are not entitled to the same discounts and supports as a commuter from Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo and even the south-west coast. As has been told to me many times, ‘Why should we be paying more for inferior services?’. That is something that needs to change as well. LIBERAL PARTY Ms WARD (Eltham) (15:17): What do I grieve for in today’s grievance debate? Deputy Speaker, yet again I grieve for what is or for what remains of the Liberal Party—this once glorious party of Robert Menzies, and the shattered, withered rump that it now is. The Liberals are regarded as homophobic, anti-women, climate-change deniers, and do not ask me—these are not my words— Mr Foley: Who said that? Ms WARD: I am glad you asked, member for Albert Park. It was in fact Liberal minister Kelly O’Dwyer—and this is why I grieve. I grieve that there are Liberals who are regarded as homophobic, I grieve that there are Liberals who are regarded as anti-women and I grieve that there are Liberals who are regarded as climate change deniers, because surely that is not the democracy that we want to see. I grieve that our democracy has a major party that is such a hotbed of bigotry, but I remember former Liberal Senator George Brandis saying, and I quote, ‘People have the right to be bigots’. Of course they do, but I never thought that the Liberals would embrace this manifesto with such zeal. When we think of climate-change deniers, of course we think of Tony Abbott, but we also think of his handmaiden, Oftony, also known as Kevin Andrews, a current Liberal MP and candidate for Menzies. We know that the Pope believes in climate change; good on you, Pope Francis. He does indeed, and in fact he is a passionate advocate on climate change. This is a terrific Pope who is actually in touch. Mr Halse: He is very progressive, actually. Ms WARD: He is absolutely very progressive, member for Ringwood—he is someone who is in touch with communities, someone who actually understands what is going on and, dare I say it, a religious leader who clearly follows the science and who clearly believes in the science, unlike, I am afraid to say, the current member for Menzies. The Pope believes in climate change and the member for Menzies does not, and that would be exactly the reason why GetUp! is targeting the seat of Menzies.

GRIEVANCE DEBATE Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1389

GetUp! is active. In fact every weekend they have been at the Eltham farmers market talking with people about the fact that the current sitting member for Menzies does not believe in climate change. Of course I grieve for this, because my electorate, of which part is now in Menzies, deserves better. My electorate deserves better federal representation, and I know my electorate will get that with Kate Thwaites, who will be the new member for Jagajaga, and Stella Yee, who I hope will be the new member for Menzies. As a former minister for immigration, Kevin Andrews faced what the Sydney Morning Herald called renewed accusations of racism over his cuts to the African refugee intake when he published a list of concerns about African migrants. I am not going to talk about them here. I am not going to give them any air whatsoever, because they do not deserve it. What I will do is talk about what has been recorded about Liberal behaviour. I am not going to quote them, because we do not want to encourage this kind of language, but we do need to note this kind of behaviour and we do need to grieve for it because our politicians need to be better. Our politicians need to show leadership, our politicians need to show inclusion, our politicians need to bring communities together, not divide them through hatred and fear and bigotry. That is not the role of politicians. It is not the role of people in this house and it is certainly not the role of those in federal Parliament. Of course we know that the current member for Menzies has a women problem. We know he does not support a woman’s right to choose, nor does he really strike us as a man who is a fan for women going back to work once they have had children. In 2014 the current member for Menzies was nominated for a Silver Ernie by Women’s Agenda for his sexist remarks—and again, I am not going to repeat them. The former PM, the one the current member for Menzies helped unseat when he counted numbers for Peter Dutton—and we all know how well that turned out; in fact it turned out so well for them it appears in Victoria that Peter Dutton is the poster boy. Peter Dutton is the one who will be appearing on polling booths. He is out at pre-poll scaring the bejesus out of people on corflutes, because the people in this state are terrified of somebody like Peter Dutton as Prime Minister. They could not imagine it because, as the Premier likes to say, we are the most progressive state in this nation, and to think of someone like Peter Dutton as leader just absolutely—member for Macedon, I see you shiver, and I know that collectively Victorians share that shiver. Anyway, that PM that they unseated, that PM that Kevin Andrews helped bump off, well, of course he himself has also admitted that the Liberals ‘absolutely’ have a problem with women. When we look at it, we see that only 23 per cent of the current federal parliamentary Liberal Party are female—23 per cent—and only 30 per cent of their candidates in what the electoral commission have got as their 50 most marginal seats are women. But the Labor Party, for whom of course I do not grieve, has 58 per cent of their marginal seat candidates as women—women in winnable seats, unlike the Liberal Party. Julia Banks resigned in disgust with the Liberal Party and Ann Sudmalis, as we know, was pushed out. And of course Ann Sudmalis was pushed out to be replaced by a man. They cannot even dump their female MPs and replace them with another woman. They replace them with a man. Then we have got today’s story, with Jeremy Hearn, the Liberal candidate who attacked Muslims as being of ‘bad character’, amongst other things, and again, I am not going to repeat his comments. But how do you end up with him? He has said a number of other hurtful, offensive comments about Australian Muslims. This is terrible. How do we elevate people to positions within parties, where they are endorsed candidates, who have such bigoted views? We have Gurpal Singh, a lawyer and lecturer, who is the Liberal’s candidate in Scullin. Ms Thomas: What did he say? Ms WARD: Again, member for Macedon, I am only going to give a little bit of what he said. I am not going to go into too much detail, because, member for Macedon, it is hurtful to repeat those words.

GRIEVANCE DEBATE 1390 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

In a radio interview in 2017 he said that legalising same-sex marriage could open the gates to more sexual abuse of children. Mr Halse: Shame! Ms WARD: Now, that is absolutely, member for Ringwood, a shameful thing to say and it is a shameful view to have and it is shameful for any party to be endorsing these kinds of candidates. Of course he went on to say other things of a homophobic nature that I am not going to repeat because they are wrong and they are hurtful. But I am glad that at least these people are being held to account. I do not want people to repeat their comments, but at least we are talking about the fact that these kinds of candidates are not acceptable. Of course we had someone in this place that previously claimed that homosexuality was something that people needed to ‘deal with’, like someone born with spina bifida or haemophilia—and of course he is the new president of the Victorian Liberal Party. Yet again. And of the 75 women currently in federal Parliament, 19 are Liberals and two are Nationals—the lowest proportion of female representation of any political party. And what does the Liberal Party do about this? Not much at all. This is why they only have 30 per cent of their marginal seats being contested by women. Prime Minister Morrison told a function:

… we’re not about setting Australians against each other, trying to push some down to lift others up … … We want to see women rise. But we don’t want to see women rise only on the basis of others doing worse. Well, I am sorry, Prime Minister Morrison, it is not a piece of cake that needs to be cut up and shared out. Equality is limitless. And if you think that putting women into Parliament is at the expense of men, well, suck it up, princess, because it is not. What it is about is getting women into Parliament and getting women’s voices heard, and that is not to the detriment of men, because what does it do? It actually makes your party better because you have greater diversity within your party, you have different views within your party and you have different life experiences. You do not end up being a stale, shallow husk, which the Liberal Party has become, because all they do— Ms Thomas interjected. Ms WARD: Exactly, member for Macedon—because all they have got are the voices of the Melbourne Club and the Institute of Public Affairs. That is the limit to their imagination and policy input. They have managed to preselect some women in their marginal seats, like Gladys Liu, who has said some pretty hurtful things about safe schools and the LGBTI community: ‘all this rubbish’. Again, I am not going to go further into the things that Gladys has said because they are hurtful and they are wrong and they should not be promoted more. Bizarrely, we have got Kate Ashmor, another of their women in a marginal seat, in Macnamara; while she has apologised for calling the wife of Bill Shorten a pig, she has also made a number of other pretty unsavoury comments, including things about Julia Gillard. These are people who basically really just do not like other people. They do not like other people who are not like them. They do not like other people who do not have a bit of a silver spoon in their mouth. They do not like people unlike them. This, again, is not a party that we want to elect in this state to represent us federally or even at a state level. This is not the leadership that we want and it is not the leadership we deserve. But this is not a generational issue; it is an intergenerational issue. In 2017 the leader of the Australian Liberal Students Federation was accused of assaulting a fellow club member and intimidating a woman during an ugly stoush at a university. We also had a young woman who was a member of the Melbourne University Liberal Club being told she was excluded from an event because it would make men a bit uncomfortable. To quote the young male Lib, ‘A couple of the guys were a bit uncomfortable about inviting a chick’. Well, I dare say that is pretty much the whole of the federal Liberal Party—they do

GRIEVANCE DEBATE Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1391 not want chicks at the party. Earlier this year four New South Wales Young Liberals were suspended from the party after officials became aware of derogatory comments made towards women—which, again, I am not going to repeat because they are shocking, sexist, misogynistic comments. We have also got a situation that people may have seen during the New South Wales election, where there was this very striking photo of a woman walking down a street with some pamphlets in her hand, holding the hand of her child. And what was behind her? A bunch of angry male young Libs with big signs, making as much noise as they could, not only intimidating her but terrifying her child. Karyn Laxale attended a Korean cultural event in Eastwood with her husband, who was the then Labor candidate and mayor of Ryde, Jerome Laxale, and their seven-year-old twin daughters and four-year- old son. And that was the treatment she received at the hands of a bunch of young male Liberals. This is the cultural intergenerational problem that this party has got and this is why I grieve, because they should be better than that. They should treat women better than that. They should treat members of the LGBTI community better than that. They should treat people of colour better than that. They should treat Australians and Victorians better than that. And they should be ashamed of the people that have come through their ranks and the views that they purport to have, that they put out there. I grieve that they have such a deficit of friends that they have actually got to look to people like Clive Palmer for their preferences— Mr Richardson interjected. Ms WARD: Absolutely, member for Mordialloc—‘Scott no mates’. You are going to Clive Palmer for preferences, who owes working Australians tens of millions of dollars in lost wages. Ms Thomas interjected. Ms WARD: That is right, member for Macedon: $70 million in lost wages, money he is spending on advertising. The Liberal Party—and this would be why they do not support penalty rates or any other wage increases—clearly supports people who do not pay their staff, because if you did not condone that, you would not be giving your preferences to Clive Palmer. But paying Australians for their work, making sure that they have a good day’s pay for a hard day’s work, is clearly not at the top of their list of priorities. What is on their list of priorities is looking after their rich male friends because they are the only ones they are talking to. That is why I grieve, because I tell you what, as I have said in this place before, Dame Beryl Beaurepaire would be not only rolling in her grave, she would also be shuddering to imagine that the party she and a bunch of other incredibly strong Liberal women created has turned into such a travesty. GIPPSLAND DROUGHT RELIEF Mr D O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (15:32): I could rise today to grieve for the people of Eltham, whose representative has just wasted 15 minutes of the Parliament’s time with a partisan political attack rather than raising issues that are relevant to the people of Eltham. But I do rise for a very serious issue, and that is that I grieve for the farmers and the communities of Central and East Gippsland who at the moment are struggling through one of the worst droughts on record. The drought has been officially declared by this government since August last year, but it has indeed been going on a lot longer than that. For many of our farmers, particularly in the area south of Sale around Giffard, Seaspray, Darriman and Stradbroke, that drought has been going for a long time. For two years many of them have been suffering, and some have been feeding stock for longer than that. Indeed up until October last year the area around Giffard and Central Gippsland more broadly saw the two driest years on record. In the period since then—in the six or seven months since then—it has only gotten worse. We have seen already the driest start to the year on record, and we have seen some devastating conditions. Not only did we have a very hot summer, particularly through January and February, but in the south of my electorate, in the southern part of Wellington shire, we have had horrendous gale-force winds that have literally stripped the topsoil and killed what is left of the pasture,

GRIEVANCE DEBATE 1392 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019 causing significant issues. That is the issue that in the last couple of months has been the most devastating for our farmers down there. Many of them are woolgrowers, and they have seen what was left of their pasture ripped out. I was talking to one just on the weekend who had paddocks that were locked up. Often people say, ‘They should have destocked; they should have taken stock off those paddocks’. He told me the story that in the paddocks he had locked up last year—the paddocks which had no stock on them and which were not being grazed—there has been such a deficit of moisture that they died completely, the roots have shrivelled and now with the wind they have just been blown away. We had a particularly bad incident in late February and early March where it just blew a gale all day and literally the road from Sale to Seaspray and Giffard Road were covered in sand in parts. There was literally sand built up across the roads. When I say sand, it was the sandy topsoil from those areas. So it has been a devastating drought and the wind has only made it worse. What is bitterly disappointing is this rainfall event that we are currently experiencing across the state. I watched the news forecast the other night and they had the yellow, blue and green showing the expected level of rainfall, with yellow being only a couple of millimetres. There was literally a patch right over the worst-affected part of my electorate that was not going to get the rain that most of the rest of the state is experiencing. I am anxiously watching the radar at the moment. There are conflicting reports that there might be a bit more rain, hopefully, than is forecast, but certainly it is very bad. Those farmers are very resilient people. They are not here for handouts and they are not seeking the taxpayer to step in and underwrite their businesses, but there is only so much they can do after such an extended period of time, particularly, as I said, with the winds. I am going to quote from a number of news articles from the last couple of months. Stradbroke farmer Andrew Jones—a bloke I know; I played footy with him at Sale years ago—said of the winds: I’ve never seen it this bad and I’ve been farming here 25 years. The winds have just ruined the remaining pastures and now ruined the water, that’s a first. The point he is making there is that a number of my constituents have taken the opportunity with empty dams to clean out those dams, and then when they have had the ability to reticulate water or when they have had a bore in that paddock, they have refilled them and a number of times now the wind has blown again and blown in manure, dust and dirt and ruined those dams. They have had to drain them, clean them out again and go again. That has just been demoralising. For those farmers who are having to cart water and feed stock every day, it just is demoralising. I am not a farmer—I have never been more than a hobby farmer—but I know from my constituents that the effort, the pain and the demoralisation of every day getting up and going out to feed stock and water stock is extraordinary. This is not specific to my area, but I heard on the Victorian Country Hour program the other day a woolbroker talking about up to 50 per cent or more than 50 per cent of some bales of wool being contaminated with soil simply because of the drought and the wind. That is evidence of how bad it is. What do farmers want? What has been unique for me in this particular circumstance has been how united my community, my farmers and indeed those in the electorate of my colleague the member for Gippsland East have been in their support for municipal rate relief. For many farmers the shire rates are one of their biggest bills. For some we are talking $35 000 or $40 000 in rates alone, and they regularly say that they get very little service from that perspective from shires. Because they are remote or isolated they do not get rubbish collection or many of the other services that are afforded to their town cousins. They have been very united. You can ask a group of farmers. I remember sitting at a table with the shadow Minister for Agriculture and member for Murray Plains last year. We had four farmers and five different ideas about what should be done, but when you boiled it down they were united in their view that municipal rate relief would be the best thing that could be done because it would be equitable—every farmer pays rates, save for a few that lease their farms. It means that if you do give a 50 per cent reduction in rates, then

GRIEVANCE DEBATE Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1393 it is equitable across all of those farmers. Whether you are paying $40 000 in rates or whether you are paying $5000 in rates, you get a 50 per cent or whatever discount. Rates are a bill that farmers have to pay, and for many, if they had some support for it, they would at least be able to pay that bill. It would also allow them to free up some cash to pay off other debts in the community and to get some cash going around the business community. This is exemplified by Steve Harrison, who is not only a farmer at Giffard West but the local Victorian Farmers Federation branch president. He said in one newspaper article of 29 March that what the government has so far delivered is not what they had been hoping for, and I quote: Well, we’ve been banging on about rate relief for a long time, because that’s what hurts, but nothing. What he is referring to is the Andrews government’s response. I hate being political about drought; farmers do not like it; our communities do not like it, but unfortunately it is our job. In opposition we have to encourage, coax, cajole and shame the government into support. The Premier was asked about his activity today. I think it is a disgrace that the leader of the government in our state has not been to these drought-affected areas. As I said, the drought has been going for several years now, but even if you go on the actual declaration from the government, it was declared a drought area in August last year, and the Premier has been to the Latrobe Valley—by my count—at least five times since that time, but he has not gone past Traralgon and actually visited and seen the conditions firsthand. In that period we have had the Leader of the Opposition there, the shadow Minister for Agriculture has been down a number of times, the Prime Minister has been to the area, as have the Deputy Prime Minister, the federal agriculture minister and the state agriculture minister, but we have yet to see the Premier there. I think it is incumbent on him as the leader of government in this state to (a) show his support and (b) come with an announcement of rate relief. So I invite him again to do that, and I urge him to do that, because it has been noticed. As I said, it is not just me saying that, our farmers have noticed it. Steve Harrison, who I quoted before, has said: We’ve had every politician under the sun here, but Daniel Andrews has not been passed Traralgon. It is not just us noticing it; it is the farmers themselves, and they are feeling isolated. They have commented a number of times that they feel that this is the forgotten drought. Mr Harrison, in another article from ABC News online earlier in the year, said:

… the region has continued to be ignored by the Victorian Government especially when compared to the $1.3 billion … coming from the New South Wales government for their farmers. He said:

Certainly we have been forgotten. No disrespect to NSW and their drought but we’re just as bad. We’re in the same situation as them. So that is the frustration. We had the Minister for Agriculture come to the region. In fact she went to Steve and Lisa Harrison’s property at Giffard West in February. There had been quite a bit of comment ahead of that visit about what was needed and what she would be coming to do, and she told the Gippsland Times on 19 February that she was not ruling out farm rates relief ahead of her visit. Indeed she was quoted as saying:

Rates relief is certainly on the table. We are hearing this loud and clear from Gippsland farmers particularly that this is one of their main areas of focus they want to see support packages moved to. She came to the region two days later, and what did she give? She gave $2500 and $3500 grants for young farmers. As a number of farmers said, $2500 is what they are pouring down the throat of their stock every one or two days in many cases. It is a piddling amount of money, and it got the expected response. Trent Anderson, who also farms down the Giffard Road, was quoted as saying:

I’m pretty …

GRIEVANCE DEBATE 1394 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

I will not say the word— It’s just garbage, an insult. That $2500 wouldn’t feed my mob of cows for a week. My rates bill alone is close to $40,000. That is from the Weekly Times of 22 February. On that day I actually saw Trent as I was heading to Giffard West to meet the minister. He had put his cows out on the road in the hope that the minister would come that way and he would be able to stop her with his cattle and actually tell her what the story was, and that highlighted the angst and the response to the government’s efforts so far. Likewise, we had an announcement a few weeks ago of $2500 grants for re-seeding, which again is fine, but it is a drop in the ocean. It is not going to go anywhere towards what is needed. There are a number of other issues, and the government in its response to the question about rates says, ‘Well, we are going to have this rates review that we committed to at the election campaign’. They have now announced the terms of reference for that review but have not included in the terms of reference the rates cap, and that has been one of the issues that has made it so difficult, because by applying the 2.5 per cent cap in the way it has been done by the Andrews Labor government in applying the cap across the board, in many cases residential and commercial rates have in fact gone down by well under the 2.5 per cent or not risen by the 2.5 per cent, but as a result farm rates have gone through the roof. In some cases last year we saw 30 per cent increases in farm rates across parts of the state. So a review now is not going to fix the issues. A review now is not going to help those farmers pay for their stock. The other issue that I touch on is the management of wildlife, particularly kangaroos. It has been again devastating and heartbreaking for many of our farmers. The last little bit of remaining pasture that they might have, the last little crop that they might have been keeping for their stock has been devastated by kangaroos, many of whom of course are coming out of the bush areas because of the drought and are looking for feed. The government’s response on getting permits approved more quickly for the control of excess kangaroos has been terrible, and in addition the decision to effectively gut the kangaroo pet food trial and ensure that those farmers who get authority to control wildlife permits will not be able to use those carcasses in a kangaroo pet food trial is just ridiculous. Again, it is another area where this government has failed on the issue of drought. I know whenever this issue is raised someone will say, ‘Well, what are you doing about climate change?’. I, for one, accept the science of climate change. Many of my farmers do as well. But I challenge those who are saying we have got to do more. What will putting up a wind turbine do for these farmers? Nothing. Climate change is an issue, and it needs to be addressed, but the response to it that this government and the federal government are proposing is not going to address the immediate issue that we are dealing with now. The Premier should visit my region. He should be coming to Giffard, and he should be going to Bengworden or Briagolong in the area of East Gippsland. He should come with rates relief, and he should do it before the state budget at the end of this month. EXTREMISM Mr RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (15:47): I rise on the grievance debate to grieve for the direction of our state and our nation in the Westminster political system as a result of extremist views undermining community safety and our harmonious and inclusive multicultural society and the impact of these views on all Victorian citizens. It was only a few weeks ago that this Parliament showed some of its truest and finest colours, coming together to reflect on the tragic terrorist incident in New Zealand that claimed the lives of 50 people. It was only this week that we came together to reflect on the terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka that tragically took the lives of 250 people. We have seen extremists attack a synagogue in the United States. In different parts of the world we see the evils of terror and hate commit awful atrocities against Muslims, against Christians and against people of Jewish faith in the most sacred action of peaceful prayer. As a Parliament we stood together to share and offer our condolences and respect to those that lost their lives and those that were affected. The words that were

GRIEVANCE DEBATE Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1395 uttered by many in this Parliament go to their values and what we should live up to. I think importantly the comments of the Premier summarised it when he said:

… as a state and as a nation, we also have a real responsibility to extend our commitment to driving out the dark politics of division and calling out the crude and cruel discourse that threatens to undermine everything we have fought so hard to achieve. It seems like a pretty standard statement of decency and respect in our communities and in our society and something that we all should hold true and respect, yet here today we reflect on yet another Liberal demonising a group based simply on their faith—on their personal identity. So today and every day in Victoria we will call this behaviour out. We have a real problem in this state, across Australia and around our nation and internationally of people being marginalised based on their faith, their culture and their heritage. We have a severe problem of destruction of humanity, common love and mutual respect of our fellow citizens. Make no mistake: everyone in this place and across our communities and in our media has a role to play in denouncing the darkness of fear, division and hate in favour of love, respect and inclusion. After all, it is what makes us uniquely Victorian, and I hope it still makes us uniquely Australian. I want to share a quote with the house the 22nd Prime Minister of Australia, the Honourable Malcolm Fraser, made during his inaugural address to the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs in 1981. He said: … multiculturalism speaks to us forcefully and directly about a range of fundamental issues of relevance to all Australians. It is not an abstract or alien notion, not a blueprint holding out utopian promises, but a set of guidelines for action which grows directly out of our society’s aspirations and experiences. That is why multiculturalism has so quickly entered our political and social vocabulary and become a central reference point. That is as true a statement today and has evolved over the 38 years since those words were uttered. I believe it is still a reference point for our nation, has relevance today and underpins what we consider to be a bipartisan position in our state and our nation. But not only are inclusion, freedom of religion and the acceptance of diversity important policies, they are enshrined in our Victorian laws, in our Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. As parliamentarians and as leaders in our communities we have an obligation to protect these rights and values at all times in the pursuit of a fairer Victoria. Fundamentally they are human rights, and they should be core tenets of anyone serious enough in mainstream politics to represent their fellow constituents in this place across our states and territories and our nation. Yet sadly we have seen the ongoing erosion of these democratic, social and political values. We have seen political ruthlessness and power overcome values of fairness, decency and honesty. Here in Victoria we are at a worrying crossroads, and sadly, for political and potentially more sinister motivations, we see the coalition of the Liberal and National parties caving in to the views of extremists. And while I am hopeful many in this Parliament denounce the views of One Nation, of racial hate and intolerance and the demonisation of people, their actions and decisions to preference them shows a severe lack of trust and integrity in our political system. Sadly Victorians are living in fear simply because of a key tenet of their identity—their faith, where they were born, their heritage, their ethnicity or their sexual orientation. It upsets me—it angers me—that fellow Victorians might walk out of their homes and fear going down to their local shopping centre for fear of persecution or might feel insecure or anxious about what they might confront each and every day of their lives. Sadly, race complaints to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission rose by 90 per cent in the last year, though it is still believed that African and Muslim communities are underreporting racism. Separate data from Victoria’s Federation of Community Legal Centres last month revealed that there has been a 50 per cent surge in people seeking help for race-hate crimes. In my role as Parliamentary Secretary for Schools I worry about the kids going to school and what they confront. Racist bullying is prevalent in our schools, and we all have a role to call it out. A 2014 Australian study found that one-third of students reported direct experiences of racism at least once a

GRIEVANCE DEBATE 1396 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019 month. One-fifth of our students experience at least one form of direct racism every day. The most common experience was being told that they do not belong here in Australia. Two-thirds of students report seeing another student being called names or teased because of their cultural background. It is truly heartbreaking that in our state—the most progressive state—kids across Victoria and Australia still experience the fear of going to school and are being targeted and subjected to this kind of bullying and racism just based on their identity. Yet you can hardly be surprised at this discourse and this position that we find ourselves in when one of the key pillars of our two-party representative democracy, the Liberal and National parties, have turned a blind eye to these extremist views and values. We just have to look at the Isaacs Liberal candidate, who today made abhorrent comments about Muslims in our community and across Australia, claiming it to be an ideology of killing or enslaving of the citizens of Australia if they do not become Muslim. We had the Treasurer of Australia come out and tell the Herald Sun this morning that Mr Hearn’s views were appalling and there must be no place in the party for people with those views. The Victorian Leader of the Opposition also came out and said that those comments were appalling. He rejected them and he said, ‘Watch this space’. But there is a pattern of behaviour here. If you go to tendency of character in what are the modern-day Liberal and National parties, we have to see it in a context of the people that put themselves forward as Liberals and as Nationals and who spout the values of those parties and are then found to be something else. Of course there was the Liberal candidate for Yan Yean who made a video with the Australian Liberty Alliance calling for a ban on anyone of Muslim faith immigrating to Australia. There were the comments of Gladys Liu, the federal Liberal candidate for Chisholm, who has criticised different migrant subjects from other countries as being ‘not as good migrants’, not as hardworking, having too many children and living off welfare. These are disgusting and disgraceful comments. We had then the biggest shock, I think, of all the shocks that we have had. Hearing the member for Gippsland South passionately argue for his community in the farming space is jarring when you think that at a national level the Nationals federal leader—our Deputy Prime Minister in Australia—is suggesting that the One Nation preference deal just makes sense because the party’s policies closely align to theirs and the coalition’s when in government. Well, the challenge I put forward to the Victorian coalition, both the Liberals and Nationals, is this: if that is the case, do you believe that we are in danger of being swamped by Asians, as Pauline Hanson said? Do you believe that multiculturalism should be abolished in Victoria? Do you believe that we should target Aboriginal Victorians to prove their ancestry? Do you believe that we are in danger of being swamped by Muslim immigration? And do you believe in watering down our gun laws in Australia? Because if they are the values that you hold up to underpin government, then that is not the Victoria that I live in and they are not the values I hold. It is a challenge to every single coalition member in this place, particularly those in the National Party, which has been swamped by Independents taking over their electoral territory and taking them to the cleaners because the National Party espouses those values by saying it is much more closely aligned to One Nation than other mainstream political parties. It is a challenge to the Leader of The Nationals in Victoria and all his colleagues to come out and condemn those attitudes with force and with vigour and to distance themselves from their federal leader, our Deputy Prime Minister, who says those heinous, horrific and abhorrent values align closely with The Nationals political party. It is scary, it is something we should all reflect on, and it gets worse. It gets far worse. We see Andrew Hastie and Ian Goodenough meeting with far-right extremists, a brief meeting but a meeting nonetheless, and we also hear that potentially they also met up with Victorian coalition figures in the lead-up to the state election. There are other comments such as those from federal minister Peter Dutton saying that it is not safe to go out into Melbourne because of African gangs—a demonisation of 55 countries of the continent of Africa. It is an absurd position. He is not Victorian, and he is dragging the Victorian Liberal vote because of his intervention on former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

BILLS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1397

But I thought down in my neck of the woods that some of the Liberals in my patch had a better sense of judgement, and I know some of them personally. I have known them for some time from my time working for Mark Dreyfus, the federal Labor member for Isaacs. I thought, ‘Will this kind of behaviour inflict itself in our local community?’. Sadly it has with the federal Liberal candidate for Isaacs, but it also happened in the 2014 state election. To my shock and my horror, when handing out at Chelsea early polling, I saw Liberals handing out flyers that were authorised and produced by Rise Up Australia. Now, for those who have forgotten about Rise Up Australia, this was a political party that said Black Saturday was caused by our abortion law reform, an anti-Muslim faith party with extremist views and values. To see a Liberal campaign operation in Mordialloc handing out flyers on behalf of Rise Up Australia, who were not even part of the campaign and did not even run a candidate, with hate-filled propaganda was shocking. We expected better in our community, and we expect better down in the City of Kingston and the Bayside region. It is all right to have a fair tussle over politics, but to espouse hate and try to gain power by marginalising others is deeply disturbing. It departs far away from the values that were put forward by the 22nd Prime Minister of Australia, Malcolm Fraser, who put forward an inclusive agenda and promoted those values. The modern-day Liberal Party is nowhere near where Prime Minister Fraser was. It is a conservative party that is addicted to power and addicted to survival. But I will put this forward to those opposite in the coalition: the two- party system is so important in the Westminster system to undermine those fringe dwellers who are the extremists on either side of the political divide and to get back to core values. We will see a drop in the primary votes of mainstream parties, more of these views espoused and more radicals coming forward if you do not get your house in order, and that is a really critical point across Australia that goes beyond elections, goes beyond this Parliament and goes beyond the federal election coming up. The other important—very important—role is in the media, and we see too often commercial media and publicly funded media giving a platform to extremist views. It is not about balance and coverage. Senator Fraser Anning got 19 votes, but the disproportionate coverage by the media is about stirring up tension, angst and negativity for advertising revenue, likes and hits, antagonising communities and pitting communities against each other. The media has a big, big role to play in fair presentation and a role to play in ensuring that these extremist views are not espoused. We have to do better, and that is the challenge to our communities. Question agreed to. Bills PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS REGISTRATION BILL 2019 Second reading Debate resumed. Mr CHEESEMAN (South Barwon) (16:02): I rise to speak on the Professional Engineers Registration Bill 2019. Engineers play a significant role in almost every single element of our lives. Whether it be of course the buildings we live in—our homes—or whether it be the roads that we use to get to and from our places of work or to school, it is critical as a consequence of those important roles that engineers play in our society that we recognise them, that we value them and indeed, I think, that we register that occupation. There are so many occupations in our community that play significant roles in our lives. Whether it be of course teachers, doctors, lawyers, plumbers or electricians, all of those occupations have strong registration requirements because they play significant roles in our lives. It is extraordinary in my belief that since the formation of this state, and indeed since Federation of this country, we have had very little regulation across the states and territories underpinning that important occupation of engineering—it is extraordinary.

BILLS 1398 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

Of course our government has been consulting with that occupation about developing registration to ensure that that occupation going forward provides the services and the skills that our people require to grow our state, to grow our nation, in a way in which we as consumers, whether that be the government, the private sector or indeed we ourselves, can secure appropriately qualified people, knowing that registration is in place and that appropriate training is in place—that those people delivering those important services have the training required to do that in a safe way. If we look at Victoria’s Big Build agenda, which we have got underway at the moment, there is an unprecedented demand for engineering services in this state. We as a government want to make sure that we procure engineering skills from our economy and from people that have been appropriately trained and that have the appropriate recognition of their qualifications to deliver those services. As I said earlier, there are numerous occupations that have registration. Why as a society and a government do we require those occupations to have registration? Because those occupations play a significant and important role in our lives. A good example would be teachers. We require the teachers in this state who teach our children to have registration. Why do we do that? Because we as members of this community, members of this society—perhaps even parents—expect the people teaching our children to be registered. Engineering for a long time has not had in place those arrangements, those requirements. It is true to say that as we get on and build our society, build our community and build the infrastructure we need, there is huge demand—huge demand—on government and the private sector to procure the skills required to build these jobs safely. Look at other elements of our lives—let us say, for example, manufacturing. In manufacturing, as we increase the high-skilled jobs required, we need process engineers. Those process engineers need to be qualified, and the manufacturing companies securing through either direct employment or indirect employment those skills to design their plants need to ensure that those engineers are registered, because the machinery that they design will of course be used by workers to manufacture things. We need to make sure that those engineers have the appropriate qualifications to ensure that processing is done in a safe way for those workers. In reading the explanatory memorandum, it says in the opening paragraph that: The Professional Engineers Registration Bill 2019 (the Bill) establishes a registration scheme for professional engineers. It implements a commitment made by the Government. The scheme will help to promote professional development within the engineering profession, reduce the risk of loss and harm to the public, and give consumers more confidence in procuring engineering services. It will also improve opportunities for the export of engineering services … Of course we have some fantastic engineering schools in this state. We have some fantastic universities training highly qualified people who have the opportunity to take their qualifications overseas and to deliver to other economies the sort of skills that they might need to modernise their societies. I think it is exceptionally important that those countries can have a look at the engineering graduates and professional engineers and how our community and our society recognises the skills that they have and for engineers in the future to point to their Victorian registration to say, ‘Look, I’m well qualified, and I’m recognised by my home state, the great state of Victoria, for the skills that I have’. It will make it much easier for those highly trained engineers to be able to sell their services overseas. I see this being hugely beneficial to our community. As I said earlier, we are building a record amount of infrastructure in this state, and we are procuring a record amount of engineering services as a consequence of that. Most of those engineers today are well qualified, do have the appropriate level of training and do have the appropriate level of supervision. Having said that, though, the risk in this space is enormous. If we do not have appropriate recognition, then we could potentially see bridges being built that are not safe—bridges that might claim, as an example, to have a certain weight-carrying limit. Of course if you have people designing those bridges who are not appropriately qualified, do not have registration

BILLS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1399 and the appropriate amount of training or oversight, those bridges may be under that carrying capacity. As a consequence of that, that puts all of us, as members of this community, potentially in danger. So colleagues I very much recommend the adoption of this bill. It is a longstanding commitment we took to the Victorian community in the lead-up to the election, and I highly commend this bill to the house. Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Equality, Minister for Creative Industries) (16:12): I move

That the debate be now adjourned. Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day. SALE OF LAND AMENDMENT BILL 2019 Second reading Debate resumed on motion of Ms KAIROUZ: That this bill be now read a second time. Ms CONNOLLY (Tarneit) (16:13): I rise today to speak in support of the Sale of Land Amendment Bill 2019. I have to start by saying that it is a tremendous pleasure that this is the first bill that I have the privilege of being able to speak on in this house. It is a privilege because I have some pretty recent vivid memories of sitting down with families in Tarneit to talk about legislative loopholes like sunset clauses that have enabled dodgy developers to go ahead and rip off the very hardworking families across my community. I state from the outset that the amendments in this bill will without doubt protect families like those that I have spoken with. They will protect them from the heartache, the stress and devastation that is caused by the improper action of those seeking to gain further financial benefit in the building industry. This is a bill that will address the imbalance of power that has taken root between consumers and vendors, developers and other business operators that have been complicit in what I can only call predatory and morally corrupt behaviour. While they are not representative of the wider industry, the actions of a few have stained an industry’s reputation, damaged consumer confidence and left countless Victorians in limbo, including families in Tarneit. Under the current law, in recent years we have started to see a rise in the exploitation of everyday Victorians through the dodgy use of sunset clauses—clauses once designed to serve the purpose, a really good purpose, of providing safety, certainty and flexibility for businesses taking on financial risk that really does come with development, with building our homes and building our communities. Sunset clauses provide businesses with an emergency safeguard when things just do not go as planned. I think we can all appreciate that sometimes things do not go as planned and we really do need those safeguards. But the development of property, of housing and of our communities should be a mutually beneficial task, a task for all Victorians seeking an affordable place to call home and for the businesses that take the risk, provide employment and provide the goods and services we demand for the continued development of our state. But on some occasions, including in the outer west, this is not what we have been seeing. Victoria is one of the fastest growing states in this great nation, and our economy is booming. Melbourne’s outer west is poised to grow into an economic powerhouse, a regional hub of business activity and employment opportunity. It is out there and, as the member for Cranbourne will soon be able to tell us, it is down there in the south-east—in the hotspots of growth, scattered around Melbourne’s fringe—that these few developers have taken root, ready to take advantage and ready to greedily exploit an already profitable industry boom at the expense of consumers and their competitors alike.

BILLS 1400 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

Exploiting sunset clauses in their current form has become a standard practice for some—to delay the construction or completion of homes for vaguely unspecified reasons, sometimes for months and, if necessary, for years. Once enough time has lapsed for a sunset clause to take effect, they then use it to cancel the contract and to onsell the property at a much higher price. These are the stories that I have been told in my community. These are homes that Victorians have invested their futures in, homes they have poured their life savings into and homes they are waiting to move into, settle down and raise a family. This unfair practice cannot be allowed to go on. So many Victorians have put their trust into these developers promising the Australian dream of home ownership only to be left in limbo when betrayed and cast aside for extra money. In their current form sunset clauses have enabled this to happen—enabled developers to take the capital of hardworking people, like those in Tarneit. These are people putting everything they have into what they believe will be their future home. Developers can then go on to use this money to finance construction before handing it back without interest or returns. What is meant to be an investment in a family home can become instead a cheap source of finance for a developer—a developer who can then go on to sell the near-complete property for an even higher or a much higher price. Worse still are the few that cut out half of this exploitative process—rather than selling the property at an inflated price, they merely threaten to do so unless you pay the additional amount equivalent to the inflated price. We know that works just as well. This is exploitation in its most blatant form. Vulnerable Victorians are already facing the impact of stagnant wage growth and the rising cost of living. Off-the-plan housing has grown attractive because it can be affordable for our growing population of young or new Victorians. It is affordable for those struggling to enter the housing market who want a place to settle down and raise their family. They have bought with the long-term belief that their investment will grow as more development comes. Current remedies for this type of exploitation have been ineffective because, let us be honest, understanding contract law and the taking of legal action are beyond the means of most, and that is without having to consider the costs and the risks involved in doing so. But this bill is going to correct these issues. It will ensure equal contractual protection for both the purchasers and the developers who are already doing the right thing. I have sat across the kitchen tables in Tarneit with fathers worried sick about their family’s future because they received a letter, and in that letter they were told that the sunset clause in their contract had been activated. No real reason was given and, most importantly, there was no real ability to ever have those reasons checked by a higher authority. Those fathers were hardworking, honest Victorians. I recently sat down to inform them that we are going to change the law, we are going to close those loopholes and we are going to help provide better protection not only for families in Tarneit but across Victoria. We are going to get a higher authority to check these so-called reasons, and that higher authority is going to be the Supreme Court of Victoria. This was very much welcomed by these families. And then I had to sit there and explain to them that they would not be protected by the amendments in this bill, that what had happened to them had happened well before August and that there was very little we could do to go on and help them. They would have to go and pay for very expensive legal advice to take the matter further. These are good people of Tarneit, and I know they felt disappointed—I could feel it there at the table—but they responded to me with relief in knowing that no family in the future would have to experience the stress and the hardship and the heartbreak that they have gone through. I still to this day can only wish that I had been able to do more. This is not the only reason I stand to speak in support of this bill. I also speak to it because it will crack down on rent-to-buy schemes and term contracts and address the abhorrent predatory conduct that we have seen in recent times using these outdated alternative sources of finance. There are a lot of examples I can use across my community, but the Consumer Action Law Centre has done a report with plenty of case studies for those that are sceptical about this bill. There was a story about Nina, a

BILLS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1401 single mum of six children, and her family that got caught up in a rent-to-buy scheme. Having newly arrived from East Africa in 2005 and having separated from her husband, she was living in government housing, but she had started a childcare business at home and she had a little bit of an income. She came into contact with a company promising to design and build her home in exchange for a deposit and weekly payments, and at a meeting lasting less than 20 minutes she was told it would take 34 weeks to build and that in 34 weeks she and her six children would move into this house. Nina paid a $40 000 deposit to this company, which was the equivalent of her lifetime savings. Six months down the track she realised this property was never going to be built. She asked for her money back and of course the phone calls were never returned. Nina lost $57 000 on this scheme. These are prime examples of why this bill is important—to close these loopholes and to crack down on the dodgy use of sunset clauses, rent-to-buy schemes and term contracts. I commend this bill to the house. I know that it will make a difference for all Victorians and make a difference for the families across Tarneit. Mr CARBINES (Ivanhoe) (16:23): I am pleased to make a contribution on the Sale of Land Amendment Bill 2019. In particular, just to get into some of the details of the bill, we are going to see some changes to the legislation that in particular prevent developers from unfairly rescinding a signed residential off-the-plan contract under sunset clauses in order to take advantage of increased property prices that would otherwise benefit purchasers; address predatory conduct in the alternative housing finance sector by prohibiting unaffordable and high-risk term contracts from lower value residential property and rent-to-buy arrangements, with some exceptions; close the regulatory gap that has enabled unregulated and problematic land banking schemes to flourish; and of course strengthen the existing offence of fraudulently concealing material facts about a property for sale. Can I say in particular that these matters are particularly important for Victorians, for whom the purchase of property is perhaps the most significant purchase they will make in a lifetime and often it will take them most of their lifetime to pay it off. I think it is important. What we find happens, particularly for first-time buyers making these purchases, is that it is often the first experience that people have, and trying to get these things right in the first instance leaves people open to many risks and provides opportunities, I suppose, for disreputable people to take advantage of home purchasers. I think that in particular we need to make sure that in trying to strengthen the law in this area we are able to also provide consumers with greater information so that they are able to have those protections but also understand more effectively their rights and responsibilities. In the second-reading speech another aspect that was touched on by the minister was the amendments that the bill makes to the act to prohibit the sale of land through rent-to-buy arrangements. I quote some of the commentary that was made at the time by the minister: A rent-to-buy arrangement typically involves a residential tenancy agreement, allowing a person to occupy a residential property for a fee, and a sale option (or sale deed), which gives that person a right or option to buy the residential property at a specified—usually inflated—price, at a future point. Rent-to-buy arrangements present significant risks to consumers. For example, if during the rental period, a person defaults on the residential tenancy agreement … the landlord can potentially exercise their rights under the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 to terminate the lease, and as a result the rent-to-buy arrangement. Upon termination of the lease, the person will lose both their option to purchase and any fees paid under the sale option. … … the Government recognises that future models of rent-to-buy arrangements may be legitimate, and that these should not be prevented. However, a review also stated that:

… no evidence was provided of the successful use of rent-to-buy arrangements as a means of achieving home ownership. Rather, the review received substantial feedback that this type of arrangement is of no discernible benefit to consumers and causes significant financial and personal distress.

BILLS 1402 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

I know that that will be particularly welcomed by the many people who find themselves involved in such arrangements and find themselves with significant sanctions if payments are missed. I must say also that there have been some further reforms that have been outlined in relation to the legislation, including a prohibition on selling residential land—other than agricultural land—under a termed contract where the sale price of the land is less than the prescribed amount; and a prohibition on selling residential land under a rent-to-buy arrangement, with certain exceptions. I want to also touch particularly on the strengthening of the pre-sale disclosures. It is currently an offence under the Sale of Land Act 1962 for any person with the intention of inducing another person to buy land to fraudulently conceal material facts. The bill replaces the word ‘fraudulently’ in the offence with the word ‘knowingly’. It also provides for legislative guidelines to be prepared by the director of Consumer Affairs Victoria to clarify what a material fact is likely to be for the purposes of the offence. This change, of course, is going to be significant. I think it is also important to note in relation to a couple of those matters that this change recognises it should not be necessary to prove fraudulent intent when a person who is selling property conceals a fact that they should be aware is material to a person’s purchasing decision. I think what concerns people in the community is their capacity to access information and advice in relation to some of these matters. That is also strengthened in the bill to provide better arrangements for consumers. I think also in the industry and the sector there will be a better understanding of their rights and responsibilities. The bill provides that the amendments requiring vendors to obtain a purchaser’s consent to the rescission of a contract under a sunset clause are taken to have commenced on 23 August 2018. That is the day after the Sale of Land Amendment Bill 2018 was second-read in Parliament. That bill contained substantially the same prohibitions on the use of sunset clauses. Although that bill passed the Assembly on 20 September, it was not debated by the Council before the expiry of Parliament on 30 October 2018. Therefore it of course lapsed. There are some other matters that I think are important to put on the record. It is interesting hearing from some of my colleagues because, as the elected representative in Ivanhoe, I can say there is not a substantial number of new dwellings in established suburbs. Other than some new apartment developments, mostly homes are not on greenfield sites. We are not talking about substantial new venues or new properties. Some of my colleagues would probably see more instances of that happening. In terms of first home buyers there are also different sorts of numbers in electorates where there are more established suburbs closer to Melbourne and where prices mean that you are often dealing with people for whom a purchase is not necessarily their first—not exclusively, but certainly more often it is not. That is not to say that those who have gone through some of these processes more often have more understanding of what their rights and responsibilities are. We saw changes made by our government in the previous term in relation to auction processes. We have seen changes and reforms made by our government in relation to the rights and responsibilities of real estate agents and the way in which auctions are conducted and information is provided. That related to aspects surrounding dummy bids, appropriate amounts that properties could be sold for, what some reserve prices were and how they would be advertised. We have seen that very much being picked up in the media. We have seen prosecutions in relation to those matters right across Victoria— very significant prosecutions. This just demonstrates what the Andrews government has done around bringing greater accountability to real estate agents and providing better protections for consumers in relation to a range of land sale aspects, particularly around auctions and the sale of properties. That has generated significant public awareness, probably because it is something people have empathy with and an understanding of. We

BILLS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1403 have seen those matters in the prosecutions that have followed since that legislation was amended. In the previous Parliament we saw that get a lot of traction and provide greater understanding for not only consumers and homebuyers but also the real estate industry regarding their obligations and the sanctions that are possible when they are not across the details of making sure that they are providing, as much as possible, an equal playing field for those who are seeking to make what are some of the most significant financial decisions in their lives. I think the amendments that are put forward in this bill add further to the weight of changes that the government has brought to bear on this sector—changes that have provided greater safety and security for homebuyers and changes that have been acted on in a judicial sense and have brought greater accountability to a sector and an industry that by and large for most people has a lot of risk to it. There can be great outcomes for people, but I think we have seen significant improvements in the rights and responsibilities and protections for consumers. I am certain that these amendments add further to what have been some successful reforms by the Andrews government. Ms RICHARDS (Cranbourne) (16:33): Like the member for Tarneit, this is also my first contribution to a debate, and I am particularly delighted that it is the Sale of Land Amendment Bill 2019 that gives me this opportunity. I compliment the minister for the navigation that will implement the key outcomes of the public review of Victoria’s sale of land and business legislation. This is especially important to people in my community of Cranbourne, where there is a particular vulnerability to purchasing homes off the plan. Changes to sunset clauses under the Sale of Land Amendment Bill will mean developers can only exercise a sunset clause with written consent from the buyer or by an order of the Supreme Court. In preparation for this debate and being conscious that this legislation was navigating its way through this house, I discussed the bill with community leaders. It was with great relief that I heard many in the community commend the Andrews Labor government for taking such decisive action to make sure Victorians are protected from being ripped off by dodgy practices. As I rise to speak on this debate I also reflect, as I mentioned earlier, that just on Monday evening I had the opportunity to attend a local citizenship ceremony in my community. As you can tell in this chamber, it was something that I enjoyed very much, as I always do. Hundreds of people every month are choosing to make Cranbourne home and many of them have made this choice having come from other countries. Every time I get a chance to speak about my electorate I cannot help talking about how lucky I am to live in a place where so many people have made such a big decision. To become a citizen of Australia is a wise choice. To be a citizen of Victoria is an even cleverer one. People make their homes here. They are raising their families here. They make a leap of faith. I never tire of hearing about people’s leaps of faith. As each person comes to receive their certificate I get the chance to give them a new tree, a symbol of their decision to lay down roots in Cranbourne or the south-eastern area. Many of them offer, in just a few minutes, a chance to explain why they are so happy to be here; the presentation of these indigenous plants usually starts this exchange. People often talk about the chance to enjoy our democracy, our commitment to fairness and equality, and of course the people in our community want a chance to buy a home. Maybe it is the shine of being a newly elected member of Parliament, but everyone’s story is fascinating. I think they are fascinating to everyone on this side of the chamber. I love the optimism and hope of the people who live in Cranbourne. It is especially potent in the new estates, and some people are buying properties off the plan. Many hundreds of people are moving into our community every week, and frequently I find myself walking along a road with 10 new houses and another 20 under construction. This particularly lovely sight is common around Cranbourne West and Clyde North most particularly. Of course my community is known to be part of one of the great growth corridors of our state, just like the member for Tarneit’s seat. I welcome the people who have newly arrived to this country and I welcome their optimism, but of course some people would consider them to be vulnerable or

BILLS 1404 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019 unsophisticated in their approach to purchasing land. They are not unsophisticated, but at times they are vulnerable. It is a theme of many people I meet at citizenship ceremonies and at listening posts and other activities out and about that people who are making their home here are living and having to negotiate in English. I live in Lyndhurst, and we have a street of display homes that my children call the Truman Show just around the corner. Just like the movie, it shows an idealized world of beautiful homes, soft, green grass, and when we walk past you can look in and see the sparkling tables set for a make-believe life. I love walking down this road, particularly because I get to see these families, many of them young, wandering around and planning for their new lives in the south-east of Melbourne. As the law currently stands, the many members of the community who have bought off-the-plan properties like these people are purchasing have been vulnerable to provisions that give vendors the right to end contracts under sunset clauses. This bill will amend the Sale of Land Act 1965 to prevent vendors from ending residential off-the-plan contracts without the purchaser’s consent or that onerous alternative of having to get express permission. I understand that the state does not normally interfere in private contractual relationships and the purchaser would normally be required to take their own legal action when a vendor or developer behaves in a way that is unfair. Of course this is an onerous expectation for most people. As the member for Clarinda articulated with such great insight yesterday, this can be particularly onerous for people who speak languages other than English, but there is an identified need to step in to prevent the misuse of these contractual sunset clauses. I enthusiastically welcome the Sale of Land Amendment Bill 2019, recognising it replicates the Sale of Land Amendment Bill 2018. People have been heartbroken to see their contracts terminated only to later see their property offered for sale at higher prices. Heartbreaking and sometimes confusing, people who have recently arrived often find this a difficult task to overcome. That is why I am so particularly pleased with this new legislation. As I will continue to remind people, this bill seeks to rectify this injustice by preventing vendors from terminating contracts. Of course confidence in our property market is important, and this legislative solution is typical of a Labor government. We are ensuring an equitable approach so that many people can take that first step to owning their own home. This is so important for people who otherwise would need to have fulsome access to legal advice to buy into their dream. This legislation is particularly welcomed where some developers—only some of course—appear to have deliberately delayed the construction of their projects. This is possibly done to take advantage of rising property prices, and again it preys on the vulnerable. I also welcome amendments that address community concerns regarding the possibility that there has been a fraudulent concealing of misleading facts. By replacing the word ‘fraudulently’ with ‘knowingly’ this bill encourages estate agents to do their due diligence when selling a property. There have been publicised cases of people buying properties that have previously been used as meth laboratories. Home buyers are entitled to know and actually avoid a personal housing crisis that could come about from purchasing a home that could eventually even cause housing stress if it meant that they had to rectify the house. There can be significant costs and extraordinary stress on families. Again these changes are in line with the Andrews Labor government taking action to support hardworking families as they make their dreams a reality. This legislation is an important way to redress the imbalance that comes from very wealthy landowners preying on hopeful, hardworking people as they make this, their most significant purchase. The Cranbourne RSL once again did a terrific job of commemorating Anzac Day this year and bringing people together from across the area—the very young, the very old, a few of us in the middle, people who have recently arrived, people who have recently served and people who have recently been elected. I look forward to contacting the president of the Cranbourne RSL and letting him know that there is now going to be strong legislation in place that further protects the sacredness of this special day by prohibiting public auctions before 1.00 p.m. on Anzac Day. These and other

BILLS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1405 amendments encompassing all of this legislation redress an imbalance that might be detrimental to purchasers that people might consider unsophisticated. I think that the members for Macedon and Tarneit spoke with great passion about the communities that are represented in their districts, and I see many similarities with people in my community. Hardworking people, nurses, people who serve us in shops, hairdressers, people who make the food that we find delicious, all of these people deserve the joy of a dream that they have held for a long time, a dream that is part of their hopes for the future. I am so pleased that the sun is setting on some of these dodgy practices. As I walk down those roads in Cranbourne West and Clyde North, I will be pleased to know that there are protections in place so that with those new homes that are being purchased off the plan, the new homes that really do make up those aspirations for the future, the people who are making those purchases will be protected. This is the sort of legislation that the Andrews Labor government is known for: the redressing of imbalances that often occur. Ms HALL (Footscray) (16:42): I am thrilled to be speaking on this bill today. With so many members—our colleagues from the opposite side of this place—clearly so interested in restoring fairness for consumers, it is great to see such strong representation from the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Greens in the chamber. I rise today because in Footscray we know all too well the housing pressures that come with a growing population and the struggle there is for young home buyers in particular to save up a deposit and to get into the housing market, and the Sale of Land Amendment Bill 2019 is another outstanding reform from this Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation. I commend her and the Andrews Labor government, which I am so proud to be a member of, for this additional protection for consumers when they are making what is often the largest financial decision of their lives. I know these measures will deliver real protections to the young people of Footscray. Footscray is a young electorate; the median age of residents in Footscray is 33. Many of my colleagues previously have spoken about their representation of areas that are growth corridors in Melbourne on Melbourne’s fringe. Footscray is obviously an inner-city electorate but one that is also a growth area. We expect that Footscray’s population is going to grow by 140 per cent in the next two decades, and young people are flocking to Footscray. They are coming for a number of reasons. It is one of Melbourne’s most exciting and creative and diverse communities, and instead of growing out we are growing up. We have thousands and thousands of apartments coming online, and these measures will deliver protections for people who are buying apartments off the plan in Footscray. So many of the people in my electorate are first-time buyers. I was one of those people, not so long ago, looking to enter the housing market for the first time. Footscray unfortunately is becoming increasingly challenging to buy a home in because property prices have been rising rapidly. It is now not uncommon for a house in Footscray to cost over $1 million. The factories that once were on our streets and in our neighbourhoods are being transformed into thousands of apartments. Unfortunately the former planning minister, the member for Bulleen—I wish he was in the chamber right now—had a terrible impact on Footscray when he approved thousands and thousands of apartments— Ms Ward: All along the river. Ms HALL: All along the river—some of them look like they are about to fall into the river. It was a gross overdevelopment of Footscray— Ms Ward: Such a beautiful stretch of the river.

BILLS 1406 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

Ms HALL: A glorious stretch of the Maribyrnong River, known as the Joseph Road precinct. Unfortunately some of those developments have stalled. They have not gotten off the ground or they are half-finished. There are no developer contributions because the former minister did not require the developers to provide any contributions to council, so the community infrastructure has not been built either. We are left with this great planning mess in Footscray. Mr Angus: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I think the member started quite well but she has now strayed well off the bill, and I ask you to bring her back to the bill. Mr J Bull: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, I am listening quite closely to the member for Footscray, who was talking about planning and housing, specifically related to the Sale of Land Amendment Bill. The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Kilkenny): There is no point of order. I ask the member to come back to the bill. Ms HALL: Actually my point was that a lot of these developments that the former planning minister approved in Footscray have been left unfinished or they have not actually proceeded at all, so we have vacant blocks of land that have just become a mess and a burden to the community where people have been buying properties off the plan. This is what this bill relates to. In the electorate of Footscray people are not buying houses in the way that some of my colleagues in the growth corridors are. They are buying apartments, and many of those apartments were approved under the former planning minister. A lot of those people are now dealing, unfortunately, with unscrupulous developers who were allowed to let rip and do whatever they wanted in Footscray. Purchasing your own home where the pressures are significant is a daunting prospect. It is not just cost that is a significant pressure for people, it is uncertainty, especially when you are buying off the plan. You buy a bicycle that costs $1000 and you are going to know every single thing about that bicycle, but you spend every cent that you are ever going to have and every cent that you have saved up on a deposit on a property off the plan and there are all these unknowns. If you sign a contract for a property, you should be able to rest assured that it is yours, along with any increase in the value that arises as the property is being developed. You should not have to worry about unscrupulous developers delaying construction because they think they can get a higher price for it. This means that despite having paid a deposit, which can take years of careful saving and sacrificing, buyers currently can lose any increase in the property’s value and are repaid only their deposit. They then have to find a new property to buy, which might have also significantly increased in price. I cannot emphasise enough how heartbreaking it is for people in this position, who through no fault of their own are being taken for a ride by dodgy developers. What does this bill do? The Sale of Land Amendment Bill 2019 will make amendments to stop developers from unfairly rescinding signed off-the-plan contracts under sunset clauses, taking advantage of increased property prices that would otherwise benefit purchasers, and Footscray is a prime area for this to happen with all of its apartment developments and increasing property prices. It addresses predatory conduct in the alternative housing finance sector by prohibiting unaffordable and high-risk rent-to-buy schemes. It closes the regulatory gap that has enabled unregulated and problematic land banking schemes—another problem in Footscray—and it strengthens the existing offence of fraudulently concealing material facts about a property for sale with the intention of inducing another person to buy that property. And it will restrict public auctions of land from being conducted before 1 o’clock on Anzac Day. I have spoken to many people in my electorate who have told me about how uncertainty has affected their own plans, passing on nice properties that are within their budget because they cannot be sure that the property really will be theirs. Labor will always fight to protect these consumers when the market forces fail. It seems like these numerous developments in Footscray that have been half-built are a concern to a lot of these residents.

BILLS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1407

Developers who do the right thing of course have nothing to worry about from these reforms, and to be clear the majority of developers do do the right thing. But for the minority who do not, this bill will go some way to preventing them from taking advantage of increases in property values to the detriment of honest, hardworking buyers. This bill will not prevent developers from including sunset clauses in their contracts, but it will prevent them from abusing them. Sunset clauses are not the only dodgy real estate practice we are clamping down on. Rent-to-buy arrangements are often deliberately targeted at lower income earners or prospective property buyers unable to get mainstream finance. These were examined as part of the consumer property law review, and no evidence was presented to show that these arrangements result in successful home ownership. It is not unusual for purchasers under these contracts to be unable to afford the high ongoing rental and options payments, and they are often forced to move out of the property either on their own terms or through eviction. Rent-to-buy schemes are not inherently immoral and neither are sunset clauses, but the ways in which they are currently being applied to hopeful and prospective homebuyers are immoral. Mr J BULL (Sunbury) (16:53): I am very pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to debate on the Sale of Land Amendment Bill 2019. I think the previous speaker, the member for Footscray, raised some very important points in her contribution, significantly around planning and around housing, and this bill goes a long way, I do believe, to making the system fairer for those getting into the housing market. I also had the opportunity to hear the important contributions from the members for Cranbourne and Tarneit. I do believe in their contributions they mentioned that this was the first time they had had an opportunity to speak on bills in this house. Just listening to those very important contributions it is clear that they are very much champions of their local communities, even in the early stages of our second term in government. I was reflecting on those speeches and thinking how impressive they were, certainly in comparison to my first bill speech. This bill will be well supported in my community and I believe right across the state. Primarily this bill is about fairness, and this government stands for fairness no matter your background, no matter your faith and no matter your ethnicity. This government understands how hard Victorians work and how hard Victorians strive to support their families to live a healthy, productive life in the local community. As so many members have mentioned this afternoon, this state is of course growing at a rapid rate, and why wouldn’t it be. There are so many good reasons to come to this terrific state of Victoria. There are new jobs—exciting jobs— and an incredible record of infrastructure like the big projects as part of our big, bold agenda such as removing level crossings, the Melbourne Metro project, the West Gate Tunnel, the north-east link and the airport rail link. These huge, innovative, exciting projects are going to make a significant difference to this state. I thank the member for Frankston for his assistance and for his incredibly hard work in his community. Look, the list goes on. We heard earlier today in question time some information about the Solar Homes package, an important package that is going to make a significant difference to Victorians right across the state. This bill does so much for those buying new properties. Speaking about growth, we know what an extraordinary amount of projects are in the pipeline, and these—including this being a terrific arts, culture and major events capital of the nation—are reasons why people are coming to Victoria each and every day. They are coming to communities like mine, to growth corridor communities, in Sunbury but also places like Cranbourne and Tarneit. These are new communities that are growing very, very quickly. This bill—and I know the member for Forest Hill is very determined to glean some more information on this bill—is fundamentally important for those communities, for growth corridor communities, because it enhances a range of protections that apply to buying a first home. I listened to the member for Ivanhoe in his contribution, and he did discuss that really important and significant decision of buying a home. It is an incredibly important financial decision for individuals, for couples and for families. In many respects buying a home is the biggest financial investment people

BILLS 1408 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019 will make in their lives, and it is incredibly important that there are safeguards and a range of measures that protect these buyers. Many Victorians, whether they are born here, whether they come here from another state or whether they come here from overseas expect and deserve these safeguards and this surety when looking at the housing market. It is why today’s bill is so important and why I wholeheartedly support this bill. Currently there exist a set of rules and a set of circumstances that in many respects put the buyer last, certainly in some electorates, whether they be my electorate of Sunbury or electorates like Yuroke—I can see the member for Yuroke over there listening intently— Yan Yean, Cranbourne, Tarneit or Melton. These are a significant growth corridors, and this is why this bill is incredibly important. As we have heard this afternoon the Sale of Land Act 1962 will be amended to prevent developers from unfairly rescinding signed residential, off-the-plan contracts under sunset clauses in order to take advantage of increased property prices that would otherwise benefit purchasers. The bill will also address predatory conduct in the alternative housing finance sector by prohibiting unaffordable and high-risk terms contracts for lower value residential property and rent-to-buy arrangements, closing the regulatory gap that has enabled unregulated and problematic land banking schemes to flourish, strengthening the existing offence of fraudulently concealing material facts about a property for sale with the intention of inducing another person to buy that property and restricting public auctions of land from being conducted before 1.00 p.m. on Anzac Day, an important provision that I think is well supported right across the state. Off-the-plan contracts, as you would well be aware, commonly include a clause enabling the vendor to terminate or end the contract if the plan of subdivision for the relevant development has not been registered by a specified date. These matters have received a great deal of press in recent times and have certainly been raised with me as the local member. Some contractors may also allow a purchaser to end the contract if the plan has not been registered by a specific date, and this is also of note. The bill will amend the Sale of Land Act 1962 to prevent vendors from ending a residential off-the-plan contract pursuant to a sunset clause without the purchaser’s consent, or alternatively express permission will be required of the Supreme Court. The term ‘sunset clause’ is defined to be a clause that enables rescission of an off-the-plan contract if either the relevant plan of subdivision is not registered by a specific date or an occupancy permit has not been issued in respect of the lot by a specific date. Disappointingly, some developers appear to have deliberately in the past delayed the construction of these projects, and this is simply not fair and not right. This is an important change, a change that, as I mentioned earlier in my contribution, I think will be supported in my community and right across the state. As the member for Footscray mentioned in her contribution—and it is my belief—the majority of those within the industry are striving to do the right thing, but where this bill is fundamentally important is in providing those safeguards for those that are buying off the plan, in making sure that the rug is not pulled out from under them and in making sure that there is certainty and security and an opportunity for those who are very determined and very passionate about becoming home owners, which is a very important process in someone’s life. As I mentioned earlier, it is a significant financial decision and a very important step for individuals, for couples and for families. This bill goes to the heart of fairness in this state, of protections, of safeguards and of making sure that the government is providing policy settings that close down on dodgy developers and land bankers, making sure that those that are taking the significant leap of faith to buy off the plan have that very important safeguard in place. It would be a very frightening and worrying scenario to be faced with this situation, and I do believe that this is a very important piece of legislation, because it gives people the opportunity to put fairness back into the industry. I commend the bill to the house. Ms HALFPENNY (Thomastown) (17:03): I am very pleased to be standing here talking yet again on this bill, the Sale of Land Amendment Bill 2019. When I say ‘yet again’, of course a very similar piece of legislation was debated in the last Parliament, the 58th Parliament, in September 2018, but

BILLS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1409 because of the filibustering, the delay tactics and the general contrariness of the opposition in the upper house this piece of legislation was not able to be passed in the last term. This of course was to the very great disappointment and distress of many home purchasers who were affected by some of the provisions in this bill that we are trying now to rectify to give consumers a little bit more power in the negotiations and to stop vendors using the sunset clause to disadvantage land purchasers and basically take their land back and sell it for a higher price. Since 2014 the seat of Thomastown has changed considerably. The redistribution has meant that the seat, originally a very well established older area suburb has now become a suburb within the growth boundaries. It has pretty much geographically doubled in size and the number of people who are moving into the newer areas that are now part of the Thomastown electorate is very high. They of course are buying newly subdivided land on which to build their homes, and in many cases it is first home buyers—young people who, finally, after so much sacrifice and effort have managed to scrape together the deposit for a home and have purchased a land and home package or land for them to build their own home on. There are also of course a lot of residents that have moved from overseas having migrated to Australia and chosen, I am very pleased to say, the electorate of Thomastown in which to make their home in Australia. They also have been affected by vendors’ immoral use of the sunset clause. We have also had a number of people that originally migrated to Sydney and were living in Sydney but then moved to Melbourne looking to buy house and land packages in the outer northern suburbs, in the seat of Thomastown. So in terms of how these people have been affected by the use by vendors of the sunset clause, which this legislation is attempting to remove along with some other changes, it has really caused considerable grief to people. For example, we have had people moving from Sydney specifically to live in the Wollert and north Epping area so that they can attend Al Siraat College, which is in the area, only to find out that they can no longer afford the land even though they thought they had bought land and were ready to build a house. In saying that, I will now try to give a bit of an explanation of this legislation and also then go into some of the issues that this legislation addresses. As I said, it is very similar legislation to that introduced in the last Parliament. I think the second- reading speech is very concise and explains very well the practices around the sunset clause that this legislation is attempting to stop. Under the current system, prior to this legislation becoming law, a purchaser under an off-the-plan contract has a statutory right to rescind the contract if the lot that they have bought is not registered within 18 months of the contract being entered into. The act does not expressly give the vendor the same right—that is, to end or rescind the contract if the purchase has not been finalised within 18 months or a specific period. It does not expressly say they cannot do it, but what vendors have been doing and what the legislation does not stop them from doing is actually writing a sunset clause into the contract, and this is not prohibited by any legislation. They write their own sunset clause into the contract whereby the vendor is able to rescind the contract and return the deposit on the land that has been paid by the purchaser, and therefore the contract is finished. This was happening because vendors were finding that, within a 12 to 18-month period because of the hugely increasing land and home prices in Melbourne, they were able to make a profit out of people. They would take the deposit from the purchaser, use that money to purchase further land to sell at a later date and then within a 12 or 18-month period before the contract was registered and building started they could then advise the purchaser that they would rescind the contract, give the deposit back to the purchaser, which they had really been able to use interest free, and then sell the land to another purchaser with maybe a 20 per cent increase in the value of that piece of land or property thereby making an extra or double profit in the process. This legislation will prohibit that; it will stop the use of the sunset clause by vendors and in fact the legislation will now say that only if the purchaser agrees with the vendor to rescind the contract, and it is a mutual agreement to rescind the contract, it can happen. Other than that the vendor will have to go to the Supreme Court or through the legal system to prove that there was a very good reason why the contract needed to be rescinded.

BILLS 1410 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

I think there are going to be a lot of very happy people in the Thomastown electorate, because hopefully there is greater confidence that this legislation will pass the upper house. That is where the last bill was blocked and left to wither and die, and people did not receive the protection that they really needed and should have had, because it was such an unfair system. We had many members of the community writing to me and telling me the most awful and saddest stories about what had happened to them. The biggest purchase in their lives—in all of our lives really—is a house. We go to great, painstaking effort and worry about where we want to live and make sure that it is a place that we like. Then this happened to them and they were not to be able to buy land in the area because it was far too expensive 12 months later. I suppose I should particularly thank Mr Rana Shahid, who was very active in organising people to see me and to talk about the issues and also to raise the problem. He is a very selfless person. Of course this legislation will not help him—he was affected but he did not want to see other people have the same problem into the future. The other thing I would like to talk about just quickly, the other amendment that is contained in this legislation, is some wording changes. At the moment a vendor is not able to fraudulently conceal material facts from a purchaser or a potential purchaser. This bill will change the wording so it says you cannot knowingly conceal material facts. I think all of us can see the difference between fraudulently concealing and knowingly concealing. Fraudulently of course is to hide in such a way that you are hiding what that issue is, whereas we are going to strengthen this for consumers to say that it is ‘knowingly conceal’, which just means that you have to disclose if there is an issue with a property that may affect the decision of a purchaser in terms of buying the property. A good example of course is the cladding. As I understand it, there will be stakeholder consultation about what a material fact is, but it could well be, for example, that cladding is considered a material fact in relation to whether it needs to be disclosed or not when a property is being purchased. Just quickly in the few minutes I have got left, there is of course a bit more protection for Anzac Day so that people can no longer do auctions on Anzac Day before 1.00 p.m., and there will be strong penalties. Of course it is important to preserve the memory of Anzac Day. I am going to talk a little bit further about that and a recent— (Time expired) Ms ADDISON (Wendouree) (17:13): I am proud to stand in support of the Sale of Land Amendment Bill 2019, and I thank the minister for her work on this issue. Like my good friends the member for Tarneit and the member for Cranbourne, this is the first bill that I am speaking on in this place, and I welcome the opportunity to participate in this important debate. I am pleased that the heart of this bill reflects the values of the Andrews Labor government: a commitment to fairness for all Victorians. The package of reforms being proposed will have positive effects for many members of my community across Ballarat in the district of Wendouree as well as the whole state. I welcome the growth of new housing developments and estates in Ballarat, particularly in the west of the Wendouree electorate. Many are first home buyers, young families and new residents to Ballarat. They are investing their life savings and living the Australian dream, building their new home and their future. It is such an exciting time. When I was younger my brother and his wife bought land in Point Cook and I remember the excitement of all the family that they were going to be building their new home and their future. Watching these communities emerge and flourish is great for our local community. What we want to do as a government is we want to ensure that there are protections in place so that the contracts buyers enter into are fair and transparent. The changes being introduced with this bill will strengthen protections for consumers in the property market and stamp out any deceptive and misleading behaviour. The aims of this bill are very, very clear. We are introducing significant changes for vendors, developers and purchasers as a result of the outcomes of the consumer property law review’s examination of the Land Act 1962. This bill is about making things fair, with better protection for consumers, by addressing predatory behaviours in the alternative housing finance sector,

BILLS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1411 prohibiting certain terms in contracts and rent-to-buy arrangements and cracking down on dodgy operators. This package of reform addresses loopholes in the form of sunset clauses that have previously been exploited by some developers, and by that I certainly am not referring to all developers, just some developers. This bill will strengthen the existing requirements for vendors or real estate agents to disclose material facts about a property and will prohibit auctions on Anzac Day before 1.00 p.m., in line with community standards and expectations. This bill will bring about significant change for our community. I am pleased that sunset clauses must be exercised in accordance with this new bill. This bill will mean that property developers in Victoria will no longer be able to invoke sunset clauses to delay construction. Imagine the frustration of wanting to start building your new home and unscrupulous operators delaying construction by invoking sunset clauses. Changes under the Sale of Land Amendment Bill 2019 will mean developers will need written consent from the buyer or an order of the Supreme Court of Victoria to exercise sunset clauses. These changes have been made to stop developers from potentially exploiting the clauses to delay construction of their projects in order to terminate signed contracts of sale and then resell the properties at higher prices, because we know that is not fair. This will provide better protection for purchasers by giving power to the purchaser, because vendors will no longer be able to terminate signed contracts pursuant to a sunset clause without the purchaser’s written consent or an order of the Supreme Court, as I previously mentioned, thus creating an incentive for developers to complete their project. So it is very, very clear the days of misusing sunset clauses to increase profits are over. The changes being put forward in this bill are in line with similar reforms introduced to New South Wales a few years ago. I am confident that these changes will deliver positive outcomes for Victorians like we have witnessed in New South Wales. As a result, these changes will give confidence and comfort, and comfort is very important to new residential off-the-plan purchasers into the future, but we will look after people who have already entered into contracts by backdating this legislation and the new laws to 23 August 2018, the day the bill was to apply from if it had been passed by the 58th Parliament. I am also very pleased that this bill will prohibit certain terms, contracts and rent-to-buy arrangements. We will put a prohibition on selling residential land under a rent-to-buy arrangement, and I do note there are certain exemptions. But the reason we are making this change is that rent-to-buy arrangements have been sold by finance brokers as financial solutions to people who have often been unable to access mainstream credit. Some people who have signed up for these rent-to-buy arrangements have been desperate to enter the property market, and they believed that this was going to be their way of achieving home ownership. However, sadly this was not always the case. Instead these people have suffered. They have suffered significant loss and they have suffered personal distress as a result of these rent-to-buy transactions. Sadly, their dream of achieving home ownership rarely occurs. The winners in these transactions tend to be financial brokers, and the losers are renters seeking to be buyers. This issue is particularly significant to me, as many of these deals are in lower value housing in regional and remote areas. As a regional MP I want to ensure these arrangements, with their negative outcomes, are ceased and that my community members are protected. This bill will also make it important to provide adequate information about a property. This bill will strengthen the existing requirement for vendors and real estate agents to disclose what we call material facts about the property. It is currently an offence for any person, as my colleague from Cranbourne explained, to fraudulently conceal misleading facts to induce another person to buy land, but we believe that this is not adequate, and that is why we are making the changes. We will make it an offence to knowingly conceal. Therefore you will find that this bill replaces the word ‘fraudulently’ with ‘knowingly’, a very important change because we believe that buyers have a right to know the material facts about a property’s past—for example, if it has been the site of a clandestine drug laboratory or the site of a homicide. This is about improving consumer protections and restoring balance so that

BILLS 1412 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019 hardworking families can enter the property market with confidence. It is more than reasonable to expect a high level of transparency when making a purchase, and that is what this bill will ensure. This bill will also protect the sacredness of Anzac Day. Anzac Day is our most solemn national day of remembrance. As a history teacher before entering this place, I am passionate about our national story and identity and ensuring that the younger generations have a strong understanding of Anzac Day. Anzac Day must be a day to honour our past and present service men and women. It is a special day for our community, and evidence of this strong support can be seen in the high numbers of people attending Anzac Day dawn services, wreath-laying services, marches and commemorative services. It is a day for Australia to reflect on the sacrifice of our diggers, not only at the beaches of Gallipoli in 1915 but in all conflicts and peacekeeping tours since. The last time Anzac Day fell on a Saturday was in 2015, and figures show that 18 auctions were held that day. Interestingly Anzac Day will fall on a Saturday next year, and we are going to ensure that there will be no auctions next year on Anzac Day, 25 April, before 1.00 p.m. This bill will come into effect, and we will make sure that what happened the last time Anzac Day fell on a Saturday will not happen again. I believe that this is appropriate, and I am very proud that this bill is addressing this. In conclusion, the Andrews Labor government once again is protecting Victorians by supporting those buying property off the plan from delaying tactics used by some property developers to rip people off. Property developers will no longer be able to invoke sunset clauses to delay construction. We are increasing further protections by strengthening existing requirements for vendors and real estate agents to disclose facts about the property, and we will stop auctions on Anzac Day. Mr CHEESEMAN (South Barwon) (17:23): It is with some pride that I rise tonight to speak on this bill. Property ownership is something that most families aspire to, and of course there are many challenges that first home buyers particularly face in accessing the property market. My community, the South Barwon community of course, is a very substantial growth corridor. We have a new suburb that literally did not exist four or five years ago called Armstrong Creek. I was reflecting a little bit earlier with my friend the member for Lara in terms of some of the property developers that have been developing property in and around the broader Geelong area for a number of years, and very pleasingly the developers within our communities actually have a very good reputation for the way in which they conduct themselves and the way in which they sell property to and develop it for consumers in the Geelong region. But of course, as we all know, there are from time to time some rotten eggs in the basket. There are from time to time, like in any other industry, a number of developers who in fact do the wrong thing by their consumers in order to make some additional profits. This bill sets out a number of changes which will make it much easier and much fairer for people who aspire to and seek to buy property. These particular arrangements go to restrict the use of sunset clauses in certain off-the-plan contracts. Of course it is unfortunate, but from time to time developers seek to unnecessarily delay the release of land in order to see a sunset provision triggered so that they can make some additional money, particularly when we have a rising market, when land is appreciating at the rate that it has been. As we all know, the Andrews Labor government has been delivering a very strong economy which has seen our wages increase and which has seen more jobs created, but it has also seen property prices increase. Further, though, this bill prohibits the use of certain types of contracts, particularly in terms of rent-to- buy arrangements. These arrangements can be very exploitative. They can set in motion certain arrangements that are rather unfair for consumers who wish to buy property and to live the Australian dream of having a home. This bill further goes to regulate money paid in relation to options to purchase land in land banking schemes. Particularly for those members of this Parliament who represent the growth corridors of the outer south-east, the western suburbs of Melbourne, the northern suburbs of Melbourne and areas like Geelong and the Surf Coast, these arrangements are important, because we know it has been a long- time practice for people to speculate and to acquire land—to land bank—with the express purpose of

BILLS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1413 in future years seeing the zoning and the arrangements that underpin that land change, making some people exceptionally wealthy. I was listening intently to the contribution made by the member for Wendouree earlier. She spoke very passionately about Anzac Day. For various reasons which are hard to understand auctions have been allowed to be conducted on Anzac Day. We have just had our Anzac Day services last week. I find it extraordinary that non-essential business transactions are allowed to take place, particularly auctions of property, on Anzac Day. I find it extraordinary that those have been allowed to take place. This bill also amends the Estate Agents Act 1980 in respect of payments made from the Victorian Property Fund, and I think that is very, very important. For us to have a modern set of arrangements around the sale of land, I think it is important that these provisions within this bill are passed, because the single largest financial transaction that most of us will undertake in our private lives will be to purchase property. It is the single largest thing that we all do and we all seek to do. I hope that the Liberal Party and the National Party support these arrangements so that we see the rights of consumers put at the heart of the sale of land, because as I said, it is the single largest thing that we will do as individuals—to buy and establish our own homes. I mentioned a private conversation that I had with the member for Lara a little earlier. We have in the Geelong region some fantastic developers, who are very respectful of building new communities that have plenty of open parkland, with a real sense that their development, the arrangements that they put in place, will see a livable and sustainable community. I am pleased to have worked closely with my Geelong Labor colleagues over many years and with those developers in funding and assisting those developments to make sure that the developer contributions that are made are invested back into those communities to deliver sustainable and enjoyable communities. I am pleased and will continue to work very closely with those developers because of the ethical approach that they, by and large, have taken. As I said, within any industry there are always examples where people have not conducted themselves appropriately, and the role of the state is to set in place a statute book that will protect our citizens from shonky behaviour. These provisions within this bill set out to achieve that. I hope that the Liberal Party and the National Party will support these arrangements. I know that of course the Liberal Party and National Party have been historically addicted to the contributions made by various developers. (Time expired) Mr EREN (Lara) (17:33): I am also delighted, like the member for South Barwon, to be speaking on a bill which actually improves the lives of people in Victoria, obviously in terms of protecting those consumers, as the member for South Barwon indicated, when they are making the most important decision of their lives—to actually purchase property, which costs them hundreds of thousands of dollars. Of course we on this side of the house know that consumers need to be protected, and that is why we have this bill before the house. Again, I commend the government on making sure that we have bills such as this come through the house to protect consumers, but also in relation to making some changes to the law in relation to Anzac Day, which I will get to very soon. As the former Minister for Veterans, this is a bit of a soft spot for me, and it is an absolute honour and a privilege to be able to speak on this very important bill before the house today. There are a number of things in this bill and I would like to go through them if I can. There is some technical terminology that is related to the Sale of Land Act 1962. This amends the Sale of Land Act 1962 to restrict the use of sunset clauses in certain off-the-plan contracts. As we know, there are lots of people with different intentions and some developers are better than others; certainly there are some developers that want to take full advantage of consumers, and we have got to protect those consumers. So the sunset clauses in certain off-the-plan contracts will go a long way in making sure that we protect the consumer.

BILLS 1414 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

The bill will also prohibit the use of certain types of terms, contracts and rent-to-buy arrangements. It will regulate money paid in relation to options to purchase in land banking schemes. It will strengthen the existing offence for fraudulently concealing material facts about a property for sale. It will make a number of consequential and minor amendments. And of course this bill will see amendments to the ANZAC Day Act 1958 to restrict public auctions before 1.00 p.m. on Anzac Day. It also amends the Estate Agents Act 1980 to permit the costs incurred by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, or VCAT as we know it, in fulfilling its function under the act to be met from the Victorian Property Fund. With those amendments to the sunset clauses, I just need to go through this so that I put on the record why we are making these changes and why they are so important to protect consumers, particularly Victorians. As we know, we pride ourselves on being a state that has had a huge influx of people. There are a number of reasons for that. One of those reasons is that we are the strongest economy in the nation, with jobs growth going through the roof and unemployment rates that are much lower than they were when we took office from the coalition in 2014. That means that we are an attractive place to live, work and raise your family and, of course, to buy a house or an apartment. Apartments, whether they are in Melbourne or not, and houses, whether they are in regional or rural Victoria or not, are being bought. In some instances they are being bought off the plan. And, of course, we need to make sure that we protect the purchasers. And why wouldn’t you live in Victoria? I remember back in the 1990s, when Jeff Kennett was in power, there were people leaving the state in droves, because there were no jobs—there was no future for people. The economy was very slow and so the population was actually shrinking rather than growing. That has certainly changed since we have been in government. We were in government from 1999 to 2010, and then there was a bit of a lapse in the economy, between 2010 and 2014, and now it is raring to go again. Population growth means that we are seeing huge numbers of people moving into, particularly, regional Victoria. We have provided some incentives. The first home owners grant, for example—we have increased that amount. The stamp duty on homes—we have reduced that amount for homes under $650 000. Of course all of these things mean that people have more incentive to purchase properties, not only in Melbourne but also across the state. That is why we need to make some changes to legislation to protect those people who are moving for the first time into Victoria from other states or other jurisdictions in Australia, or indeed from across the other side of the world, and of course those young people who were born here and are now looking to purchase their own property. They may be single or they may be married, but they want to purchase a property. We have to make sure that they do not get their fingers burnt because some developer has done the wrong thing in relation to an off-the-plan purchase. The bill amends the act to require a vendor to seek the purchaser’s permission to rescind off-the-plan contracts under a sunset clause. Where the purchaser does not agree, the vendor may seek an order from the Supreme Court permitting rescission of a contract in certain circumstances. And the bill provides transitional arrangements for sunset clauses in existing off-the-plan contracts. One of the changes that is made by this bill of course is to the way real estate agents do business on Anzac Day. As the member for Wendouree earlier indicated, Anzac Day will fall on a Saturday next year—25 April is a Saturday—and of course we know that is the industry day when there are lots of auctions and sales of property. Property sales are going through the roof because the population is going through the roof, but we need to be mindful of those people. Being the former Minister for Sport, Minister for Tourism and Major Events and of course, importantly, Minister for Veterans, I can say that we are the sporting capital, we are the major events capital, we are the tech capital and we are the jobs capital, but we are all these things because of the service that was provided by the ex-service men and women who fought for our country and our state, and we should never forget that.

BILLS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1415

We should never forget the sacrifices that were made by the veterans in our history, because the life we enjoy today is a direct consequence of the sacrifices that were made by those veterans of years gone past. Of course we should never, never forget. Even the Greens party are now going to veterans events, which I am very happy about. I noticed a number of Greens MPs going to veterans events which traditionally they did not attend. It is not about glorifying war; it is about respecting those people that sacrificed so much. You can imagine when you are going to war that the ultimate price you might pay is your life. They know that. And of course those that do not pay the ultimate sacrifice with their lives may be either physically injured or ultimately psychologically injured as a result of that war and come back into civilian society in our state or in our nation. We can never do enough for our veterans. This is the least that we can do. This year, like last year of course, you do the pre-dawn service, you do the dawn service, you do the other services around your electorate and then you end up at the MCG for that important clash, because I think that is important to incorporate. Our diggers were very sports orientated themselves, and of course our veterans love that day when they go to the MCG. There was a whole procession of them going around the MCG, waving at the crowds and getting the applause that they obviously deserve before that very important game, the Anzac Day clash. What we do not want is for people to do business as usual. We need to pay the respect that they deserve and we need to have a law in place to ensure that the respect is paid on that day to the veterans and of course to our forefathers and mothers who did so much for us. So this bill goes a long way not only to protecting consumers and making sure that consumers, or hardworking, taxpaying Victorians, do not get ripped off—the consumer protections in this bill go a long way to doing that—but also in relation to respecting our Anzacs and of course our veterans in making sure that it is not business as usual when it comes to auctions before 1.00 p.m. This is a fantastic bill. This is a bill that, again, protects Victorians from potentially losing thousands of dollars and also protects our integrity as a state and respects our veterans in relation to making sure there are no auctions before 1.00 p.m. I commend the bill to the house and wish it a speedy passage. Mr CARROLL (Niddrie—Minister for Crime Prevention, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice, Minister for Victim Support) (17:43): I move:

That the debate be now adjourned. Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day. GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION BILL 2018 Second reading Debate resumed on motion of Ms HENNESSY: That this bill be now read a second time. Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (17:44): It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Guardianship and Administration Bill 2018 and to say at the outset that the opposition will not be opposing this bill. This is what we believe to be a very important bill. It is something that certainly goes to the core of supporting those of all abilities, particularly those with mental and physical disabilities and those with an impairment in the unfortunate situation of not being able to make decisions entirely of their own accord and therefore needing a power of attorney, a guardian, who would in fact be able to assist with some of the decision-making process. We know that powers of attorney can be used for mental health and health situations—a medical power of attorney—and there is also a financial power of attorney. Guardians are in fact used as well in terms of being able to support those with a disability through that process. Therefore it is important to be able to clarify a number of points.

BILLS 1416 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

This bill looks at providing decision-making capacity and how it is to be assessed. It looks at the appointment by VCAT of a guardian or administrator for a person with a disability who does not have decision-making capacity, subject to appropriate limitations and safeguards; the appointment by VCAT of a supportive guardian or supportive administrator to support a person with a disability to exercise decision-making capacity; the appointment by VCAT of an administrator for a missing person; and, finally, the retention of the public advocate as an independent statutory office to promote the rights and interests of persons with a disability. Can I say also at the outset that it is unfortunate that this bill was not brought in a lot earlier. This bill has seen a number of update attempts—there have been a number of iterations—the last being in the 58th Parliament. Unfortunately this bill did not go through the 58th Parliament, and therefore we are six months into this new Parliament, the 59th Parliament, and we are only now looking at reintroducing this bill. I am sure the government will get up and say, ‘That was because they had people in the upper house and they weren’t supportive of that’, but it is important to point out it is the government of the day that brings on and is responsible for legislation and its passage. Certainly when we were not opposing the bill, as we did not in the last Parliament—and we were on record as not opposing it in the last Parliament—the numbers that we had, along with the government, would have ensured that this bill passed. There is no excuse for the government to turn around and say there were other individuals in the upper house that would not have allowed this to happen, because that is false. This bill should have gone through in the last Parliament, but it did not. It is the government’s responsibility, as it was in the last Parliament and as it is in this Parliament, to look after their own legislation and to ensure bills have safe passage. I say at the outset that the most unfortunate thing about this bill is that it is not already legislation. It should be legislation, because we are talking about some of the most vulnerable people in our community—those with a disability—and we want to ensure that they are protected. That is why we need to ensure that these laws are updated. A lot of the key details in this bill do need to be passed and the legislation updated to ensure that we protect the most vulnerable in our community. That is why I rise and am very happy to ensure that we on this side do not oppose this. Hopefully we get this bill through both houses of Parliament and legislated. I do want to raise some questions a little bit later, particularly from the Law Institute of Victoria, and I will go through that shortly. I want to point out that it is very important that when we look at the decision-making process to support people with physical and mental health impairments or disabilities, including the elderly, we look at the decision-making capability of the individual. We need to acknowledge that the capability is not absolute, and it is not even easily determined. What I mean by that is that one individual will vary from another, even if they are experiencing the same issues. If they are experiencing the same mental health issues, such as a form of depression or some other difficulty of communication, each individual will have their own decision-making capability. Therefore it is quite important that we have a parameter for how we work on this. The key element should always be—and this is very important— to firstly respect and protect the rights and the will of the individual. I would hope that we would get common agreement from all sides that that is absolute—that we protect and respect the rights of the individual in all instances and give that individual the right to take part in as much of the decision- making process as possible. If we have somebody with a disability and that person is unable to communicate verbally, we still want to be able to give that person as much of the decision-making ability as possible, and there are a number of ways to do that. That is part of what we are talking about today: ensuring the power remains as much as possible with that individual. Where that person needs help, then it would be a guardian or someone with power of attorney who would assist them, but only insofar as they are carrying out the will of the individual. They should not stray from that. They should ensure that the expressed will of the individual is carried out.

BILLS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1417

Unfortunately, as I have lost my father and mother, I have been in the situation of being both their medical power of attorney and their financial power of attorney. It is very distressing for somebody who is experiencing a loss to go through that situation and on top of all that deal with doctors and a whole range of other people while also ensuring that siblings and other people are managed through that process. For me the absolute intent all the way through as my parents were ageing and going through these difficult times was to communicate with them and try to get even the smallest amount of understanding in terms of what their intent would be. I encouraged their involvement as much as possible. It is just so important that the rights of that individual, whether they are ageing or whether they are experiencing disability, are respected. That is a huge responsibility for anybody who undertakes power of attorney. It should be respected. It is a very difficult job, but it should always be that the rights of the individual one is acting for are respected. That is why we should do whatever we can to ensure that those rights are protected. This bill goes into a lot of those elements, as I said. Firstly, clause 5 defines decision-making capacity as the ability to understand, retain and use information relevant to a decision and its effect, the ability to make that decision and the ability to communicate that decision and the person’s relevant views and needs. A person is presumed to have decision-making capacity unless there is evidence to the contrary. That is what I was saying: at all times we should be trying to look at the individual as part of that decision-making process. Clause 19 enables the public advocate to delegate its functions to employees without preapproval from VCAT. I want to cover that. The Law Institute of Victoria talks about that. I want to cover that shortly because I think that is one of the areas that we need to be flagging. I am not suggesting that there would be any issues with the public advocate, but we do need to make sure that that delegation is made to somebody of equal ability and that ultimately respect is there. Part 4 enables certain persons with disabilities to appoint a supportive guardian or administrator. Part 5 enables the administration orders to be made in relation to certain missing persons. Part 6 enables VCAT to consent to the carrying out of a special medical procedure on a represented person in the absence of instruction directly from that person. Clause 140 defines a special medical procedure to mean any procedure likely to render a person infertile, the termination of pregnancy, the removal of tissue for the purpose of transplantation and any other procedure within the meaning of the Medical Treatment Planning and Decisions Act 2016 consistent with the definition in the current act and other acts. It is very important. We are dealing again with the most sensitive of issues. In medical power of attorney all those points certainly need to be considered, and that is what clause 140 deals with. Clause 181 enables a represented person to seek a court order for compensation from a guardian or administrator from a loss caused by a contravention of the act. Clauses 188 and 189 create new offences where guardians’ or administrators’ use of guardianship or administration orders is done with dishonesty, which is very important. It is absolutely critical to ensure that there are consequences for people who do the wrong thing. In terms of context of this bill, this goes back as far as 2009, when former Attorney-General Rob Hulls asked the Victorian Law Reform Commission to review the Guardianship and Administration Act 1986 and look at where changes were needed. Through that process and through that review, we ultimately got the bill in March 2018. As I said, the bill was unable to pass through both houses of Parliament. The Guardianship and Administration Bill 2014 was first introduced under former Attorney-General Robert Clark in August 2014. There were a number of things that again moved it from what was the initial work that the Law Reform Commission did to bring it into the form of a bill, and then there were a number of recommendations from the Victorian Law Reform Commission that ultimately resulted in the inquiry of 2012. So the provisions and the amendments were also basically started in 2014, and things have kind of moved from there.

BILLS 1418 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

Victoria has also been recognised internationally as being a real leader when it comes to this area, particularly when it comes to guardianship administration and governance work in this area, and a number of recommendations from the inquiry also look at work that is being done including the royal commission into mental health, and I am sure there will be subsequent issues that will arise from that which will therefore need to be taken up. Finally, the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s recommendations in relation to extending the powers of the public advocate have not been fully implemented. So that brings me to some of the areas of concern, and as I say, the Law Institute of Victoria raised a number of concerns regarding this particular bill and the inconsistencies of the use of the term ‘estate’ within the bill, which I will cover in a minute. Certainly, as I said, we are not opposing it, but we just want to raise some of these issues which we think are very important, which I just want to talk about briefly now. The law institute is broadly supportive of the bill and has done a huge amount of work, and we thank the president of the law institute, Stuart Webb, and those involved in this particular work for the work that they continue to do. One of the things that they have said is that, unlike other legislation which covers support and substitute decision-making—namely, the Powers of Attorney Act 2014 and the Medical Treatment Planning and Decisions Act 2016—the vulnerability proposed in represented persons requires a unique approach. There will be occasions where, despite the wishes of the represented person, they need a guardian or supportive person to protect them from exploitation, which is very, very important. Therefore the law institute does talk about a number of recommendations that they propose—firstly, that a guardian’s power to make medical treatment decisions should be removed from the bill. They have concerns about that which would be taken up in the power of attorney but have issues in terms of the guardianship bill being covered off there. The term ‘the estate’ should be defined and used consistently throughout the bill. Thirdly, the public advocate should have increased powers of investigation where it suspects a person is being abused or exploited, and it should be funded to exercise these powers. They talk about the public advocate. I wanted to also add, when it comes to the public advocate, that we know, as I said, about one of the earlier clauses that deals with the public advocate being able to delegate its power—clause 19. One of the issues about this is we are dealing, obviously, with very, very sensitive information and sensitive circumstances, and particularly with medical situations which could result in a whole range of things: infertility, transplants—all the things I mentioned earlier. There is the ability for the advocate to delegate its powers, and the concern is that the delegation should not be done lightly. We would also be wanting assurance that the person who is delegating those powers would have the same kinds of experience as a public advocate at the same level, because it is quite a serious matter. So I raise that, and certainly it would be interesting to see, as this continues, some of these cases. I would probably expect that there would be very rare situations where the public advocate would be delegating those powers, but again, if those powers are being delegated, I think that is one of the sensitive parts of this bill we should be looking at. I will not go into too much further detail in terms of the law institute other than that they were the key areas they were focused on. They do talk about the term ‘the estate’ relating to represented persons, supported persons, which is inconsistently mentioned throughout the bill. They said that clause 56, for example, references ‘the property and estate of the represented person’, implying the distinction between the property and the estate. The term has various meanings in other legislation. They are issues of consistency in terms of terminology when it comes to the estate. I raise it because it certainly has been raised with us. Remuneration of administrators was an issue as well, particularly when those administrators are dealing with big cases and highly sensitive cases. That will conclude my remarks on this bill other than to say it is very important legislation. It is important when you are dealing with those that are the most vulnerable in our community—people with disability, certainly the elderly and those who have limited ability in terms of decision-making.

BILLS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1419

But certainly it is very, very important that in regard to the decision-making process the intent should be there for that individual, and at every opportunity we should be involving that individual who has limited capacity with the opportunity to make as much of the decision as possible for the individual. I think that is very important. In the work that I have done with a lot of people within the disability sector it is absolutely core that we treat people with as much respect and give them as much opportunity as we possibly can to participate in their lives, in the process and certainly in their wellbeing. Mr PEARSON (Essendon) (18:04): What a joy it is, Acting Speaker Dimopoulos, to be able to see you in the chair tonight and to speak on the Guardianship and Administration Bill 2018. I did want to take up a couple of observations that the member for Caulfield made in his contribution, and I do think this is worth the house considering. In relation to the 58th Parliament the government had no control over the government business program in the other place. The reason for that was that at the 2014 state election there were 14 members of the government who were returned, there were 16 members of the opposition returned and there were 10 crossbenchers—five from the Greens political party and five Independents. So the ability for the government to go into the other place and say, ‘Here is our legislative agenda; this is what we want to do, and we want this place to deal with these bills in this way and with this sequencing’ was not available to us. As a consequence of that there was a blockage in terms of the legislation. It is important to note that the Labor Party has rarely ever controlled the other place. There was a brief period of about 20 days in 1985 when we held a majority of members, and that dissipated as a result of legal action at the Court of Disputed Returns. So Labor in power is very used to dealing with a hostile Council, a hostile other place, but I think it is important to draw the house’s attention to the following fact. In the 54th Parliament, which was the Parliament that ran from 1999 to 2002, Labor had 17 members out of 44—so again heavily outnumbered, and at that point in time there was no crossbench. Under the electoral system Independents were rarely elected to the other place, so there were 27 members of the combined opposition. The 54th Parliament sat for 136 days, 282 bills were introduced and 253 gained legal assent. If you look at it from that point of view, around about 89.71 per cent of the bills that were introduced were actually passed and the rate of passage was 1.86 bills per sitting day over that period of time. I draw the house’s attention to the record of the other place in the 58th Parliament: 322 bills were introduced, only 274 were passed at a rate of 85 per cent and the work rate was 1.33 bills passed on average per sitting day. Again, this is a function of the fact that on Wednesdays there is no capacity for the government to do any work in the other place. It is a day that is dominated by the actions of the opposition and the crossbench. We have got exclusive cognisance here, and the matters of the other place are matters for it to determine and ascertain. But the point I want to make, and why I want to really make this point quite carefully in response to the member for Caulfield, is that there were contentious bills which were not passed. There were bills which had the support of the opposition, but they were not passed either because there was just this logjam. There was a decision made, I believe, that bills were to be taken very carefully and very slowly, and as a consequence there was a blockage. And it is not just this bill. There have been many bills that we have had to now reintroduce in the 59th Parliament because the other place could not pass them. I have no issue with the other place seeking to be a house of review; it was crafted as a house of review. Bear in mind it was not until the Cain government reforms of the 1940s that the property franchise was removed. Up until the 1940s the only people in this state who could vote for members of the other place were people who owned property. Mr Southwick: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I do ask you to bring the member back to speaking on the bill. He is making a very general point about the last Parliament. Certainly in my contribution I did mention that this bill had the support of the Liberal Party and the Labor Party, so the numbers were there to be able to pass this bill. The member has made a comment to the contrary. We

BILLS 1420 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019 ask you to bring him back to the actual bill. It is a very important bill, and we want to hear about the guardianship laws and their point of view. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Dimopoulos): I think the member for Essendon was picking up on the contribution of the member for Caulfield. I think he is now getting on with the substance of the bill, so I would encourage him to continue to do that. Mr PEARSON: Of course, Acting Speaker. And yes, I just want to again emphasise that it is because of the sheer laziness and ineptitude of the other place in the 58th Parliament that we now bring this bill before this house. But I am delighted that we have the opportunity to bring this bill forward. I am delighted to be able to do so as a member of the Andrews Labor government. This bill is important. I reflect on a conversation I had many years ago with David White, who was the Minister for Health who started the process of deinstitutionalisation of facilities back in the 1980s. David told me many stories of what he saw in those institutions. There was a man who he met who was standing at a window looking out distractedly—just looking out in a facility; it might have been up at Royal Park—and David went up to him and said, ‘What do you want to do?’. He said, ‘I want to go home’. So David spoke with one of the staff and he said, ‘How long has this bloke been in here for?’. Forty years. In Willsmere, which was a facility in I think Kew, they had peacocks in the garden. You think, well, that is very nice. It is quite civilised, quite gentrified, the idea of having peacocks walking in the gardens of this mental health facility. How refined, how genteel. The peacocks were there to disguise the screams and the cries of the psychogeriatric patients of Willsmere. That is what we were living with. That is what was done. If you were mentally ill, you were not fit and competent. We would just shove you off; we would not see you. The reason Kew Cottages was built on top of a hill was the theory that the mentally ill would exude fumes. The idea was that if you had a mental health facility up on a hill, they would not contaminate the sane and normal. That was the sort of thinking. That was the sort of Dickensian logic that dominated mental health practices at that time. We have progressively undertaken a pathway to deinstitutionalisation and about putting people back out into the community, but with that comes inherent risks because people can be taken advantage of. It is important that you have got a robust regulatory framework to protect those people who are living out amongst our community. It is a challenging issue. I note the member for Caulfield made his contribution and talked about his experiences. In my case my mother had a cerebral haemorrhage when I was 21. It was at the time that mum and dad were selling the house, and it happened after the contract of sale was entered into but before settlement had occurred, so I had to quickly get a power of attorney to be able to execute the documents on behalf of my mum. I had power of attorney over her for probably six to 12 months. It was a really difficult time. The observation I would also like to make too is that when you do hold guardianship over a person and they start to regain their faculties and their functions, it is a really difficult thing. It is a really difficult set of circumstances you find yourself in. In my case I did not feel that it was my place necessarily to say to mum, ‘Well, I think I should rescind this power of attorney’, and I think that was the wrong thing for me to have done. I think I should have offered it up. Instead what happened was I pretended it did not exist. I pretended that I did not want to talk about this because this was a really difficult time in all of our lives. It was actually when my mother raised it with me and she said, ‘I want you to rescind this. I’ve got the capacity to be in charge of my own affairs. I don’t want you to be in charge of my affairs’. Of course naturally I rescinded that power of attorney as a great matter of haste and urgency. But these things are difficult. These are difficult times that many of us go through in supporting our families, and they are challenging times. Some of us do the right thing, but we need to make sure that there is an appropriate regulatory framework in place to ensure that vulnerable, isolated

BILLS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1421 and disadvantaged Victorians are not taken advantage of. I think this is particularly important in relation to people who might be the victims of elder abuse. It is a really important piece of legislation. I agree with the member for Caulfield. I wish the other place had been able to do what it was asked to do, which was to scrutinise the legislation of a legitimately elected progressive government and pass it. They chose not to, and surprisingly many of them are no longer members of the other place. I wonder if there is a correlation between those two events. I commend the bill to the house. Ms KEALY (Lowan) (18:15): It is a great privilege to rise to speak on the Guardianship and Administration Bill 2018. I would like to go into some elements to give a context of the pathway which has led to this bill being before the Parliament today. I would also like to talk about some of the main provisions and the areas of concern that the Liberal and Nationals have in relation to this bill but also more broadly about some of my experiences around the importance of guardianship and how it is so important that we must assist and support people who are experiencing both mental and physical impairments and disabilities. While this bill does go some length towards strengthening that, there is still a long way to go, and as I said, I will discuss those matters later in my contribution. Firstly, I will give some context of the pathway for the passage of this bill before the Parliament today. This began back in May 2009 when the then Attorney-General, Rob Hulls, asked the Victorian Law Reform Commission to review the Guardianship and Administration Act 1986 and report on whether changes were needed. Two hundred and twenty recommendations arose out of that review. Some of those have been implemented. They were implemented by the Honourable Robert Clark, who was Attorney-General at the time, in August 2014. Then of course we had the bill, which this bill is reflective of, which was brought to the 58th Parliament. This bill before us today is essentially identical to that bill, apart from a few newly amended commencement provisions, but it is largely a lot of the work that was covered by former Attorney-General Robert Clark. I know there has been some debate and discussion already in the contributions today around why that bill did not pass in the last Parliament. However, it is the responsibility of the government to work with all parties, whether they are coalition members or whether they are members of minor parties or micro-parties or Independents. They have to be willing to make amendments when there are concerns raised around the content of bills. It is the responsibility of us as parliamentarians to ensure we have a bill that reflects community needs and one that has not got any flaws within it. There are steps that we all take, and we saw in that last term of Parliament when amendments were made and accepted and passed in the upper house. To blame a bill not passing on one individual and one party I think is incorrect. I think that it is highly political and is not relevant when it comes to talking about strengthening guardianship obligations and legislation for some of the most vulnerable people in our communities. Further to some of the recommendations, there is a concern that some of the recommendations put by the Victorian Law Reform Commission (VLRC) have not been fully implemented in the changes we see in the bill before us today. This is a concern, and it was raised within the bill briefings to the Liberal-Nationals that not all of these recommendations have been adopted or supported. The reason given for this was that there was a feeling that a number of the recommendations may impinge upon other legislative and administrative areas which are subject to ongoing inquiry and assessment and which may require further future legislative amendment or additional resourcing, including the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System. I will speak about the royal commission shortly, because it is closely related to this legislation before us today. An example of one of the recommendations that has not been implemented is in relation to extending the powers of the public advocate. This has not been implemented. It is important that we look at all of the recommendations from the VLRC and that we do look to implement them sooner rather than later to strengthen our legal system to protect those who are most vulnerable.

BILLS 1422 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

In relation to the specific provisions, clause 5 defines ‘decision-making capacity’ to mean the ability to understand, retain and use information relevant to a decision and its effect; the ability to make that decision; and the ability to communicate the decision and the person’s relevant views and needs. Most importantly a person is presumed to have decision-making capacity unless there is evidence to the contrary. This, for me, harks back to my experience within the health sector and also my time working on the Family and Community Development Committee when we undertook an inquiry into abuse in disability services. There is certainly a very useful term which is used frequently amongst health professionals, health organisations and disability and mental health providers, and that is ‘Nothing about me without me’. I think it is essential that wherever we possibly can, decision-making capacity is retained by the individual who is impacted by those decisions, and that should always be the first priority. Unfortunately we have seen decision-making powers taken away from individuals from time to time and people taken advantage of. That certainly came through quite strongly during that inquiry into abuse in disability services, where people were taken advantage of, treated cruelly and sometimes abused sexually, physically, mentally and financially. Any steps we can take to stop that abuse and to make sure we have appropriate protections in place for these people must be adhered to. Other provisions of this bill will basically involve VCAT. The bill provides for the appointment by VCAT of a guardian or an administrator for a person with a disability who does not have decision- making capacity, subject to appropriate limitations and safeguards; the appointment by VCAT of a supportive guardian or a supportive administrator to support a person with a disability to exercise decision-making capacity; the appointment by VCAT of an administrator for a missing person; and the retention of the public advocate as an independent statutory office to promote the rights and interests of persons with a disability. I note that this application of guardianship is not limited to people with physical disability; it is also about mental impairments, mental disability and permanent mental illness. I would like to see further linkages to improve guardianship but also to make sure that we are better supporting people, particularly those with mental illness and mental health issues. We have seen recently the Victorian Auditor-General’s report Access to Mental Health Services, which was tabled on 21 March 2019, in which they raised significant concerns around access to Victoria’s mental health system. In particular, and I quote the Auditor-General’s report:

DHHS has done too little to address the imbalance between demand for, and supply of, mental health services in Victoria. In summary, the Auditor-General stated:

The Royal Commission into Mental Health will undoubtedly highlight many areas for improvement across the system. However, the need for planning and investment to meet demand is already known and as such work to address this should not await the Commission’s recommendations. Further delay will only amplify the problems the Commission seeks to address. This is essential, particularly when we are looking at the budget, which has been moved from this week to later on in May. We need to see a serious investment and focus on mental health. We have people who are falling through the gaps in the system. We have people who have debility in their life and who are unable to support their families and support themselves and to hold down a job. There are people who are taking their lives when they are discharged too early from psychiatric services and mental health beds. We cannot afford to lose more lives before we start seeing some improvements in the mental health system and some serious investment in the mental health sector. It is not appropriate and it is not acceptable that we await the royal commission to hear those views. I do urge the government to take this very, very seriously, to consider the lives that are at risk in the meantime and to make sure that we do start to immediately address those known gaps within the supply of mental health services in Victoria. In relation to concerns regarding this bill, during consultation the Law Institute of Victoria raised particular concerns in relation to the power of guardians to make medical treatment decisions and the inconsistent use of the term ‘estate’ in the bill. I do urge speakers from the government to address those concerns. I am sure that they have been raised with the government. It is important that we do

BILLS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1423 see those concerns being addressed in some way through today’s debate so that that is clarified, and if there is an amendment required prior to the bill passing the Legislative Council, then I do urge that those preparations and discussions take place sooner rather than later. I do hope that the government listens to some of the concerns of the coalition. I do hope that there is an attempt to implement all 220 recommendations arising from the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s review of this legislation, but most importantly, if this Guardianship and Administration Bill is passed into legislation, I do hope that it means that we have got a safer and more protective system for the people who need it most. Mr McGUIRE (Broadmeadows) (18:25): Guardianship can be fraught. How we protect vulnerable loved ones can be confronting and is often harrowing. I had personal insight and made studied observation when I was a volunteer decades ago at the Sunbury psychiatric hospital, which, if people know the history, was opened in 1879 as the Sunbury Lunatic Asylum. That lasted for a long time. I remember when I was there as a volunteer there were some scenes that were not far off the film One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. We have advanced a long way. I do note that the member for Essendon in his contribution referenced that in the Cain government era there was a whole process of deinstitutionalisation, and that really provides the context for this bill. The Guardianship and Administrative Act 1986 was a response to the deinstitutionalisation of people, in that case with an intellectual disability, and is now used for people with varying impaired decision- making capacity due to a range of disabilities. For the purposes of the Guardianship and Administrative Act ‘disability’ means intellectual impairment, mental disorder, brain injury, physical disability or dementia. A guardian is appointed to make personal and lifestyle decisions such as accommodation, while an administrator can make financial and legal decisions. Many people use an enduring power of attorney to appoint a person to make decisions for them if they lose decision-making capacity, and where a person loses this decision-making capacity and either there is no enduring power of attorney or the enduring power of attorney is deficient or inappropriate, the Guardianship and Administrative Act 1986 provides for the appointment of a substitute decision-maker—someone who can make decisions on behalf of the person who does not have that capacity. The existing Guardianship and Administrative Act allows VCAT to appoint a guardian or an administrator to make decisions on behalf of an adult with a disability who is more than 18 years of age and unable to make their own decisions and is in need of a substitute decision-maker. VCAT can also appoint the public advocate as a person’s guardian as a last resort if there is no other person who is able and willing to act as the guardian. While not specified in the Guardianship and Administrative Act, VCAT will appoint State Trustees Limited or another professional trustee company as an administrator where a private administrator is not available or suitable. The Guardianship and Administrative Act also allows VCAT to appoint an administrator for a missing person. We now come to the circumstances of what this government is doing to advance the cause of trying to promote and protect the rights of people living with a disability. We have been through this whole phase of deinstitutionalisation. How do we actually bring people back into the community and give them a chance to make decisions or, where they do not have the capacity, how do we make the arrangements to care for them in the best way? So this is a reform of legislation that is more than 30 years old and underpinned by really outdated policy to provide a legislative framework that is based on a more contemporary understanding of decision-making capacity and disability. The bill will replace the outdated laws from 1986 to define decision-making capacity, including a presumption that a person has the capacity to make decisions unless evidence proves otherwise. This is an important tipping point on how these issues are tested, and this is opposed to the current laws, which presume that a person does not have decision-making-capacity. The new laws will recognise that a

BILLS 1424 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019 person also has decision-making capacity if they can make decisions with the help of others. So this is how the bill has progressed and reforms have been made: a more considered view has been taken. This bill provides a modern framework for the appointment of guardians and administrators. There is a new definition of decision-making capacity. The existing Guardianship and Administration Act 1996 does not define decision-making capacity, which is a key concept in the operation of guardianship and administration laws. The bill introduces a new definition of decision-making capacity and provides guidance about how it should be assessed. The bill in particular—I will go into some detail—recognises that a person may have decision-making capacity for some matters and not others, so it is trying to look at what is a fair and reasonable and balanced way of addressing these issues to make sure that people have a say in their lives but are not left vulnerable, and how you actually weigh and measure which are the issues and how they should be balanced. It should not be assumed that a person does not have decision-making capacity simply because of their appearance or because they make decisions that others think are unwise. A person has decision-making capacity if they can make decisions ‘with practicable and appropriate support’. That is the key thing— to make sure that they have the critical support, which could include different tailored information or ‘using technology that alleviates the effects’ of a particular disability. The assessment of a person’s decision-making capacity should factor in ‘the time at which, and in an environment in which’ the assessment takes place. So this is a more nuanced approach to how to actually assess different parts of anyone’s decision- making and how that should give the benefit to the individual to try, with the right people around them and the right information at hand, to make decisions on their own if that can be done. So the definition of decision-making capacity is consistent with the definitions in the Powers of Attorney Act 2014 and the new Medical Treatment Planning and Decisions Act 2018. It is also very similar to the definition of capacity to give informed consent that is used in the Mental Health Act 2014. The bill also makes a clear statement that ‘a person is presumed to have decision-making capacity unless there is evidence to the contrary’. These provisions aim to protect the person’s right to make their own decisions whenever possible. VCAT must apply the definition of decision-making capacity when deciding whether a guardianship or administration order is required. The bill also includes principles that reflect the more contemporary understanding of decision-making capacity and disability to enable VCAT to set limits on appointments and to provide guidance to guardians and administrators so that ‘the will and preferences’ of the represented person direct the making of decisions as far as possible. So that is another way of trying to make sure that the right information is given and as much flexibility is offered as possible to the individual to make their own decisions. Clause 8 of the bill provides that: A person exercising a power, carrying out a function or performing a duty under this Act— including VCAT— must have regard to the following principles— (a) a person with a disability who requires support to make decisions should be provided with practicable and appropriate support to enable the person as far as practical in the circumstances— (i) to make and participate in decisions affecting the person; and (ii) to express the person’s will and preferences; and (iii) to develop the person’s decision-making capacity; (b) the will and preferences of a person with a disability should direct, as far as practicable, decisions made for that person; (c) powers, functions and duties under this Act should be exercised, carried out and performed in a way which is the least restrictive of the ability of a person with a disability to decide and act as is possible in the circumstances.

BILLS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1425

So that is how the onus has shifted. I am pleased to hear the personal contributions from opposition members as well, particularly the member for Caulfield, who talked about his own family circumstances, and that we have a bipartisan view on this important reform and advancement for the rights of individuals. I commend the bill to the house. Mr T BULL (Gippsland East) (18:34): It is a pleasure to rise and make a contribution on the Guardianship and Administration Bill 2018. As has been outlined by previous members in their contributions, this bill is about recognising the rights and decision-making processes of people with special needs. It also relates to those who make those decisions on their behalf when that is required. There are a lot of families that are very concerned about what the future holds for their loved ones with special needs. I guess speaking a little bit here from personal experience—in this case I refer to my son—as you get a little bit older in your life it constantly plays on your mind, what the future holds and what lies ahead not only for you but also for those who are dependent on you and reliant on you. Therefore it is absolutely critical that we have a very, very strong system in place that people can have a level of faith in to protect their loved ones when they are indeed gone. That probably is the most important thing for those families—it genuinely is. It is imperative for people who will no longer have those that they have been reliant on. They will not be there one day, and these decisions on their future have to be made. That is why we need this very, very strong regulatory system in place. A lot of people with special needs have siblings, younger or older, who can fulfil that role. A lot of people with special needs actually have spouses, or they can have very close lifelong family friends who can play a role in that decision-making process and be relied upon to make the right calls in those times of need. But it is also a reality of life that there are many with special needs who do not have those supportive networks. They do not have those people that they can rely on in those times of need, and that is where we get into the area of guardianship, advocacy and decision-making processes. We have seen a lot of change in the area of disability over recent decades—we truly have. We have a society now that focuses more so on the abilities of people rather than the disabilities of people. As was mentioned by the member for Broadmeadows, we have left an era behind where we thought that people with special needs were perhaps better dealt with in institutionalised situations. We have moved a long way, and it is a far cry from that period. I think we have still got room to go, but we are well and truly on the path. This bill, I believe, makes further progress in that area, in recognising the rights and recognising the autonomy of those people with disabilities and special needs, but it is an area that is not clear-cut. It is an area that is not straightforward, and governments in all jurisdictions and across a whole range of countries are constantly dealing with legislation that they believe tries to strike the right balance in representing the needs and the decision-making processes of those with special needs. It is very much what I would call a bit of a moving feast. It is a requirement of governments across the board to continually revisit these areas and make sure that we have got it right with modern day standards and developments that allow us to better understand the different disabilities that people in our society are experiencing. It is an area that certainly needs constant and ongoing review. Of course when we are dealing with people with disabilities no two situations are the same, so when we have legislation that is put in place to protect the rights and the decision-making processes around people with disabilities, we have got this massive spectrum in society that we have to deal with. As I said, no two situations are the same, so it is hard to have very hard and fast specific legislation. A previous contribution talked about the lunatic asylum, which is what some institutions were previously known as. As I said earlier in my speech, we have come a long way since then. Societal attitudes have changed, and it has all been for the better, but we need to keep developing that and making sure we have got it right.

BILLS 1426 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

There are others that are concerned that the barriers for protective action by VCAT or a guardian should not be made so high that they are an impediment to providing support when it is indeed required. Again, I get back to trying to strike the right balance as legislators in what is certainly not a clear-cut area. I acknowledge that the bill we have before us today, which has come about after a lot of dealing with the disability sector, indeed attempts—and I think it does a pretty good job, to be honest—to strike that right balance, but it comes back to the concept of what decision-making capacity is. There is no clear line in the sand, of course, as I have mentioned. This bill also includes provisions to assist with the assessment of a person’s decision-making capacity—a very, very tough area in that a person is presumed to have decision-making capacity unless there is evidence to the contrary. I think when we are looking at this complex area that is a really good starting point for us. I like that terminology; I like that wording that has been introduced into the bill. The bill also recognises the reality that a person can experience partial or fluctuating capacity, and I would say, how true is that? Even we have our good days and our bad days, even we have our ups and our downs, and people with disabilities do too. I know that with my son, depending whether he has had his medication for the day, depending on what sort of a day he has had and whether he has had a meltdown or whether he is going all right, his decision-making capacity, his ability to determine what he wants to do to get through the day, let alone the rest of his life, can fluctuate enormously from day to day, from week to week and even from month to month. So the capacity for people with special needs to function better on a particular day has been recognised in this bill. It was recognised in the second-reading speech, and I think that that is absolutely and entirely appropriate. But the reality of it is that we do not live in a world where everyone does the right thing. We do not live in a world where people always act in the best interests of those who are vulnerable, and we need to have the appropriate safeguards in place to make sure that the most vulnerable in our community are not taken advantage of. Those situations certainly arise from time to time, not only in the area of disability but also in the area of our aged, who become vulnerable later in life and are taken advantage of. So I am very pleased that the provisions in this bill are there to penalise a person—whether that be a guardian or whether that be an administrator—who dishonestly takes advantage of this great honour, I guess, that they have been entrusted with to fulfil that role. Whether they gain a financial advantage to the disadvantage of the person who has special needs or they act in an inappropriate way through their advocacy, they will be punished and they will be penalised, and I think that that is entirely appropriate. We are going through a period of great reform in the disability sector. We are entering into the phase where the national disability insurance scheme is coming into play. There will be elements of this bill that will translate over and relate to the NDIS. The NDIS is a huge reform and there are going to be a few bumps in the road before we get that ironed out properly as a state government and as a federal government and as a system across the board. But generally speaking—and I am sure I speak for most on this side of the chamber—this bill is a step in the right direction. It is a bill that improves the safeguards and the decision-making processes for those with special needs, and it is for that very reason that we will not oppose this legislation. Mr STAIKOS (Bentleigh) (18:43): It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the Guardianship and Administration Bill 2018, a very important piece of legislation, and I will spend the next 9½ minutes outlining why. Essentially what this legislation does is replace the Guardianship and Administration Act 1986, an act that is very much outdated, because a lot has changed since then. I can honestly say I do not remember 1986; it was a very long time ago. Just to demonstrate how long ago 1986 was, the first case of mad cow disease was found, the Chernobyl nuclear reactor exploded and the space shuttle Challenger disintegrated. But some good things happened in 1986: I was born that year— Members interjecting.

BILLS Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1427

Mr STAIKOS: Yes, and I believe I am not the only member who was born that year. I did my research. I think the member at the table was also born in 1986, so it was a very long time ago. A member: Tim Bull! Mr STAIKOS: The member for Gippsland East indeed. It was a very long time ago. And a lot has happened since 1986, especially in the space of how we treat people with disability. Most notably since then of course we have had the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which Australia ratified in 2008. Article 1 states:

The purpose of the present Convention is to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity. The original act of course came into being, I guess, at a time when we had begun deinstitutionalisation. It was really aimed at people with intellectual disabilities. Of course since then the nature of disability has changed. It has broadened, and this is principally why we need this reform. I think the key change that this act represents—the monumental change that this act represents—in how we treat people with disability is that where previously the act presumed that people with disability did not have decision- making capacity, with this bill the presumption is that people with disability do have decision-making capacity unless evidence is presented to the contrary. If I can relate a personal experience from my electorate of an elderly gentleman whom I have known for many, many years. He is a constituent of the Bentleigh electorate. He approached my office last year in great distress over a decision that was made by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal with regard to appointing an administrator to look after his finances. He told me that VCAT had appointed this administrator despite not seeking any advice from an expert—not a psychogeriatrician or anybody else with expertise—as to whether this gentleman had decision-making capacity, and it was late in the working week that VCAT appointed this administrator to have control of his finances, so for the next few days after that this elderly gentleman could not access a cent of the money that he had in his bank account. He was put in the humiliating position of having to ask friends and family for money. He could not even go down to the RSL for a meal. This is a 95-year-old man. The other thing I would say about this gentleman is that he was one of the more than 3000 people taken prisoner in Crete. He is an ex-prisoner of war. He has told me some horrific stories of his experiences overseas. He spent a week on a raft in the middle of the ocean in searing heat. This is somebody who nearly died fighting for this great country. I am ashamed that he was treated with such disrespect, and I think in large part that was due to the previous act that was in place. Now, he is a determined fellow, and he went back to VCAT some weeks later and managed to get this overturned, which I think perhaps says it all about the original decision on this, but he should not have spent three or four weeks—or whatever it was from memory—suffering complete anguish and complete humiliation. I feel that under this bill perhaps this gentleman’s experience would have been so much different, which is why I personally welcome this new legislation, because I think it will make the world of difference. In particular—and this will, I think, directly influence this previous experience—it sets out what is meant by decision-making capacity, which includes being able to make decisions with support and provides that decision-making capacity must be presumed unless there is evidence to the contrary. It provides further statutory recognition for supported decision-making, including through the appointment of a supportive guardian or a supportive administrator to support a person with a disability to make their own decisions. It enables VCAT to make appointments of guardians and administrators that are proportional and tailored to the represented person’s circumstances and to review the appointments regularly. Crucially in the case that I just outlined it improves processes at VCAT when

BILLS 1428 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019 dealing with guardianship and administration applications, including by ensuring greater participation of the person with disability and inclusion of those in important relationships with the person. I think that is very important because things have changed, thankfully, in how we view people with disability, how we view their decision-making capacity. Of course it is often said that a society is judged by the way it treats its most vulnerable. In terms of this war hero, this Australian war hero, this 95-year-old man from my electorate, he should never have been treated in that way. I was very thankful when I saw this being introduced into the Parliament last year because I thought at last we had a piece of legislation that actually recognises that people have dignity. That is exactly what it is all about. Of course this legislation does implement some of the recommendations of a 2012 report by the Victorian Law Reform Commission. In its executive summary that report makes the reflection on the previous legislation that it was initially designed with the needs of people with intellectual disabilities primarily in mind. As I said earlier, that of course has changed and the report recommended a range of reforms to respond to changes to the social environment in which the laws operate and the range of people who use the laws. It is anticipated that the major user groups of guardianship laws over the next 20 to 30 years will in fact be people with an age-related disability, an acquired brain injury or a mental illness. Ageing is the main factor affecting the incidence of disability in the community, with dementia being the leading cause of disability for people over the age of 65. Access Economics has projected that the number of Victorians with dementia is likely to increase from the present figure of approximately 65 000 to 141 000 in 2030 and more than 246 000 by 2050. As I said, 1986 was a very long time ago. A lot has changed in the 33 years since then, particularly in this area of public policy. I want to reiterate that my 95-year-old constituent, someone who fought and nearly died for this country, should not have been treated the way he was. My hope is that with the passage of this legislation nobody else will have to suffer the sort of indignity and humiliation that he did. Ms SETTLE (Buninyong) (18:53): I rise to speak in support of the Guardianship and Administration Bill 2018. Before I do, I would like to thank the member for Bentleigh for his wonderful contribution and in particular the very moving story of his 95-year-old constituent. I was delighted to discover that he was born in 1986, but I would like to point out that some of us in the house do remember 1986—and I would like to assure the member that the 1980s were fantastic and that he missed out. We had a great time in the 80s. Two weeks ago I joined my friend Andrea Rose and her family for the first Ballarat memory walk. This was a wonderful way to remember her beloved father and to help raise awareness about dementia and people living with dementia. Ballarat has really been a leading community in pointing to ways to make people living with dementia have control of their lives. At Woowookarung Regional Park we are developing at the moment a dementia-friendly walkway through there. Certainly the City of Ballarat has done a lot of work to make it a very dementia-friendly city. The reason that I talk about this is that it is about giving back that control, giving back that dignity to people, and this bill does the same. It is widely anticipated that given longer life expectancy the majority of people that will be reliant on these guardianship laws over the next 20 to 30 years will be those with age-related disability and acquired brain injury or mental illness. Ageing is the main factor affecting the incidence of disability in the community, with dementia the leading cause of disability in people over the age of 65. This is why this bill provides mechanisms to recognise and allow supported decision-making. It provides tailoring of guardianship and administration orders specific to a person’s individual circumstances, to be reviewed on a regular basis. I remember my friend Andrea, when we went on the dementia walk, talking about her father and what a proud and dignified man he was. For her, watching the progress of dementia was incredibly painful—to see him lose that power. I know that Andrea would be delighted about this bill, because it is returning some of that dignity and some of that control to the most vulnerable in our community.

ADJOURNMENT Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1429

The Andrews Labor government is committed to promoting and protecting the rights of Victorians living with a disability. The existing Guardianship and Administration Act 1986 is over 30 years old, and it has taken a Labor government to make the necessary changes to bring it in line with this century. It is an outdated policy; it is outdated legislation, and we are committed to bringing it into our contemporary time and making it vastly more contemporary. The changes to the current legislation are around defining decision-making capacity. Those changes include the presumption that a person has the capacity to make decisions unless evidence is provided otherwise. In its current form the legislation presumes that a person does not have decision-making capacity. To place someone in that position, to make that assumption or presumption, is not good for the many people in this position. It is hard to imagine that there would be anything more frustrating or more soul crushing than being able to reach a decision related to your own medical treatment and have it passed on by a trusted friend or family member only for the legislation to let you down and render your decision futile. So this new legislation we are delivering will recognise that a person has got decision-making capacity if they can do so with the assistance of others. This is an important change and will be a massive relief to some of Victoria’s most vulnerable; it will give them the option to control the most important thing in their life, which is their future. The Guardianship and Administration Bill 2018 recognises that it is vital that people with disabilities are able to make and take an active role in decisions that will affect their lives. It sets out what is actually meant by decision-making capacity, so it makes it clear. This includes being able to make decisions with support and most importantly provides that decision-making capacity must be presumed. It further provides a statutory recognition for supported decision-making, including through the appointment of a supportive guardian or a supportive administrator. Again I think back to my friend Andrea and what she went through with her father in those final months. I think to give her that clarity is an incredibly important thing, and I am very glad that this legislation seeks to do this. It also enables VCAT to make appointments of guardians and administrators. It improves the processes at VCAT and provides guidance for guardians and administrators when they are making their decisions. When you are going through those difficult times with your family, to have that surety will make it an easier process to go through. As I have mentioned, the Andrews government recognises— (Time expired) Business interrupted under sessional orders. Adjournment The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The question is:

That the house now adjourns. CROSS-BORDER POLICING Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (19:00): (521) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, and the action I seek from the minister for police is that she urgently bring together the relevant ministers and senior police to ensure that cross-border policing issues are resolved into the future. I never want to see the situation again that Kate and Neville Reilly and their three young children found themselves in last July. Although they only live 17 kilometres across the river from Swan Hill they were subjected to a violent, aggravated burglary by what they believe was an ice-affected man at the time. When Kate wrote to me about that she said: We struggled to defend our home and family for almost an hour, and thankfully with the brave assistance from two neighbours, managed to restrain the intruder until NSW police arrived from 85 km away. All this while Swan Hill police were at a 24-hour manned station just fifteen minutes away.

ADJOURNMENT 1430 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019

It has been very well documented now, the breakdown in communications between Victoria and New South Wales police that left Kate and Neville in that situation where they got no police response for over an hour to this aggravated burglary. But there is a solution, and there have been a number of meetings with senior police in northern Victoria, which is why I am asking the minister to convene a meeting with her New South Wales counterpart. I draw the minister’s attention to the South Australian Cross-Border Justice Act 2009 for the Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (NPY) lands, which is a large area that straddles the borders between Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory, an area of something like 450 000 square kilometres—five times the size of Tasmania. In that particular area now, with that act of Parliament, if a crime is committed, a police officer from any of the three participating states can arrest you anywhere in the region. You can be held in custody anywhere in the region and you can be tried by any court within that cross-border area. An example that has been put to me by senior people that believe this could be resolved is limiting the number of local government areas in Victoria and New South Wales that could be part of this— Mildura, Swan Hill, Ganawarra, Campaspe, Moira, Indigo, Wodonga, Towong and East Gippsland shires in Victoria; and in New South Wales, Wentworth, Balranald, Murray River, Berrigan, the City of Albury, Greater Hume, Snowy Valleys, Snowy Monaro and the Bega Valley—and making a cross- border policing district there where, as I said, like the NPY lands, the police could go across the border, they could arrest someone and they could be dealt with in courts across the border. It has actually been proven that it can be done by South Australia, the Northern Territory and Western Australia. I would urge the minister to urgently convene a meeting of the relevant ministers and senior police so we can get to that situation here in Victoria and in New South Wales, and so we do not see the likes of Kate and Neville Reilly’s situation, where their home was invaded and they could not get police help. FOOTSCRAY ELECTORATE ROADS Ms HALL (Footscray) (19:03): (522) I wish to raise a matter for the Minister for Roads. The action I seek from the minister is for her to visit Footscray to view the condition of our local roads. Footscray is a unique electorate due to its proximity to the city and its blend of residential and industrial heritage. We are proud of this history, but also recognise that it poses unique challenges, particularly on our roads. The Andrews government has made significant investments in safety measures on and around the Napier Street bridge in my electorate as well as local transport infrastructure across the western suburbs. However, there is still more to do. I know that reducing congestion and boosting road safety are big priorities for my constituents, particularly at local intersections like Hopkins and Moore streets. This government is making record investments in road safety, and I know my community would appreciate a visit from the Minister for Roads. HY GAIN Mr BATTIN (Gembrook) (19:04): (523) I wish to raise an issue for the Minister for Racing, and the action is for the minister to come out to Officer in the Gembrook electorate and meet with the staff and management of Hy Gain, which is a food supply business. It is a fantastic business that has been in position there since 1983. They have pre-existing rights on the land they hold. That land is an area of very fast development in Officer. We have seen rapid growth through that part of the community. There is currently a 300-metre buffer zone around the premises of the business that is there in Officer, and that 300-metre buffer is specifically because of the odour produced by Hy Gain’s. It is also for truck movements and for noise and everything to make sure that residential properties do not back right up to the property. However, the council has made a decision to put some high-density development right next to the property, going within that 300-metre zone. I note that the Minister for Planning is here as well. The land is residential, but we are going to the Minister for Racing because of the actual business. That is where we wanted to start the discussion with them—which is being discussed with the Minister for Racing as well—so we are getting this on the record to get it going.

ADJOURNMENT Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1431

Part of the concern around this is that when you do change the residential area around there and the truck movements, it means the trucks will no longer be able to use specific roads once they are developed. They will have to go past a primary school, a preschool and a special school to get back out to the highway, which will raise safety concerns. The other aspect of the access at the moment is that it crosses a railway line at a level crossing which is one of the ones that we understand will not be either ‘sky railed’ or gone under. They are just going to close the road at Station Street. The council have just started to talk about this now. The vehicles that are currently used are B-doubles, and they travel about 16 hours a day through that region. With the growth of Hy Gain—now going over to America, and they are already in Indonesia, India and Japan—they are possibly going to a 24-hour business cycle. That will mean that vehicles will be travelling through these residential areas at all periods of time. The biggest concern is safety around the schools during peak school times if vehicles can no longer use Station Street. So whilst this will be a planning and public transport issue—and there will be a whole lot of issues that will come with this as the government makes a decision on what it is going to do with Station Street and as the council makes a decision—it is very important that the Minister for Racing understands the importance of Hy Gain in the racing industry and can come out and meet with the management and the staff and ensure that the jobs available in Officer will remain and that the pre- existing rights of this property will remain there as the development happens in Officer. SOMERTON INTERMODAL RAIL HUB AND FREIGHT PROJECT Mr McGUIRE (Broadmeadows) (19:07): (524) My adjournment request is to the Minister for Ports and Freight. I seek an update on the Somerton intermodal rail hub and freight project. The Somerton intermodal rail hub could be used as a gateway for transport for Victoria and for economic development for Melbourne’s north. Part of the state government’s fast-track plans to create a national distribution network will enable more efficient movement of goods via intermodal terminals such as Somerton. This is particularly important for a range of reasons: to receive interstate freight for distribution to Melbourne; to divert traffic that currently passes through the metropolitan area; to deliver a major component of stage 2 of Melbourne’s freight transport network, servicing the port of Melbourne as well as other metropolitan freight distribution requirements; and to play a key role in developing the federal government’s inland rail project. One in 20 Australians is predicted to live in Melbourne’s north very soon, where the increase by half a million people will mean the population—already more than four times the size of Victoria’s second largest city, Geelong—will match the size of Adelaide. This is how significant the growth in population is. It is a boom. Boasting Australia’s largest concentration of advanced manufacturing, Melbourne’s north also features the highest proportion of undeveloped industrial land in Melbourne—about 60 per cent—defining it as the most sustainable and affordable region to cope with population growth. Proximity to the heart of the city, affordable land, blue-chip infrastructure and a booming population provides the opportunity that capital craves to help create a 21st century vision for economic development. Inland rail offers a significant change in the capacity and capability of the national freight rail system. It is predicted that it will generate economic benefits of $22.5 billion for an investment of about $10 billion, according to the case for inland rail prepared by Australian Rail Track Corporation and PricewaterhouseCoopers. Their analysis projected an economic benefit-cost ratio of 2.62, which would increase gross domestic product by $16 billion. So this is an important next step in how we create the big picture for economic development, particularly in Melbourne’s north, where the jobs are needed most. MELROSE DRIVE OVERPASS, WODONGA Mr TILLEY (Benambra) (19:09): (525) I wish to raise a matter for the Minister for Roads and Minister for Road Safety and the TAC in the other place. The action I seek is for the minister to

ADJOURNMENT 1432 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019 urgently fund the installation of safety barriers on the Melrose Drive overpass of the Hume Freeway in Wodonga. Last year I had the heartbreaking experience of speaking with a man whose wife had taken her life from this very bridge. Less than a month later I spoke with VicRoads representatives and a ministerial advisor in this very building. At the time I was told that they were aware of the issue and that I would be kept informed. In January I again wrote to the new minister, Jaala Pulford in the other place, asking for an update and requesting that this issue be further investigated. In February I wrote again, this time highlighting the story of a mental health worker who had to grab a person by their belt to prevent them jumping off the bridge. In March I again called on the minister to provide an answer. It would have been a consolation if the minister had showed even a modicum of interest by acknowledging my concerns. To date all of that correspondence still remains unanswered. I have spoken with police, mental health experts and people affected by these tragedies. All agree that the bridge in question needs to be protected from those wishing to do themselves harm and others who may simply be up to mischief, such as throwing rocks or other missiles at traffic on the freeway below. This is part of the freeway that sees something in the order of 30 000 vehicles daily. The experts say the bridge is not high enough to guarantee a successful suicide, but what others fear is that an unsuspecting motorist will face the horrendous situation of having a body lying in their path leaving them with nowhere to go, leading to a catastrophic accident that involves them and innocent others. The gentleman that first brought this to my attention comes from the other side of the river, across the border in New South Wales. It is his firm belief that his wife drove past the six similar bridges that cross the Hume Freeway in Albury before arriving at Melrose Drive. It is a distance of 13 kilometres from the furthest bridge to the unprotected crossing at Melrose Drive. The nearest bridge is just 4 minutes drive by car. Those bridges have protective barriers courtesy of a common drive in 2012 that included the New South Wales government, council, mental health workers and road and rail authorities. Collectively those barriers cost $2.2 million to design, build and install. That is five; I am asking for one. This bridge has a railing that is just over a metre high. I am asking the minister—I am a little bit tired of being stonewalled on this—and I know that she can do better on this. That is the disappointing part. Over the years I have asked her to do certain things. It is such a disappointment, but she can do better. I do not accept it. For the minister this is just one bridge, and I urge her to look at this project as a priority. TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE Mr HAMER (Box Hill) (19:12): (526) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, and I ask: will the minister visit the Box Hill electorate and meet with local stakeholders to discuss the Andrews Labor government’s exciting infrastructure program? As a new member in this place I know I stand here in part because we are a government that gets on with building the important projects that our state needs—projects like the north-east link, which when completed will slash congestion times for Box Hill commuters needing to get to the northern suburbs. Fixing the missing link has been talked about for years, and we are delivering it. There is also the Suburban Rail Loop, a state-changing project that will link our suburbs, our major health and education precincts, and Melbourne Airport as well as change the way we use public transport. I was proud to be there when it was announced, and I know Box Hill locals are excited to see this project get underway. I thank the minister and her colleagues for their hard work, and I look forward to her response. GOULBURN RIVER Ms SHEED (Shepparton) (19:13): (527) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Water, and the action I seek is that she visit my electorate as a matter of urgency to see for herself the damage to the Goulburn River as a result of high-flow inter-valley transfers and/or environmental flows.

ADJOURNMENT Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1433

For years the Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority has been tasked to deal with the improvement of the environment for Goulburn River banks and verges, and substantial sums of money have been invested in this work. We are now being faced with the loss of that valuable work as a result of continual high-level flows down the Goulburn River to meet inter-valley transfers and environmental requirements. Action is needed to prevent further environmental damage of this kind, and I ask the minister to take steps to invoke the powers available to her to prevent further damage. There are a number of steps that are available to the minister in this situation. The water trading rules enable the minister to take action to prevent further adverse impacts on the environment or other water users. In particular I draw your attention to water rule 26, which states as follows:

Notwithstanding any other provisions in these Rules, an application to trade may be refused if that trade would, in the opinion of the Minister, be likely to cause any material adverse impact on the environment or other water users. The minister will be well aware of this provision and no doubt will have received advice on how this rule should be interpreted and applied. I believe that it gives the minister a broad range of powers to take steps in the current circumstances to put a cap on trades or indeed refuse any further trades that would be likely to cause any material adverse impact on the environment or other water users. In this instance I am referring to the environmental impact on the Goulburn River. I believe there is now ample evidence that has been gathered by government agencies and community members which reflects the damage that has been and continues to be done by the high flows in the river. I regard this as an urgent matter given that further high flows are expected during the course of the next few weeks. I ask the minister to act on this matter now. I also ask the minister to commence or accelerate work by her department on this issue more broadly. If any review of the existing trading rules is to be undertaken, this must be done as a matter of urgency. It is most important that the actual outcome of these impacts on the Goulburn River is fully understood and action taken to mitigate damage. When water trading was introduced the social and environmental damage that could be caused as a result of significant inter-valley transfers further downriver and beyond the Goulburn Murray irrigation district was not anticipated. The socio-economic damage to the GMID has been clearly articulated in a number of reports, including those obtained by the government. It is now quite clear that the architects of the Murray-Darling Basin plan were well aware of the damage to irrigation communities that would flow from the plan but were not prepared to be up-front about it. River and irrigation communities up and down the basin advocated long and hard to ameliorate the impacts of the plan on their communities. The results are now in. The damage has been and continues to be done to the socio-economic fabric of our communities, and the loss will reverberate for years. IVANHOE ELECTORATE SCHOOLS Mr CARBINES (Ivanhoe) (19:16): (528) My adjournment item is for the Minister for Education and Deputy Premier. The action I seek is for the minister to visit the Ivanhoe electorate, particularly schools in my electorate. What I would say in particular is that there are not only several projects that have concluded but also others we made commitments to in the recent election, at which Victorians affirmed overwhelmingly the re-election of the Andrews government. But can I say that just across the border of my electorate there was the $10.8 million Kew High School commitment. It is a school that is particularly relevant to the southern end of my electorate in Ivanhoe and East Ivanhoe, where both primary schools have developed a very strong relationship by sending their students to that school. In fact when we made our announcement there at Kew last year one of the school captains was actually a former East Ivanhoe Primary School student. The second stage of Ivanhoe Primary School is also now underway. The first stage was opened by the Treasurer just prior to the last election. At my old school, Viewbank College, we opened a $10.5 million project with the Premier just before the last election. The Olympic Village Primary School project down in West Heidelberg should open in term 4 this year. It would be good to inspect

ADJOURNMENT 1434 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019 the works there. That project is humming along. Of course there is that second stage at Ivanhoe Primary School, and we could inspect those works. There is the great collaborative work the Deputy Premier has done to secure the long-term lease of the old Mother of God Catholic primary school adjoining East Ivanhoe Primary School so that we can expand the offering for East Ivanhoe Primary School students in that community and continue to have a good arrangement with Catholic education to allow that old school site to be maintained for community use. It was really important and just shows what common sense can bring to pass when you are working with a sensible government and practical people at Catholic education. Further to that, our commitment at the election of $5 million for Macleod College is another project that we could have some further discussions about on the ground. Of course there is the very hardworking Parliamentary Secretary for Schools, the member for Mordialloc, and if the Deputy Premier felt so inclined, given the significant commitments he needs to meet right across the state and the investments that have been made by our government, of course I would welcome having his parliamentary secretary visit the Ivanhoe electorate in his stead. He would be most welcome too. There is plenty going on when it comes to education in the Ivanhoe electorate, in large part thanks to the support of the Deputy Premier and the Premier. I look forward to working through those projects— having a look at what we have achieved so far, the projects that are now under construction and those that we made further commitments to—to ensure they are delivered as soon as possible for the constituents of the Ivanhoe electorate. WIRE ROPE BARRIERS Mr RIORDAN (Polwarth) (19:19): (529) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Roads and Minister for Road Safety and the TAC in the other place. The action I seek is for the minister to instruct VicRoads to review the placement of wire rope barriers at the entrance to Mr Clint Higgins’s property at 6375 Princes Highway, Colac East. As the Minister for Roads and for road safety, the minister will be well aware that wire rope barrier installations, which her department is spending nearly $500 million on, are happening along the Princes Highway west duplication. It is becoming apparent that the needs of property owners adjacent to roads being fitted with wire rope barriers are being totally ignored. Mr Higgins’s property only has access from the Princes Highway. In order to access his property with a truck he needs to be able to have reasonably angled driveway access from the Princes Highway. The wire rope barriers have been installed in such close proximity to his gateway that it is physically and mathematically impossible to access the land with a standard tractor and/or truck. This government and the Transport Accident Commission (TAC) are constantly promoting the value of wire rope barriers. Much has been made of their benefit to rural road safety. In a year when there has been nearly a 100 per cent increase year to date in deaths and a growing list of landowners are being denied access to their land, it is incumbent upon this minister to immediately review the process that has been put in place to determine the siting and location of these additions to our roadways. It is also interesting to note that VicRoads told the Colac Herald on 18 April, in a response to my queries on the maintenance and upkeep of the wire rope barrier rollout, that the funding provided by the Towards Zero action plan, which is picking up the bill for these things, will cover the maintenance costs for the life of the barriers. It is an interesting concept to even the most rudimentary observer of government budgets that you could predict that with highly damageable and problematic infrastructure it could be guaranteed for life that it will be paid for out of TAC funding. Does it also cover the costs, interestingly, involved in having to realign and pull out and reinstall the barriers after they have been poorly located? It seems, in light of questions asked earlier by my colleague the member for Benambra, that a simple, obviously identified danger point that is in

ADJOURNMENT Wednesday, 1 May 2019 Legislative Assembly 1435 desperate need of some road barrier fixing cannot get the barriers installed, yet this government manages to install hundreds of kilometres of barriers where people do not want them, do not need them and do not believe they add to road and country road safety. It is clearly not a sensible proposition to have farm owners having to block dual-lane highways to reverse trucks in order to access a farm property that they have had access to for life. ROYAL COMMISSION INTO VICTORIA’S MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM Mr STAIKOS (Bentleigh) (19:22): (530) My adjournment matter is for the attention of the Minister for Mental Health and concerns the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System. The action that I seek from the minister is that he visit the Bentleigh electorate to host a consultation on the whole-of-government submission to the royal commission. I have to say that I think of all the commitments that the Andrews Labor government made at the last election the one that I am certainly most proud of is this royal commission. It is a very important issue, mental health, and I know that Victorians can trust this government when it says that it will introduce a royal commission and it will implement its recommendations, because Victorians know that we did this with the very important issue of family violence in the last term, and indeed we adopted every recommendation. We put funding behind that important issue. We elevated that issue to where it belongs as the most urgent law and order issue in this state. Victorians can have every confidence that we will be treating the issue of Victoria’s mental health system with the same urgency and priority. Over the last few years a local mother from the Bentleigh electorate has been in touch with my office. She is still mourning the death of her son by suicide, and she has now dedicated her life to ensuring that there is positive change in Victoria’s mental health system. She is one of a group of people who have started a suicide prevention network, in partnership with Connect Health & Community, which is our local community health service, as well as other organisations like Wesley LifeForce and Headspace. I know that, should a consultation take place in the Bentleigh electorate with our Minister for Mental Health on the whole-of-government submission to this very important royal commission, the suicide prevention network will be very keen to take part. I ask that the minister make this visit to Bentleigh so that we can undertake this very important work. RESPONSES Mr WYNNE (Richmond—Minister for Housing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Planning) (19:25): The member for Murray Plains raised an important matter in relation to cross- border policing as it relates to a particular incident that occurred on the New South Wales side of the border, where the police station that would normally have engaged in that, from a cross-border perspective, was a long distance away from where the incident occurred. Obviously from his point of view the Swan Hill police would have got there much more quickly. I will make sure the minister is aware of that matter. The member for Footscray raised a matter for the Minister for Roads seeking that the minister visit Footscray to address the question of road standards, particularly around Hopkins and Moore streets. I will make sure the minister is aware of that. The member for Gembrook raised a matter for the Minister for Racing, and to some extent possibly myself as well, in relation to— Members interjecting. Mr WYNNE: I will keep you going all night if you like. You want to talk about cladding? Not a problem. I will come off the short run. The request was that the minister meet with an organisation, Hy Gain, which is very well-known in Officer, to address questions in relation to developments that may be intruding into the 300-metre

ADJOURNMENT 1436 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 1 May 2019 buffer zone around Hy Gain and as they particularly relate to truck movements of their B-doubles and their exporting, which I was not aware of— Mr Battin: They just got into the Californian market. Mr WYNNE: Fantastic. Good on them. The member for Broadmeadows raised a matter for the Minister for Ports and Freight in relation to the need for the government to look very carefully at intermodal exchanges, particularly in the northern suburbs, given the burgeoning development that is occurring there and indeed the broader opportunities that that infrastructure-rich area offers for investment. The member for Benambra has raised a very important issue for the Minister for Roads in relation to a suicide hotspot at the Melrose Drive overpass in Wodonga and his request to have a safety barrier installed there. I will specifically personally raise this with the minister tomorrow morning. The member for Box Hill raised a matter for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure seeking a meeting and an update in relation to the implications of the massive investment that is occurring around Box Hill, particularly with the new orbital rail project, which will completely change the shape of that area. The member for Shepparton raised a very important matter for the Minister for Water in relation to caps on water trading and the potential implications of that, not just from an environmental point of view but more generally as to the question of water trading and the implications of that in her area. I will make sure the minister is aware of that. The member for Ivanhoe raised a matter for the Minister for Education seeking a visit by the minister to inspect the magnificent school upgrades that are occurring right through his electorate. I am sure the minister will be very pleased to engage in that inspection. The member for Polwarth raised a matter for the Minister for Roads in relation to the installation of wire barriers at a property in Colac East which he suggests has resulted in limited access by the owner of the property for movement of his trucks and machinery. I will make sure the minister is aware of that. Finally, the member for Bentleigh raised an important matter for the Minister for Mental Health in relation to the much-anticipated royal commission, seeking that the minister come and meet with many of his local mental health groups, particularly the suicide prevention network. I will make sure that the Minister for Mental Health is aware of that matter. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just to clarify, the member for Shepparton’s request was for a visit from the Minister for Water. Mr WYNNE: Did I not say visit? The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, but that is okay. It was just to clarify. Mr WYNNE: We will have an update and a visit. How about that? She can have both. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The house now stands adjourned until tomorrow. House adjourned 7.31 p.m.