PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

(HANSARD)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

FIFTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT

FIRST SESSION

WEDNESDAY, 5 MAY 2021

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

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 Connolly, Ms Couzens, Ms Crugnale, Mr Dimopoulos, Mr Edbrooke, Ms Halfpenny, Ms Kilkenny, Mr McGuire, Ms Richards, Mr Richardson, Ms Settle, Ms Suleyman, Mr Taylor 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 Couzens, Mr Eren, Ms Ryan, Ms Theophanous and Mr Wakeling.

Environment and Planning Standing Committee Ms Connolly, Mr Fowles, Ms Green, Mr Hamer, Mr McCurdy, Mr Morris and Ms Vallence.

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

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

Standing Orders Committee The Speaker, Ms Allan, Mr Cheeseman, Ms Edwards, Mr Fregon, Ms McLeish, Ms Sheed, 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, Ms Crozier, Mr Davis, Ms Mikakos, Ms Symes and Ms Wooldridge.

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

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, Mr Leane, Ms Lovell and Ms Stitt.

Integrity and Oversight Committee Assembly: Mr Halse, Ms Hennessy, 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 Newbury, Mr D O’Brien, Ms Richards, Mr Richardson and Mr Riordan. Council: Mr Limbrick and Ms Taylor.

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

CONTENTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS Acknowledgement of country ...... 1353 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Notices of motion ...... 1353 DOCUMENTS Documents ...... 1353 MEMBERS Member for Sandringham...... 1353 Personal explanation ...... 1353 BILLS Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Arbitration) Bill 2021...... 1354 Council’s agreement ...... 1354 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Standing and sessional orders ...... 1354 MOTIONS Petitions ...... 1354 General business ...... 1355 MEMBERS STATEMENTS Family violence services ...... 1355 Trevaskis Road closure ...... 1355 Williamstown electorate parks and reserves ...... 1355 Camping regulation ...... 1356 McMahons Creek pedestrian bridge ...... 1356 Hanging Rock Speckle Park stud ...... 1356 Neville ‘Nev’ Spiers ...... 1356 Cheryl Downes ...... 1356 Impact ...... 1357 Bendigo West electorate early learning centres ...... 1357 His Royal Highness the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh...... 1357 Anzac Day ...... 1358 Fitzsimons Lane–Porter Street, Templestowe ...... 1358 Festa di San Marco ...... 1358 Anzac Day ...... 1359 Stepping Stones to Small Business ...... 1359 Man from Snowy River Bush Festival ...... 1359 Andrew Herington ...... 1360 Climate change ...... 1360 Prahran Cricket Club ...... 1360 Chapel Street–Toorak Road, Prahran, tram stop ...... 1360 St George Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church ...... 1360 Veterans support ...... 1361 Sexual assault survivors ...... 1361 Clyde Ritchie...... 1361 Steve Lennon ...... 1361 Koonung Secondary College ...... 1362 Mount Waverley Primary School ...... 1362 Holmesglen TAFE ...... 1362 East Preston Islamic College ...... 1362 Deer Park level crossing removal ...... 1363 Brookside Recreation Reserve pavilion ...... 1363 STATEMENTS ON PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS Legislative Assembly Legal and Social Issues Committee ...... 1363 Inquiry into Anti-vilification Protections ...... 1363 Environment and Planning Committee ...... 1364 Inquiry into Tackling Climate Change in Victorian Communities ...... 1364 Public Accounts and Estimates Committee ...... 1365 Report on the 2020–21 Budget Estimates ...... 1365 Environment and Planning Committee ...... 1366 Inquiry into Tackling Climate Change in Victorian Communities ...... 1366 Public Accounts and Estimates Committee ...... 1367 Report on the 2020–21 Budget Estimates ...... 1367 Public Accounts and Estimates Committee ...... 1368 Report on the 2020–21 Budget Estimates ...... 1368

BILLS Education and Training Reform Amendment (Protection of School Communities) Bill 2021 ...... 1369 Statement of compatibility ...... 1369 Second reading ...... 1374 Gambling Regulation Amendment (Wagering and Betting Tax) Bill 2021 ...... 1377 Statement of compatibility ...... 1377 Second reading ...... 1378 Child Wellbeing and Safety (Child Safe Standards Compliance and Enforcement) Amendment Bill 2021 ...... 1379 Statement of compatibility ...... 1379 Second reading ...... 1387 Transport Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2021 ...... 1390 Second reading ...... 1390 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS COVID-19 ...... 1392 Ministers statements: school infrastructure ...... 1394 COVID-19 ...... 1394 Ministers statements: Victoria’s Big Build ...... 1395 Ambulance response times ...... 1396 Ministers statements: health infrastructure...... 1397 Murray-Darling Basin plan ...... 1398 Ministers statements: road infrastructure ...... 1399 Ambulance response times ...... 1399 Ministers statements: economy ...... 1401 CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Evelyn electorate ...... 1401 Ringwood electorate ...... 1402 Gippsland South electorate ...... 1402 Narre Warren South electorate ...... 1402 Brighton electorate ...... 1402 Burwood electorate...... 1403 Mildura electorate ...... 1403 Hawthorn electorate ...... 1403 Gembrook electorate ...... 1403 Frankston electorate ...... 1404 BILLS Transport Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2021 ...... 1404 Second reading ...... 1404 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Energy policy ...... 1417 BILLS Transport Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2021 ...... 1440 Second reading ...... 1440 ADJOURNMENT Mooroolbark police station ...... 1474 Narre Warren South school crossings ...... 1474 North-east rail services ...... 1475 Lorne Parade Reserve, Mont Albert ...... 1476 Melrose Drive overpass, Wodonga ...... 1476 Plenty Road upgrade ...... 1477 Bushfire preparedness ...... 1477 Calder Freeway ...... 1478 Polwarth electorate power poles ...... 1479 Wendouree electorate mental health services ...... 1479 Responses ...... 1480

ANNOUNCEMENTS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1353

Wednesday, 5 May 2021

The SPEAKER (Hon. Colin Brooks) took the chair at 9.32 am and read the prayer. Announcements ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY The SPEAKER (09:32): We acknowledge the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land on which we are meeting. We pay our respects to them, their culture, their elders past, present and future, and elders from other communities who may be here today. Business of the house NOTICES OF MOTION The SPEAKER (09:33): I wish to advise the house that general business, notice of motion 40, will be removed from the notice paper unless the member wishing their matter to remain advises the Clerk in writing before 2.00 pm today. Documents DOCUMENTS Incorporated list as follows: DOCUMENTS TABLED UNDER ACTS OF PARLIAMENT—The Clerk tabled the following documents under Acts of Parliament: Auditor-General—Implementing a New Infringements Management System—Ordered to be published Financial Management Act 1994—Report from the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change that she had not received the Reports 2020–21 of the: Falls Creek Alpine Resort Management Board Mount Buller and Mount Stirling Alpine Resort Management Board Mount Hotham Alpine Resort Management Board Southern Alpine Resort Management Board— together with an explanation for the delay Subordinate Legislation Act 1994—Documents under s 15 in relation to Statutory Rules 32, 39, 40. Members MEMBER FOR SANDRINGHAM Personal explanation Mr ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (09:35): I rise to make a personal explanation regarding an adjournment matter raised in the Legislative Council on Thursday, 18 March, by Mr Andy Meddick, MLC. I quote from the daily Hansard proof of Mr Meddick’s contribution, which reads:

Earlier today numerous opposition members were seen having lunch, including … Brad Rowswell … Conversation between them was overheard mocking my members statement on Transgender Day of Visibility, where I had a transgender pride flag in the Parliament. Mr Meddick proceeded to state that:

They— myself and other members named—

… made jokes that there was a name for everything and described members of our trans and gender-diverse communities as ‘poor dears’.

BILLS 1354 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

Mr Meddick’s allegation is untrue, and I wholeheartedly refute any suggestion that a private conversation which I participated in sought to characterise transgender and gender-diverse people in this way. I remain aggrieved by the substantial potential of Mr Meddick’s remarks to impugn my integrity and character among both transgender and gender-diverse communities as well as the Victorian community at large. Bills WORKPLACE INJURY REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION AMENDMENT (ARBITRATION) BILL 2021 Council’s agreement The SPEAKER (09:36): I have received a message from the Legislative Council agreeing to the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Arbitration) Bill 2021 without amendment. Business of the house STANDING AND SESSIONAL ORDERS Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop) (09:36): I move, by leave:

That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended on Thursday, 20 May 2021, to allow: (1) The order of business to be: question time formal business statements by members government business. (2) The Speaker to interrupt business under sessional order 2 at 7.00 pm. Motion agreed to. Motions PETITIONS Mr WELLS (Rowville) (09:37): I desire to move, by leave:

That this house: (1) notes that petitions are an essential part of ensuring a responsible and representative Parliament in any Westminster system and currently Victoria’s Legislative Assembly does not accept electronic petitions or provide meaningful opportunities for members to debate the content of petitions once tabled; (2) resolves to allow the lodgement of electronic petitions with the Clerk to be published on the Parliament’s website and sponsored by a member of the Assembly; (3) resolves to include the opportunity on every sitting Thursday for members to give statements on petitions for a maximum time of 30 minutes or until six members have spoken, whichever is the shorter, the call being alternated between government and non-government members; (4) resolves to require ministers to advise the house verbally or in writing of action taken in response to tabled petitions related to their responsibilities with at least 2000 signatures on paper petitions and 5000 signatures for electronic petitions within six months of tabling; (5) resolves to require any petition tabled with more than 20 000 signatories stands referred to the relevant Assembly standing committee for further investigation;

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1355

(6) refers the required amendments to standing orders to the Standing Orders Committee to report to the house by 30 September 2021; and (7) adopts the required changes to the standing orders by 30 November 2021. Leave refused. Mr WELLS gave notice of motion. GENERAL BUSINESS Ms SHEED (Shepparton) (09:39): I desire to move, by leave:

That this house: (1) notes that non-government business is an essential part of ensuring a responsible and representative Parliament in any Westminster system, and currently Victoria’s Legislative Assembly is the only lower house in Australia that does not provide meaningful opportunities for non-government members to move motions or progress bills; (2) resolves to replace matters of public importance and grievance debates with 2 hours of non- government business every sitting Wednesday; (3) refers the required amendments to standing orders to the Standing Orders Committee to report to the house by 31 July 2021; and (4) adopts required changes to the standing orders by 5 August 2021. Leave refused. Members statements FAMILY VIOLENCE SERVICES Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (09:40): I would like to bring to the attention of the house the tragedy of the lack of social housing for women fleeing domestic violence in this state. The figures tell the story. Despite the spin from the Labor government, the level of domestic violence in Victoria is still far too high, and there is no social housing available to protect the incredibly vulnerable women and children who are leaving a violent relationship. My office continually has cases where there is just no accommodation available for these women who have left these violent relationships. The Labor government is failing these women and children. Instead of spending $12 million on lawyers to defend themselves from their own inquiry into their own failures on hotel quarantine, the Labor government could have put that $12 million into building new units for battered women and children fleeing domestic violence relationships. A simple choice—help those who desperately need help or pay lawyers to defend the indefensible. TREVASKIS ROAD CLOSURE Mr WALSH: On a separate issue, I would like to condemn the Labor government and particularly the Minister for Roads and Road Safety for closing Trevaskis Road in my electorate. This is a major through road that was talked about being closed. There had been a pause; I am told it is now closed. It is an appalling situation where a major through road has been closed instead of actually upgrading an intersection, and I condemn the minister for roads and the Labor government for making that decision. WILLIAMSTOWN ELECTORATE PARKS AND RESERVES Ms HORNE (Williamstown—Minister for Ports and Freight, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Fishing and Boating) (09:41): I would like to update the house that over the last few weeks, when Parliament was not sitting, I spent time in my community talking to some incredibly socially conscious people about their work in my seat of Williamstown. Two such people are Lola and Peter Anderson, tireless advocates for the environment in the inner west and founders of Friends of Cruickshank Park. Yarraville’s Cruickshank Park is a popular suburban oasis nestled between Somerville Road and Francis Street along Stony Creek. In another life the site was home to a rocky quarry wasteland, and for years it was put in the too-hard basket until things

MEMBERS STATEMENTS 1356 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021 started to change in the 1970s. Today the park owes its transformation to the vision, community spirit and persistent advocacy of the Andersons. This year Peter and Lola were awarded Maribyrnong City Council’s Citizens of the Year, fitting recognition of decades of service to our community. So I was really thrilled last week to see the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change announce $300 000 in funding for the council to improve Cruickshank Park as part of the government’s $10 million parks revitalisation grants program. It is not just there. Hobsons Bay will also benefit from a grant of $300 000 to improve Maclean Reserve in Williamstown. On top of that, this is a government that understands the value of open spaces, and you can see it in the $346 000 grant from the West Gate Tunnel Project to upgrade GJ Hosken Reserve, testament to the untiring efforts of Geoff Mitchelmore. CAMPING REGULATION Ms McLEISH (Eildon) (09:43): It comes as no surprise that a major issue with the proposed camping along licensed river frontage is rubbish left behind by those campers. I have received photos from a landowner in Howqua Inlet of rubbish left behind by unregulated campers over the Easter holidays. Not only food scraps and plastic wrapping, it was discarded tents, bottles, aerosol cans and plastic tubs. I am concerned this disrespectful behaviour is a sign of things to come. Landowners are rightly disturbed by many of the proposed regulations, including campers being allowed to camp only 100 metres from family homes and for 28 days. This is an invasion of privacy and raises concerns for children’s safety. In addition, there are already limited resources to monitor unregulated camping and dangerous behaviour. Concerns exist as to how campers will be patrolled, how risks of livestock interference will be mitigated and uncertainty about liability matters. The state government needs to listen to and incorporate feedback on the proposed regulations by current licence-holders to ensure a bad situation does not become worse. MCMAHONS CREEK PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE Ms McLEISH: The state Labor government again should be condemned for their lack of transparency and access to documents via FOI. Documents sought through FOI and initially withheld through this process about the McMahons Creek pedestrian bridge reveal the state government chose not to rebuild or replace the bridge after options were recommended. Instead the government chose the temporary solution to prop up the bridge for $200 000 and ongoing weekly payments of over $4000 for it then to be torn down a few months later—what a waste! HANGING ROCK SPECKLE PARK STUD Ms THOMAS (Macedon—Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional Development) (09:44): Congratulations to John and Ann Ellis and the entire team at Hanging Rock Speckle Park stud, after winning big at the Royal Easter Show in Sydney. They picked up seven awards, including the most successful Speckle Park exhibitor and the first prize in the Speckle Park breeders group. The star of the show for Hanging Rock was Heather, who won senior and grand champion in the Speckle Park female award and then came second in the Urquhart Trophy, the very first time the Speckle Park breed has done so in this category. NEVILLE ‘NEV’ SPIERS Ms THOMAS: Neville ‘Nev’ Spiers from Gisborne SES was one of the many SES volunteers from across Victoria who was deployed to Western Australia to support their recovery from their most recent cyclone. Nev was deployed to Geraldton, where he assisted a clean-up after the cyclone that tore through WA’s mid-west coast. Good on you, Nev, and thank you. CHERYL DOWNES Ms THOMAS: Woodend’s Cheryl Downes has been chosen as one of 15 women to participate in the second round of the Andrews government’s Making the Call program. Cheryl has been involved

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1357 in the coverage of women’s soccer for over six years as co-founder and editor-in-chief of Beyond 90. Congratulations, Cheryl. It is about time we saw more women in the commentary box. IMPACT Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (09:45): Unfortunately in Victoria each and every day, every 5 minutes, we see one person, one woman, experiencing domestic violence. It is a scourge on our society, and we must together do whatever we can to support those women and children fleeing domestic violence. It is my pleasure today to be joined by the board members, including the founder, Kathy Kaplan, OAM, of Impact. They are volunteers doing an amazing job to support women and children fleeing from domestic violence. I joined with Bella Popovski, one of my interns, to pack 2000 bags of love that are going out this Mother’s Day to many of those women that are experiencing the hardship and the suffering. Today is WeaRed4Impact, and I am wearing my red tie as a dichotomy to show the difference between love and also the hate and difficulty that many women and children suffer and to be able to say, ‘Now is the time to have conversations. Now is the time to talk to those who are experiencing and suffering from domestic violence’. I want to thank Kathy Kaplan, OAM; Emeritus Professor Margot Hillel, OAM, board chair; Alan Samuel, OAM, Treasurer; Lisa Lionnet-Swaan, vice-president; Alyssa Caplan, board member; John Hillel, a long-time committed volunteer; and all the volunteers at Impact for the amazing work you do supporting women and children in our community. BENDIGO WEST ELECTORATE EARLY LEARNING CENTRES Ms EDWARDS (Bendigo West) (09:47): I have been thrilled to recently open two brand new early learning centres in Bendigo West and turn the first sod on a third. In Maiden Gully the Shine Bright early years hub will deliver a new early learning centre, with capacity for 120 four-year-old kinder places, 60 three-year-old kinder places, a long day care centre and allied health and medical practitioners on site, including maternal and child health services. The facility will also offer quality professional development and training opportunities. The Andrews Labor government contributed $1.6 million through the Building Blocks program towards the facility. I was also excited to officially open the new Harcourt Preschool, which has been built onsite at Harcourt Valley Primary School. The early learning facility includes a two-room, 66-place kindergarten, outdoor education space, shared common area and car parking. It was built in partnership with the YMCA Ballarat, the Harcourt Preschool parent advisory group, Harcourt Valley Primary School and the Mount Alexander Shire Council. A communal space will encourage support and help the transition for students from kinder to primary school. Recently I joined the member for Bendigo East to turn the first sod on a new over $2 million Bendigo and District Aboriginal Co-operative early learning facility. The Labor government is providing $1.8 million in partnership with the Bendigo and District Aboriginal Co-operative to give local students the best start possible. The new centre will provide services to the Dja Dja Wurrung community, including child care for three- to four-year-old children, supported playgroups, child care, bush kinder and a community space. We are getting on with supporting families right across the state, and we are preparing for the rollout of three-year-old kinder, with close to $5 billion committed to deliver three-year-old funded kinder for all Victorian children. HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE PRINCE PHILIP, DUKE OF EDINBURGH Mr T SMITH (Kew) (09:49): Yesterday this house mourned the death of His Royal Highness, the Duke of Edinburgh, and I want to add my comments to those that were made by the Acting Premier, the Leader of the National Party and the Leader of the Opposition. His Royal Highness led a very distinguished life in the service of the Crown, the commonwealth and indeed Australia. He had a long- term connection with Australia. His private secretary and great friend Mike Parker attended Xavier

MEMBERS STATEMENTS 1358 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

College in Kew and grew up in Kew. Mike’s sister Mary Fitzgerald is a friend of mine, and her husband, Paul, was an outstanding portrait artist who painted the Duke and indeed the Queen on a number of occasions. So the Duke’s connection to Melbourne, Victoria and Australia goes back many decades. His connection to Kew through his great friend Mike Parker, who passed away 20 years ago, and his sister Mary Fitzgerald is profound, and Mary is still going very strong at 90 years of age. She lives in Deepdene. I extend my condolences to the royal family and to the Queen in particular at the passing of his Royal Highness the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. I think it was a poignant moment yesterday when this house in a bipartisan fashion recognised his service to the commonwealth and the Crown. ANZAC DAY Ms KILKENNY (Carrum) (09:50): Thank you, Seaford RSL. Throughout 2020 the Seaford RSL worked so hard to continue its support for members, veterans and the local community through the most challenging of times. Having commemorated Anzac Day 2020 with candles at the end of our driveways, it was even more special for my local community to come together this year to commemorate and honour our veterans and our returned and serving service men and women. Thank you to the Seaford RSL for making this all possible. First, on Friday, 23 April, we commemorated the Seaford RSL’s very special schools Anzac service. Thank you, Vern Jones, Seaford RSL vice-president, and a special thank you to James Hennessy, Seaford RSL committee member, for sharing your personal story. It is hard to comprehend the experiences of our veterans, and your story is an incredible one. Thank you to each of the many local schools and school leaders who participated. Thank you to the choir from Kananook Primary for making this event even more special, and thank you to Chrystelle Tiumalu, Bernard Martin and Isabel Chalmers, college captains from Patterson River Secondary College, for your beautifully prepared and presented speeches. You did us proud. Then on Anzac Day hundreds and hundreds of us gathered together along Station Street and at the Seaford cenotaph to watch the Anzac Day march followed by the Anzac service. Thanks to John Beslee, Seaford RSL president, and Lorraine Mace, Seaford RSL secretary, together with all of the Seaford RSL committee members, for making this possible. Our special guest speaker, Debbie Navin from HMAS Cerberus, was incredible. Her words were profound and poignant. They made us pause to remember and to honour and to be grateful for all of our service men and women and grateful that we were able to join together in still very uncertain times. FITZSIMONS LANE–PORTER STREET, TEMPLESTOWE Mr GUY (Bulleen) (09:52): I wish to place on record my concern at the loss of bus stops at Templestowe Reserve during the Fitzsimons Lane upgrades. At present there are east and westbound bus stops on Porter Street that are well used by residents who live on the streets that run off Edwin Road and Niland Rise. They are heavily used for school runs and on weekends, when Templestowe Reserve is used for tennis and AFL and the scout hall has various activities. Due to the Fitzsimons Lane change and these stops being removed, they will be removed for some lengthy period. The nearest bus stops are around 500 metres away and involve a dogleg walk return via Carlton Court through Porter Street. Local residents are greatly concerned at the loss of these active bus stops for a lengthy period. I share their concern and wish to see temporary stops installed near Edwin Road rather than the complete abolition of them. FESTA DI SAN MARCO Mr GUY: Recently I was pleased to join many of Manningham’s local Italian community at the Festa di San Marco, the feast of St Marco, at the Veneto Club. Speaking of the North East Link in my previous remarks, it was interesting to see them there as well. Bemused rank-and-file Veneto Club members were surprised that there were around a dozen and a half North East Link Authority staff boasting of their plans, which ironically involve the abolition of half the Veneto’s car park, which will leave the club significantly worse off. That aside, the festa was very well patronised, with food stalls

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1359 representing many regions of northern Italy, and wonderful participation by club members was had. Best wishes to the Veneto and their wonderful club members. ANZAC DAY Mr GUY: Can I also place on record my appreciation of Templestowe Rotary for again hosting the schools Anzac Day ceremony with the local Templestowe RSL. Children from primary and secondary schools across Manningham participate in a wonderful service that the club puts on every year to keep a local focus on those families who lost loved ones in each conflict. Well done to Templestowe Rotary and to club president, Brian Tyedin, and his executive. STEPPING STONES TO SMALL BUSINESS Ms HALFPENNY (Thomastown) (09:53): I rise to speak on an enormously valuable program called Stepping Stones to Small Business. On 25 March my colleague the member for Werribee and Treasurer presided at an International Women’s Day event featuring small business entrepreneurs from both our electorates. I was unable to make the celebration but wish to honour and congratulate participants of the program who live in and contribute to the electorate of Thomastown. Stepping Stones to Small Business is financially supported by our state Labor government and run by the Brotherhood of St Laurence. It supports women from multicultural backgrounds to reach their financial wellbeing goals by supporting participants to start a small business, find employment and access training. It offers mentoring as well as social and personal support. I want to share an example of the successful impact this program had on Nadia, a woman who lives in the Thomastown electorate, in her own words. Nadia says she came to Australia from Syria with her fiancé in 2015. She moved away from a supportive and close family, and she had worked as an environmental officer for the government. She had moved away from financial security, community status and a happy life. Not long after her arrival in Australia she became aware of how socially isolated she was and that her fiancé was abusive. Nadia joined Stepping Stones and completed the program in 2017. She now has a job as an early childhood educator, is able to financially support herself and has left her abusive relationship. Nadia had not envisaged this fight for her future, but she is proud of herself for making changes and being brave enough to set up a safe life here with new friends and a career. She hopes that she will one day be working for the Environment Protection Authority Victoria. MAN FROM SNOWY RIVER BUSH FESTIVAL Mr TILLEY (Benambra) (09:55): Over the Easter recess I spent a week in Corryong, helping with the Man from Snowy River Bush Festival—and, by the way, getting a few stitches in my hand. Thanks again to the Corryong Health service for stitching it up and getting me back on the road. It was a great success, given the uncertainty over numbers and COVID plans, made worse by the snap March lockdown that made planning more than a day ahead an absolute nightmare. Thankfully with some bipartisan support from the government it went ahead, and I will single out the board chair, Cameron Jackson, and the general manager, Jenny Boardman, and her team. In fact the entire Corryong community and district stepped up as volunteers among many others that pulled it off. I only wish the support could extend to managing brumbies. The showcase event of the festival is the challenge, including a brumby catch by High Country horsemen and women. These people are skilled, compassionate and courageous, including Benambra Buck Runners Tom Buckley, Peter Sandy and Craig Orchard, who recreated Banjo Paterson’s The Man from Snowy River poem, first published in the Bulletin in 1890. Parks Victoria’s latest culling plan is the outright slaughter and murder of those noble, intelligent creatures, the horses we call brumbies. We cannot maintain the genetics, but it is these same skills, I have argued, that Parks Victoria need to embrace to manage the brumbies. Today a petition with 200 000 signatures will be delivered to this Parliament, calling on Labor to stop this murderous cull and keep a sustainable number of brumbies in the High Country.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS 1360 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

ANDREW HERINGTON Mr CARBINES (Ivanhoe) (09:56): I rise to give thanks for the life of Andrew David Herington, 11 September 1952 to 24 April 2021. ‘A legend of our movement’ was how former Victorian Premier the Honourable Steve Bracks, AC, remembered Andrew during his tribute at the St Kilda town hall last Friday with some 400 mourners, including me, who were left enriched and inspired by our collaborations with Andrew over many years. Former Cain and Kirner governments minister in the other place the Honourable David White also gave a superb reflection on Andrew’s public policy achievements over many decades. On a personal note, barely a week and at times not a day would pass without a call or email from Andrew via the Premier’s office during the Bracks-Brumby governments era, seeking to question, query, cajole and press for better outcomes for Victorians. I worked during most of that time for Minister Bronwyn Pike, the former member for Melbourne, across many of the social policy portfolios that benefited from Andrew Herington’s advocacy and intellect. I was pleased in more recent years to be old enough to stir Andrew about his spreadsheets and his incessant questioning and ideas. His extension number was burnt into my memory, it came up so often. Yet I was also wise enough to thank him for being all those things and much more. We had a good laugh about it. Thanks to Andrew’s passion, support and input we had more effective policies and we won more arguments and funding support for programs at subcommittee of cabinet meetings and when battling Canberra. Generations of policy advisers, MPs, public servants and many others who seek to make a difference to the people that they serve and the society of which we are all a part are deeply thankful to have had Andrew’s comradeship during their working lives. In all that we do we carry a bit of Andrew’s indefatigable attitude to do better for our community. Vale, Andrew Herington. CLIMATE CHANGE Mr HIBBINS (Prahran) (09:58): On 11 March I attended a service at St Mary’s church in St Kilda East as part of a multifaith global action for climate organised by GreenFaith international and Australian Religious Response to Climate Change. It is inspiring to know that support for strong action on climate change comes from right across our community, and they asked me to take their demands to Parliament, which are 100 per cent renewable energy for all, finance aligned with compassionate values, jobs and health care for all, respect for Indigenous rights, a welcome for climate migrants, net zero emissions by 2030, an end to the planet’s desecration, elimination of immoral finance, just contributions from wealthy countries and bold-faith community leadership. PRAHRAN CRICKET CLUB Mr HIBBINS: I want to congratulate the Prahran Cricket Club on winning the Premier cricket premiership, their first premiership in around 36 years. It was a dominant display at the Junction Oval from the True Blues, winning by 24 runs over Dandenong, with a century by Damon Egan and four wickets by James Boyce. Well done to everyone at the club who has worked so hard to put the club in such a strong position. I am looking forward to many more successful seasons down at Toorak Park. CHAPEL STREET–TOORAK ROAD, PRAHRAN, TRAM STOP Mr HIBBINS: It should not be a surprise to anyone in the Prahran community that the tram stop at the intersection of Chapel Street and Toorak Road was listed today in the Herald Sun as one of the most dangerous tram stops. There are frequent near misses. It needs to be upgraded, and I urge the government to upgrade that tram stop to make it safe for everyone. ST GEORGE JACOBITE SYRIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH Mr TAK (Clarinda) (09:59): Congratulations again to St George Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church in Heatherton. The church has been successful in securing a grant of $500 000 from the Multicultural Community Infrastructure Fund for the delivery of its multipurpose community centre. This funding will provide a crucial hub for Malayali Jacobite Christian migrants, young families and students to

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1361 connect, share and live together. I commend the management committee for all their hard work: president Father Bijo Varghese, assistant vicar Dr Dennis Kolasseril, vice-president Commander Jacob Cherian, secretary Eldo Issac Kollaramalil; joint secretary Matthew Zacharia, treasurer Kurian Cheriyan, joint treasurer Mr Jacob George and community members Thomas Abraham, Maya Sajan Narekat, Kurian John, Rijesh Yohannan and Sunil Kurian. This important funding is part of the $21 million package that aims to support Victoria’s culturally diverse community to build and upgrade their facilities and will deliver immediate economic stimulus by funding projects that are ready to proceed. Congratulations once again, and I look forward to visiting soon. VETERANS SUPPORT Mr NEWBURY (Brighton) (10:01): The Rotary Club of Brighton recently welcomed retired special forces major Heston Russell to their annual Anzac dinner. Heston has championed supporting returned servicemen by founding Voice of a Veteran, an organisation whose originating purpose acknowledges that more than 700 veterans have been lost to suicide since 2001. In recent times Australians have seen a small number of allegations of service impropriety sensationalised through the media. A trial by media will never independently test allegations or allow for the presumption of innocence. Community leaders must be proactive and stop our broader defence force from being tarnished. The post-Vietnam mistakes must never be repeated. Elected officials have a responsibility to stand up. Sadly, some who should have led have remained notably mute. My community has always and will always stand shoulder to shoulder with our defence force personnel. SEXUAL ASSAULT SURVIVORS Mr NEWBURY:Young women are calling for modernisation of the sexual assault reporting system. We should not be proud that Victoria is the only jurisdiction in Australia without a structured informal reporting system. Brave women from my community, like sexual assault survivor Yasmin Ilhan, have described being horrified throughout the reporting process and how no-one, let alone victims of sexual assault, should be treated this way. At the same time horrific crimes have recently occurred in my community—violent crimes against children—yet the authorities have chosen not to publicly report them. And the Labor government’s silence has been deafening—silent on making the system better, silent on efforts to protect my community and silent on any comforting words to victims. CLYDE RITCHIE Ms HENNESSY (Altona) (10:02): I rise to place on the record my deepest condolences to the family of Clyde Ritchie, who was a very cherished friend and long-time Labor Party activist. He was a very loyal member of the Altona branch. He was a constant companion on the hustings. He was a very proud working-class man. He had endured an industrial accident and cancer. He was very interested in garage sales and often collected a whole range of very interesting bits and bobs—and I have seen enough royal teacups and saucers to last me for the rest of my lifetime. His time came too soon, and I want to place on the record my love and appreciation for his life and send his family all my care and compassion as they deal with life without Clyde. It will certainly be a very big hole to fill. STEVE LENNON Ms HENNESSY: We also lost another important member of the Labor family out in the western suburbs this week. I am very, very grateful for the life of Steve Lennon. He was a long-term member of the Hoppers Crossing branch. He had been a committed member of his union since 1973 and unfortunately passed away at a time too soon. He lived a life true to his values around collectivism and dignity and rights at work and was a loyal supporter of mine for the entire time I have been in Parliament. I mourn his loss very deeply.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS 1362 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

KOONUNG SECONDARY COLLEGE Mr HAMER (Box Hill) (10:04): I would like to congratulate Koonung Secondary College on their incredible musical production, All Shook Up, which I saw last week. The performance was even more impressive given that the songs and dance routines were choreographed and rehearsed remotely through 2020, with fully in-person rehearsals only returning in recent weeks. I would like to praise the fabulous cast of Harrison Vavra, Celeste Watkins, Keira Singleton, Halle Henson, Ben Harding, Elisha Punay, Jo Healey, Tim Woodfield, Henry Andrew, Mary Elyas and Sarah Whitebrook, as well as ensemble cast members Carina Calcagno, Isabella Cidoni, Sarah Croyden, Alysha Clegg, Callum Cuddihy, Mietta Deluise, Mairna Ely, Amelie Gifford, Tehmi Harding, Eva Healey, Evelyn Heath, Maia Mendez, Keiko Rice, Tinka Schmid, Amelie Storrar-Carey and Mia Tsaousis. This amazing production would not have been possible without an equally incredible crew: Katherine Hadje- Michael, Anthony Tran, Rory Wilcockson, Daniel Will, Kian Schafaie, Elle Valentine, Lachlan Yap and Zoe Newbury on backstage; Frankie Healey, Tiana Cormick, Lachlan Tolliday and Sam Smilie on lighting; and Ava Booth, Oli Foreman and Ash Jackson on sound. Thank you also to all those involved in music and set design. Finally, I would like to congratulate producer Chelsea Thomas and director Mark Anderson, who brought this all together. Well done to everyone involved. MOUNT WAVERLEY PRIMARY SCHOOL Mr FREGON (Mount Waverley) (10:05): I rise to recognise the incredible work being done by the students and teachers at Mount Waverley Primary School, who are waging a war on waste and leading the way in sustainability and recycling within both their school and our wider Mount Waverley community. Last Friday we welcomed the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change to the school, where we met with principal Greg Paine, fabulous students and their dedicated educators. Sustainability captains Sophie, Swasti, Saachi, Gargi and Mathvin led us on a tour of the campus, showing the many innovative ways their school is leading the way in sustainability, solar, permaculture and recycling. With their own national park, worm farm, permaculture garden, sustainability hub, chicken coop—where they are having a democratic ballot for the names of the chickens, by the way, and I am voting for Debbie—butterfly gardens, community recycling bins and classroom recycling set-up, Mount Waverley Primary School were deserving winners of the 2020 ResourceSmart School of the Year for their commitment to sustainability, waste reduction and biodiversity conservation. HOLMESGLEN TAFE Mr FREGON: Similarly, Holmesglen TAFE’s Glen Waverley campus is also leading the way with their conservation and land management courses focusing on biodiversity and revegetation projects, so we can see in our area of Mount Waverley and the whole of Victoria that from early childhood to primary to secondary to our tertiary educators— (Time expired) EAST PRESTON ISLAMIC COLLEGE Mr SCOTT (Preston) (10:07): I rise today after attending last night the Ramadan iftar dinner organised by the East Preston Islamic College. The East Preston Islamic College is a wonderful organisation in my electorate that last year had such a critical role in ensuring the overcoming of a significant outbreak of coronavirus in the northern suburbs. People from the school had worked tirelessly to ensure testing and had conducted outreach to families, many of whom come from disadvantaged backgrounds, to ensure that they were safe. This work was critical not just in the work in bringing that outbreak under control but also in building strong bonds of friendship and trust between the college and the broader community. This work is invaluable to ensuring the strength and success of multiculturalism in the northern suburbs. The iftar dinner of course is not just that, it is a celebration of faith, and the Ramadan period is one of the pillars of faith in the Muslim community. The iftar dinner conducted by East Preston Islamic College is not just an example of that faith within our community, but it is also a wonderful outreach activity where people, particularly members of the

STATEMENTS ON PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1363 police force, join with the communities of the college to share and understand and build those personal ties which help us be one community, diverse but sharing love and understanding for each other. DEER PARK LEVEL CROSSING REMOVAL Ms KAIROUZ (Kororoit) (10:08): We are getting on with the job of removing the dangerous and congested level crossing at Robinsons Road, Deer Park, by building a road underpass beneath the rail line. Last week I visited the Robinsons Road level crossing removal site in Deer Park, with three big rigs set to start digging deep at Robinsons Road. It is the first step forward towards a rail bridge. Crews are working around the clock drilling foundations in the rail corridor with 100-tonne piling rigs. The piling works will enable Robinsons Road to stay open when excavation under the rail line begins in mid-2021. Digging under the rail line and building the road underpass will separate trains and vehicles for good. Across Melbourne 46 level crossings are already gone for good, with 22 sites currently under construction. In 2021 one level crossing will be removed on average every four weeks. I would like to thank all the local residents for their patience during these rail and road closures which will pave the way for the next major milestone starting in 2021. BROOKSIDE RECREATION RESERVE PAVILION Ms KAIROUZ: On another matter, I had the great pleasure of joining the mayor and councillors from Melton City Council at the first sod turn at the Brookside Recreation Reserve pavilion in Caroline Springs. $850 000 was funded from the Growing Suburbs Fund. The upgrade will modernise the pavilion, catering for larger crowds along with a larger kitchen, extra social space, a new meeting room and female-friendly changing rooms. The refurbished pavilion will serve the fast-growing local sporting community within my electorate. It will also allow locals to enjoy a more social and active lifestyle closer to home. The project is expected to be completed by October, and I look forward to attending— (Time expired) Statements on parliamentary committee reports LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY LEGAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES COMMITTEE Inquiry into Anti-vilification Protections Ms McLEISH (Eildon) (10:10): I rise to speak on the Legal and Social Issues Committee of the Legislative Assembly report into Victoria’s anti-vilification protections. I think it is very well agreed in this party that prejudice, racism and hate are still present in our community but have no place in our community. The terms of reference were handed down on 12 September 2019 and included possible expansion or extension of protections beyond existing classes, and from the reports that I have heard from those who were on that committee, that they have made good headway on that. It looked at how Victoria can address these issues and make a positive change. They received over 70 submissions from individuals and community groups who contributed their experiences of racism. People deserve to live their lives free from fear of racial intolerance. Also whether it is in relation to religion, sexuality, gender or disability, or it is against women, intolerance has no place. We have seen some awful examples of racial intolerance over the last few years. We had thought as a country and as a state we had moved well beyond that, but there is still work to do. We need to continue to promote equality, multiculturalism and inclusion. Chapter 4 of this particular report talks about prevention mechanisms for vilification. Chapter 4.3.1 refers to school education, and this is where I want to make a number of comments. The report quotes many references that cite initiatives and proven strategies to look at combatting prejudice and discrimination. I think it is agreed that it needs to be at all levels, because primary school children often learn from their parents and if their parents have that bad behaviour, it becomes embedded and entrenched. We need to do education at those primary levels and continue that at secondary school as well. One of the submissions was about appealing to the emotional side of the brain. I quite like this because that allows for empathy. So when children put themselves in the position of somebody who has been vilified in some way, it helps them have that greater understanding.

STATEMENTS ON PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS 1364 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

The report found that there had been significant failings, I guess, within the education system to identify and reform attitudes of intolerance and in particular anti-Semitic and racial bullying. Now, the government has initiated some changes here, and I want to look at Holocaust education within schools. The Acting Premier, the Minister for Education, last night, for Israel’s 73rd year of independence, outlined a number of these. They did include initiatives at primary school and then at the years 9 and 10 levels having additional classes on Holocaust education, because we know that genocide was not seen previously. We saw the rise of the Nazi party through that and the absolute atrocities that were committed mostly to Jews but also to gays and Gypsies. Now, one of the things that I do want to comment on is that although there are actions being taken at primary schools and at the years 9 and 10 levels, I think that there is additional work that can be done. There are a number of year 12 novels—I have been reading through the book list for year 12, the English novels. There are several books that allow the department or the teachers to revisit and reinforce some of those lessons as these children are about to embark on life as adults. The Golden Age by Joan London, set in 1954, follows a 13-year-old refugee from wartime Hungary. That is an opportunity to talk about what was happening there. All the Light We Cannot See by Anthony Doerr, set in World War II, follows the story of a blind French girl and a German boy who was growing up in Nazi Germany and who was being directed into the Hitler Youth—what he saw and what he was very uncomfortable with. It gives teachers a great opportunity to remind students again of the atrocities of the Holocaust. After Darkness by Christine Piper was a little bit different, but it was around the wars and looking at a Japanese doctor working in Australian hospitals at the time. We know that there are other books: The Book Thief by Markus Zusak is a wonderful way to help demonstrate this, and The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas by John Boyne is absolutely tragic on so many levels. There are further opportunities for the minister to embrace this education into the syllabus. ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING COMMITTEE Inquiry into Tackling Climate Change in Victorian Communities Mr HAMER (Box Hill) (10:15): I am very pleased to rise today to talk about the Inquiry into Tackling Climate Change in Victorian Communities that was put out by the Environment and Planning Committee late last year. The purpose of our parliamentary policy committees is really to delve a little bit deeper into some of the critical issues that are facing our community today, and tackling climate change is one of those issues. For the work that you put into the committee the reward is to actually see that implemented in government policy. We are not yet six months on from the time that the report was released, and we have seen over the last six months and particularly in the last week that some of the key recommendations and findings that have come out of the report are already being implemented as government policy. I would like to draw some of those out, because I think that it is a fantastic reflection on the work of all members of the committee to create that policy framework that has been taken up by the government. The particular areas I want to focus on are in relation to the transport sector and the agricultural sector and the impact that they have on climate change. A Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning report into emissions in Victoria identified that in 2017 20.6 per cent of all emissions were attributable to the transport sector and 13.5 per cent of emissions were attributable to the agricultural sector. So almost a third of all emissions come from those two sectors, and those two sectors have been amongst the most difficult and intractable to solve. Overall the committee provided 72 recommendations and 38 findings into how to address some of the climate change issues affecting our community. I want to draw out a few of them and talk about how the government is actually responding to those recommendations. I will start on recommendation 50:

That the Victorian Government provide funding to the development of a regional fast charging network as set out in the Charging the Regions Outcomes Report. I am very pleased that on the weekend this Andrews government announced that it will more than triple the government’s support for fast-charging sites across Victoria, adding at least 50 charging points to

STATEMENTS ON PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1365 the existing network of 24. This is so important in terms of reliability and confidence. The motorist or user of the electric vehicle will be able to drive through the state with confidence that they will be able to quickly charge their car; they can go and grab a bite to eat in that particular regional town without having to worry about whether they are going to make it to the next town or have to go home. Recommendation 52 talks about the integration of electric vehicles into the Victorian government fleet. Again, it was in the announcement on the weekend that the Andrews government will invest $10 million into adding zero-emission vehicles to the government fleet, starting with 400 vehicles in the next two years. The government fleet is a large fleet, and this is a huge start in terms of transitioning the vehicle fleet into a low-emissions environment. Another key recommendation, recommendation 54, is for a phased replacement of the public bus fleet with electric buses. Look, it was just fantastic: I was out with the Minister for Public Transport in Box Hill on Monday to announce that from 2025 all buses purchased for the government fleet will be electric buses. This is a huge announcement. It does take many years for the whole fleet to change over—obviously you want the buses to run for their entire life—but it is a huge announcement which will make a huge difference. I commend the report. PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES COMMITTEE Report on the 2020–21 Budget Estimates Mr McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (10:20): I rise to speak on the Report on the 2020–21 Budget Estimates. I want to refer first of all to page 58, which talks about health portfolios and key issues and investment in acute services, where $17.1 billion has been put in, but for small rural services it is only $468 million by contrast. Now, like many in regional Victoria, I have got many small rural services— certainly Cobram District Health and Bright hospital, which is part of the Alpine Health system. Both of these rural towns are vibrant and growing and prosperous, but both of these towns are screaming out for major investment. I think this report highlights the massive difference in investment towards the health needs in smaller rural communities. Page 62 of the report, at 3.6.3, talks about capital investment initiatives—again investments in growth corridors—but again it lacks the investment in rural and regional existing health facilities. Bright, for example, has nine acute beds, which seems to keep pace with the massive tourist influx that is going on there, but it is the aged-care beds that are most important for local people. What is needed is 40 aged-care beds with a range of low- and high-care facilities and support. That is what we need— something for everybody in those small towns. It is no good shipping people from Bright, for example, off to Myrtleford or Wangaratta for high-care aged-care facilities for short-term high or medium care. People need to be taken care of within their own community. Page 63 of the report, headed ‘Rural and regional hospital upgrades’, highlights Warrnambool Base, Latrobe, regional Ballarat hospital and Wangaratta base but again neglects the small towns, which endorses the long-held theory that the government just does not understand regional Victoria. Throwing money at, for example, Bendigo, Ballarat and Geelong might be a great narrative about supporting the regions, but it misses the point entirely. Country people want to be cared for in their local hospital. Country people understand that to get specialist attention, whether it is an MRI or whether it is expensive equipment or cancer support, they need to go to the larger service centres. That is common sense, and they are prepared to travel for that. But as I say, low and higher care in aged care and basic acute services need to still be available at your closest town that has a population of say 4000 or 5000 and above. For example, when an 80-year-old man goes into aged care in a place like Bright and gets moved down to Myrtleford or Wangaratta because the services are not available, it makes it very difficult, with logistical issues for the partner who is left behind. For example, if it is the husband or the wife left at home, it is very difficult for them to go and get that support and to show that support to their loved one. That is why, again, having aged care with low and high care in our smaller communities is vital.

STATEMENTS ON PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS 1366 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

The report also talks about staying abreast of the changing environment. I am also aware of larger regional base hospitals, like Northeast Health Wangaratta, also in the mix to fall under even larger regional hospitals, whether it falls under the Goulbourn Valley Health in Shepparton or Wodonga. Again, regional centres like Wangaratta are standalone regional centres, and they must stand on their own and be adequately resourced. I understand that Melbourne gets the lion’s share of the funds because it has got the most people—I get that—but 25 per cent of Victoria’s population lives in regional Victoria, and that is growing fast, increasing certainly since COVID. The numbers are going up. Again, as I say, Cobram and Bright are two massive tourist destinations; they need that health care—first and foremost for their residents, and then secondly, for the tourists that continue to flock in. That is why genuine investment, as the report talks about—in both of these cases $25 million—is required. It is vital to keep these hospitals sustainable and just moving forward with population growth, and in most cases these hospitals are the largest employer in town. Finally, on page 60 there is the title ‘Hospitals’ response to changing demand’. They spent an awful lot of money on COVID-19—which I get—to ensure that health services were not swamped during the virus. But there is a critical step, and it shows there is no excuse to not continue those capital improvements in small rural health services like Cobram and Bright, because those smaller towns will only put the pressure back on the larger regional centres. ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING COMMITTEE Inquiry into Tackling Climate Change in Victorian Communities Mr FOWLES (Burwood) (10:25): It is my pleasure to rise to make a contribution, as the member for Box Hill has, on the Inquiry into Tackling Climate Change in Victorian Communities report. Deputy Speaker, you will be aware that this was an inquiry that went right around the state to evaluate some of the views that individual communities had, and under the leadership of our exceptional Chair we were able to gain a whole bunch of evidence from right across the state about some of the fantastic responses being made to the great challenges of climate change. I am very grateful that the minister in a very sensible and humble way has taken up so many of these recommendations. Too often we see from other people in this chamber the sort of arrogance that says, ‘We’re better than the science. We’re better than the evidence. We’re better than the views of experts’. But this government is a government that listens to that scientific advice, that responds to that scientific advice, and I am delighted that the minister has picked up on so many of the recommendations we made. I am particularly delighted that we made a commitment this week around emissions reductions, which is significant. We were of course one of the first jurisdictions to legislate net zero by 2050. We have exceeded our 2020 target of a 15 to 20 per cent reduction on 2005 levels, and we are continuing to lead the nation by setting further targets—ambitious targets but achievable targets—of between 28 and 33 per cent by 2025, just 3½ short years away, and 45 to 50 per cent by 2030. They are significant targets, and they reflect the genuine commitment of this government to taking action on climate change, to taking meaningful action on climate change and to making sure that the things we do in a legislative sense, the things we do in a governing sense, are significant and meaningful. There are a number of recommendations in the report, as I said, that have been taken up, and a couple I want to draw to the attention of the chamber: firstly, recommendation 60 in relation to extension support for Victorian farmers and the research required. The Minister for Regional Development and Minister for Agriculture has announced that we are accelerating a range of projects, including just shy of $4 million for research into agriculture emissions reduction technologies and practices, including flagship trials to reduce methane on dairy cow farms with feed additives, as well as collaborating on a national scale to enhance research and innovation, because it is research and innovation that will deliver the gains we need to meet these ambitious targets.

STATEMENTS ON PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1367

If you do not have the targets and you are not serious about the challenge, you simply cannot then bring all of government along on the journey that is needed to get us down to net zero by 2050. It is only through those sorts of substantial actions, by creating a whole-of-government target—a target that this government was one of the first to legislate—that you will have that meaningful response from all parts of government. Sadly whilst leadership has been completely lacking in the federal sphere, this government is getting on with the job when it comes to climate change. One of the other recommendations we made was recommendation 56:

That the Victorian Government explore options to have the metropolitan train network powered by 100% renewable energy. It is sort of equivalent to turning trains into yachts, I guess—run on wind energy. I am absolutely delighted that just a few days ago the Acting Premier announced that government operations from schools and hospitals to police stations and metro trains will be powered by 100 per cent renewable energy by 2025—100 per cent renewable energy in just four short years for schools, hospitals, police stations, metro trains and government operations. That is a very substantial commitment. It is an important commitment. It is a commitment that speaks to the seriousness with which the Victorian government takes the challenge of climate change—a seriousness that remains sadly lacking in the federal arena. The amount of international pressure that has been brought to bear on the commonwealth speaks to how out of step they are with the international consensus on climate change. I am delighted that the minister has picked up so many of the recommendations of the work of this committee and commend the report to the house. PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES COMMITTEE Report on the 2020–21 Budget Estimates Mr ANGUS (Forest Hill) (10:30): I am pleased to rise this morning to make a contribution in relation to the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC) Report on the 2020–21 Budget Estimates, which was tabled in this place earlier in the week and dated April. I want to particularly first of all commend the committee on the great work they have done. As a former member of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee I understand the amount of work that goes into a report of this nature, and it has got a lot of very interesting information within it. This morning however I want to particularly focus my comments in relation to the minority report, which is located at the rear of the report. That particular report contains six findings and three recommendations. It deals with six areas, and those areas are headed: first, ‘Victoria: billions of dollars in debt and no plan to pay it back’; second, ‘Cuts to IBAC to prevent transparency and accountability’; third, ‘Failure to produce a State Capital Program (Budget Paper 4)’; fourth, ‘Metro Tunnel Project— billions over budget’; fifth, ‘West Gate Tunnel Project: no tunnel, tonnes of toxic soil’; six, ‘COVID- 19 Quarantine Victoria (CQV)—another botched Hotel Quarantine Program and costs hidden from examination’ and then has concluding remarks. I commend this report to all members. As I said, the minority report contains a lot of very important information that I think should be well advanced in relation to the knowledge of Victorian taxpayers because we can see there in summary form in just a very few pages the financial mismanagement of this government. If I look at the first particular point, ‘Victoria: billions of dollars in debt and no plan to pay it back’, the minority report goes into detail of the fact that Victoria is now in a recession. We have lost our AAA rating, we are going to have debt going over $150 billion by 2024 and by the Premier’s own admission both at PAEC and elsewhere, there is no plan at all to repay that debt. What we have got here is the government getting the credit going white hot and no plan at all—no consideration—of when that debt and how the debt will be repaid. And of course that has got massive implications for all Victorians, because interest on that will continue to need to be paid, and with the downgrading of the credit rating the interest bill in relation to that debt continues to go up. The first finding is, and I quote:

STATEMENTS ON PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS 1368 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

The Andrews Labor Government’s financial incompetence has resulted in Victoria losing its AAA credit rating, putting the state into recession, and that the Government has no plan to pay back hundreds of billions of dollars of debt. Now, the second matter that the minority report raises is the cuts to IBAC to prevent transparency and accountability. This is a particularly concerning one because we need a regulator reporting to the Parliament that can examine financial irregularities, misappropriation and other matters that need to be examined within their remit. The fact that the Premier when he was repeatedly asked at PAEC would not concede that the budget of IBAC had been cut is a shameful thing. If you turn to page 264 of the substantive report, there is a table there: 12.1. And if we go down to the third line item, ‘Independent Broad‑based Anti‑corruption Commission’, we can see the variance between the 2019–20 budget and the 2020–21 budget is a red arrow decreasing and next to it it says ‘-4.5 per cent’. There we can see in black and white—as attested to by the majority of the members, and of course the majority is controlled by the government—in that table citing the very facts, and the facts from the budget, that IBAC funding has indeed been cut. So for the Premier and other witnesses to deny that in PAEC hearings is quite a disgraceful exhibition, and one that all Victorians should not forget. The third point that the minority report raises is the failure to produce a state capital program, and that is budget paper 4. Again there are some lame excuses given for that, but the fact that that was not done is absolutely disgraceful. As they have said in the report here, it was a case of political convenience to hide and cover up the truth of the massive budget blowouts that occurred on each of these projects. There is a recommendation there that the state capital program be published as part of the 2021–22 budget and all future budgets, so we will wait with bated breath to see when the budget is tabled here next month whether we get a BP4. I commend the minority report to members. PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES COMMITTEE Report on the 2020–21 Budget Estimates Mr McGUIRE (Broadmeadows) (10:35): I refer to the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee inquiry into the budget estimates and the contribution from the Treasurer as the Minister for Economic Development—I am delighted to see him at the table—on how Victoria is trying to strengthen economic performance with a range of mechanisms. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the Treasurer for the big-picture vision that we have—a $49 billion investment in the last budget— and how we are trying to build on that again. We have got the Assistant Treasurer at the table as well. I take this opportunity to inform them that we have just launched a new model to try to harness the value—this unique opportunity that we have. I have just launched this with the University of Melbourne and Professor Rob Moodie, the professor of global health, Professor Alan Pert, the director of the Melbourne School of Design, and a whole range of our most eminent thinkers on how we deliver putting people first—have a place-based response—and then how we build the value proposition. The aim is to have a suburban and social innovation lab that will support all levels of government to build stronger, smarter and resilient communities by creating a prototype of suburban living that is of state, national and international significance. The key is this: we have 321 suburbs. We have millions of families living there and working there, increasingly so, particularly given the pandemic. So how do we unlock that value, how do we make the suburbs work in a bigger, bolder and more satisfying way, and how do we get the design right? Let us have suburban beauty—when do you hear those two words joined together—in the design of what we are doing. We have the $5.3 billion Big Housing Build. This is a one-off opportunity. What we are trying to make sure of with this is to put in the enlightenment factor so that we do not have the repetition of what occurred in Broadmeadows back in the 1950s. It was done with the best of intentions, but the social infrastructure was never built for decades and it struggled to catch up to that, so the promises were always ahead of the delivery. I know that this government has tried to do everything it can to make sure that we set this up in the right way so that we avoid Einstein’s definition of insanity: repeating the same thing over and over

BILLS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1369 again and expecting different results. This research is required for a unifying model that harnesses the lessons of history and adds value through intellectual rigour, lived experience and world’s best practice. So this is a unique opportunity. We have the record investments. The Andrews Labor government could not have done more when you think about, really, how it is trying to change opportunities for individuals, for communities and for us as a state. So this is the attempt to harness these assets and make sure that we get the value. One of the other propositions that it will address is the vision—and the University of Melbourne have actually called it the ‘Broadmeadows model’—to address the causes of the compounding issues of our time. The value is in improving the social determinants of life through lifelong learning for skills, jobs and meaning; better health, wellbeing and longevity; and connecting the disconnected to opportunity. If you really think about some of these communities, here is the chance to address the issue of intergenerational bias for first home buyers. If you look at a community like Broadmeadows, only 16 kilometres from the heart of one of the world’s most livable cities, we have got blue-chip infrastructure and we have got the land there. How do we now get the value out of that? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if this became the home for our first responders, for basically our community heroes— our nurses and our teachers. We have the opportunity through the Victorian government’s investment and investments in advanced manufacturing wealth from the Australian government to bring back Broadmeadows and make this a prototype for other suburbs as well. So there is a national unity ticket to get this done. Now is the best opportunity we have ever had. We have got an enlightened government driving this. We have got another budget soon to come, and we look forward to that to make sure that we can bring these things together, deliver the opportunity and do it in an enlightened way so we help more people deny that miser fate. Bills EDUCATION AND TRAINING REFORM AMENDMENT (PROTECTION OF SCHOOL COMMUNITIES) BILL 2021 Statement of compatibility Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (10:41): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the Education and Training Reform Amendment (Protection of School Communities) Bill 2021.

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (the Charter), I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Education and Training Reform Amendment (Protection of School Communities) Bill 2021 (the Bill). In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with the human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement. Overview of the Bill The Bill amends the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 (Act) to enable the making of orders to protect members of school communities from harmful, threatening or abusive behaviour, to provide for civil penalties for the enforcement of those orders, and to make other miscellaneous amendments. Human rights issues Powers to make school community safety orders Clause 6 of the Bill inserts a new Part 2.1A into the Act providing new powers to address harmful behaviours arising in relation to a school or school community. The aim of these powers is to protect against conduct which may interfere with student wellbeing, safety or educational opportunities, or which may result in harm to members of the school community, including students, staff, and parents. The Bill grants powers to make orders addressing such conduct to ‘authorised persons’. ‘Authorised person’ is defined in new section 2.1A.1 and section 2.1A.2(1) to include the Secretary (for a Government school), the principal of a registered school, the proprietor of a non-Government school (or, if the proprietor is not an individual, a person authorised by the Secretary for that school), or other persons as authorised by the Secretary. These authorised persons may make immediate school community safety orders (immediate

BILLS 1370 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

orders) lasting up to 14 days (under Division 2 of Part 2.1A) or ongoing school community safety orders (ongoing orders) (under Division 3 of Part 2.1A) lasting up to 12 months. Under an immediate order or ongoing order, a person may be prohibited from entering or remaining on any relevant school-related place specified in the order. An ongoing order may also prohibit a person from: approaching, telephoning, sending a message to, or otherwise contacting any staff member, or class of staff members (or causing a third person to engage in such conduct specified on the person’s behalf); using or communicating on a communication platform or channel owned or controlled by, or established in relation to, the school; or any prescribed conduct. An order may only be made if the particular grounds specified under the Bill are established. In the case of both immediate and ongoing orders, an authorised person may make an order if they reasonably believe that an order is necessary because a person poses a risk of: harm to a member of the school community at a school- related place; causing significant disruption to the efficient operation of the school or activities carried out by the school; or interfering with the wellbeing, safety or educational opportunities of students enrolled at a school (see new section 2.1A.5 and new section 2.1A.17). In order for an immediate order to be made, the relevant risk posed must be an ‘imminent and unacceptable’ risk. In order for an ongoing order to be made, the relevant risk must be ‘unacceptable’. In addition, an ongoing order may also be made where an authorised person reasonably believes that a person has behaved, and may be likely to again behave, in a disorderly, offensive, intimidating or threatening manner to a member of the school community at a school-related place, or that they have made, and may be likely to again make, vexatious communications to, or about, a staff member. In relation to ongoing orders, section 2.1A.21 provides that a person in relation to whom an ongoing order is proposed to be made has the right to make submissions to the decision-maker. This ensures that people have the opportunity to explain conduct that may form a ground for making an order, or to demonstrate why an order is not appropriate or reasonable in the circumstances. Before making an immediate or ongoing order in relation to a person, an authorised person must consider any vulnerability of that person, and must consider whether the order is the least restrictive means by which to address the grounds on which the order is made. It must also only be made if it is reasonably necessary to address the grounds on which the order is proposed to be made (new section 2.1A.5 and new section 2.1A.17). Neither immediate nor ongoing orders can be made in relation to persons aged under 18, or in relation to staff or students of the relevant school (new subsections 2.1A.3(2) and 2.1A.15(2)). Orders may be made subject to reasonable and appropriate exceptions (new sections 2.1A.8 and 2.1A.24)—for example, to allow a person to enter the school for a particular school event. Further, an order may state any reasonable and appropriate actions a person may take to have the order revoked (such as participation in a specified course or alternative dispute resolution process, making an apology, retracting a statement, or participating in an assessment by an independent expert). If an order is made in respect of the parent of a child of the school (which, under the Act, includes a guardian and every person who has parental responsibility for the child), the authorised person must prepare a communication and access protocol (new sections 2.1A.13 and 2.1A.23). This protocol must set out the measures to be taken to ensure the parent can still communicate with the school and be informed about the child’s education, and arrangements to ensure the child’s attendance at the school and school activities. As soon as practicable after the making of an immediate order, but no later than 14-days, the authorised person must either make an ongoing order, which will replace the immediate order, or revoke the immediate order. Regardless of whether the authorised person decides to make an ongoing order, an authorised person may revoke an immediate order at any time. Various review processes are available in relation to ongoing orders. For immediate orders, procedural fairness is ensured by requiring an authorised person to determine as soon as practicable whether to commence the procedure for making an ongoing order and, if not, requiring that they revoke the immediate order (new section 2.1A.12). With regard to ongoing orders, new Division 4 of Part 2.1A provides for a formal internal review process, after which an ongoing order may be affirmed, varied or revoked. A person who is the subject of the order may apply for that decision to be reviewed by VCAT (new section 2.1A.33). If a person contravenes an immediate or ongoing order, they may be subject to a civil penalty (new sections 2.1A.14 and 2.1A.28). Under Division 6 of Part 2.1A, the Secretary or a nominee of the proprietor of the relevant school may apply to the Magistrates’ Court for the payment of a civil penalty of up to 60 penalty units for breach of an order, or for an order compelling a person to comply with an immediate or ongoing order (or such other order that the Court considers appropriate).

BILLS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1371

These provisions may engage the right to freedom of expression, the right to freedom of movement, the right to privacy, the rights of families and children, the right to equality and the right to a fair hearing. These rights are discussed below. Freedom of expression Section 15(2) of the Charter provides that every person has the right to freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, orally, in writing, in print, by way of art, or in another medium chosen by that person. Under section 15(3) of the Charter, special duties and responsibilities are attached to the right of freedom of expression. The right may be subject to lawful restrictions reasonably necessary to respect the rights and reputation of other persons, or for the protection of national security, public order, public health or public morality. The Bill restricts freedom of expression by enabling an authorised person to make an order prohibiting a person from communicating with specified school staff, or on school-related communications platforms, and excluding persons from school-related places and their immediate surrounds (which will affect their capacity to communicate with persons at those places). An order may also provide that it will be revoked if a person engages in certain expression (such as making an apology or retracting a statement), which may affect a person’s freedom of expression. In addition, the Bill restricts freedom of expression by enabling an ongoing order to be made on the grounds that a person has engaged in vexatious communications. This may inhibit a person’s capacity to engage in certain forms of expression (including in their communications with staff members, or in publishing material about school staff members). Finally, the Bill restricts freedom of expression by authorising the Magistrates’ Court to make an order requiring a person to comply with an immediate or ongoing order. While the restrictions on expression described above are significant, in my view, these restrictions fall within the internal qualifications on the right, because they are lawful restrictions reasonably necessary to protect the rights of others. In particular, they serve the important purpose of protecting the rights of school staff and students to work and study in a safe place, and to be free from harm, harassment, interference and unnecessary disruption. In forming this view, I have taken into account the various safeguards provided for under the Bill to ensure that any restrictions imposed on individual expression will be reasonable. In particular, I note that the Bill provides for various procedural safeguards to enable individuals to make a case for why an order should not be made (or should be revoked), and to ensure that orders do not result in disproportionate impacts on vulnerable individuals. In relation to ongoing orders, as described above, the Bill provides a process for making submissions to the authorised person prior to the making of an order. Further, an authorised person must consider any vulnerability of the person, and any less restrictive alternatives to achieve the purpose of the proposed order. These protections help to ensure that orders do not have unduly harsh consequences for persons with particular needs, and that ongoing orders are not imposed where other means of achieving the purposes of such orders are reasonably available. While I note that an immediate order may be made without first giving a person the opportunity to make submissions, such orders cannot directly restrict a person’s communications, and they are generally subject to a 14-day time limit. As such, any restriction on the right to freedom of expression imposed under such orders is less significant. As described above, the Bill also provides for both internal and external review processes in respect of ongoing orders. A further safeguard against the arbitrary exercise of the powers is imposed by new section 2.1A.35, which allows the Minister to make Ministerial Guidelines regarding the appropriate exercise of the relevant powers. In addition to these procedural safeguards, I note that the substance of the orders authorised under the Bill does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve its purpose. An ongoing order may only restrict communications with specified staff members, or on school-related communication platforms or channels— it cannot, for example, prevent a person from expressing themselves through communications with other persons not specified in the order, prohibit a person from publishing material on other communication platforms that are not related to the school, or prohibit a person from engaging in vexatious communications in a general sense. Although the fact that a person has engaged in vexatious communications may form the basis for making an ongoing order, vexatious communications themselves are not prohibited. Further, the test for whether or not a communication is ‘vexatious’ is objective—that is, communications will only be

BILLS 1372 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

considered vexatious if a reasonable person would consider them unreasonable, having regard to the circumstances. Finally, while breach of an order may result in a civil penalty being imposed, the penalty may only be imposed by the Magistrates’ Court, which ensures judicial oversight of any enforcement processes. For the above reasons, I consider that any interference with expression imposed by the Bill are lawful restrictions reasonably necessary to protect the rights and reputation of others. To the extent that it is relevant, I also consider that any limit imposed on the right is reasonable and justified in accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter. Freedom of movement The right to freedom of movement is contained in section 12 of the Charter and applies generally to a person’s movement within Victoria. Relevantly, it provides that every person lawfully within Victoria has the right to move freely within Victoria. It provides protection from unnecessary restrictions upon a person’s freedom of movement and extends, generally, to movement without impediment throughout the State and a right of access to places and services used by members of the public, subject to compliance with regulations legitimately made in the public interest. This right is likely to be limited by the exercise of the powers to make immediate and ongoing orders (under Divisions 2 and 3 of new Part 2.1A). Those orders may prohibit people from ‘entering or remaining on any relevant school-related place specified in the order’. The definition of ‘school-related place’ in new section 2.1A.1 includes the school, any area within 25m of a school and any premises or place on which there is a school activity conducted by the school, or any area within 25m of those premises or places. Schools already have the power to exclude people from school property under existing laws. However, a person who fails to comply with an immediate or ongoing order under the Bill will face new civil penalties that are not available under existing powers to exclude persons from school properties. Further, the Bill enables orders to be made excluding persons from some public places and other places that do not belong to the school but where a school activity is taking place. In my view, the limits on freedom of movement imposed by the Bill are reasonable. The proposed new provisions serve the important purpose of ensuring that schools are safe places capable of effectively protecting and educating children. The limit on freedom of movement only relates to school premises or places where school activities are taking place (or their immediate surrounds). The exercise of the powers is appropriately circumscribed, as orders may only be made where one of the relevant grounds for making an order (discussed above) is made out. In the case of both immediate and ongoing orders, the order must be necessary to address the relevant harm, disruption, or interference, and the authorised person must consider whether the order is the least restrictive means available of addressing the relevant grounds on which the order is proposed to be made. These requirements ensure that any limit on rights associated with an order is appropriately tied to the purpose of the order, and that orders are not made in circumstances where other, less restrictive options are reasonably available. In light of these considerations, in my view the proposed powers are compatible with the right to freedom of movement. Right to privacy (s 13(a)) Section 13(a) of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. An interference will be lawful if it is permitted by a law which is precise and appropriately circumscribed, and will be arbitrary only if it is capricious, unpredictable, unjust or unreasonable, in the sense of being disproportionate to the legitimate aim sought. The power to make an ongoing order is likely to engage the right to privacy in that it may affect people’s ability to correspond with others (for example, where an order prohibits a person from contacting staff members, or from corresponding with others on a school-run social media page). However, to the extent that such an order interferes with the right to privacy, I consider that any such interference is lawful and not arbitrary—for the reasons set out above in relation to the right to freedom of expression, the power is appropriately tailored and circumscribed in a manner which prevents it being exercised in a disproportionate manner. The right to privacy may also be interfered with by requirements under new sections 2.1A.7 and 2.1A.20 that certain information must be included when giving written notice of immediate and ongoing orders (for example, orders must include information regarding the grounds on which an order is made, which may in some cases involve personal information). It may also be interfered with by the requirement that a person be given reasons for an internal review decision under new section 2.1A.29 (noting that the reasons may in some cases contain personal or private information). However, to the extent that these provisions may interfere with privacy, any such interference will be lawful and non-arbitrary. Requiring such information to be provided to a person affected by an order or decision is necessary to respect their rights to procedural fairness.

BILLS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1373

For these reasons, I consider that the Bill is compatible with the right to privacy. Rights of families and children Section 17(1) of the Charter recognises that families are the fundamental group unit of society, and entitles families to protection by the society and the State. Section 17(2) of the Charter provides that every child has the right, without discrimination, to such protection as is in their best interests and is needed by them by reason of being a child. It recognises the special vulnerability of children, defined in the Charter as persons under 18 years of age. ‘Best interests’ is considered to be a complex concept which must be determined on a case-by-case basis. However, the following elements may be taken into account when assessing the child’s best interests: the child’s views; the child’s identity; preservation of the family environment and maintaining relationships; care, protection and safety of the child; situation of vulnerability; the child’s right to health; and the child’s right to education. The rights of families and children may be limited by the proposed Bill as the legislation may interfere with the ability of family members subject to immediate or ongoing orders to attend school events, accompany children on excursions or school camps, volunteer at the school, communicate with school staff, or otherwise engage with the child’s education at the school. This may detrimentally affect family relationships, and may not be in the best interests of each individual child where they have a parent, family member or other associate who is the subject of an order. However, the Bill serves the important purpose of promoting the best interests of children and families more generally—including the right of children to education—by improving the ability of schools to deal with harmful, abusive or disruptive conduct on the part of adult members of the school community. Further, the requirement that a communication and access protocol be prepared where an order is made in relation to a parent of a child at a school ensures that communications and contact necessary to support the child’s education are not compromised. As such, the interference with the rights of children and families goes no further than reasonably necessary. Accordingly, to the extent that the rights of individual families and children may be limited by the proposed Bill, in my view any limit is justified on the basis of achieving the important purpose of promoting a safe educational environment. Right to equality Section 8(3) of the Charter relevantly provides that every person is entitled to equal protection of the law without discrimination and has the right to equal and effective protection against discrimination. The purpose of this component of the right to equality is to ensure that all laws and policies are applied equally, and do not have a discriminatory effect. ‘Discrimination’ under the Charter is defined by reference to the definition of discrimination in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (EO Act) on the basis of an attribute in s 6 of that Act. Relevantly, s 6 of the EO Act contains the attributes of disability and age. Notably, disability is defined to include ‘behaviour that is a symptom or manifestation of a disability’. Direct discrimination occurs where a person treats a person with an attribute unfavourably because of that attribute. Indirect discrimination occurs where there is a requirement, condition or practice imposed that is the same for everyone, but disadvantages a person, or is likely to disadvantage a person, because they have one or more of the protected attributes, and the requirement, condition or practice is not reasonable. The right to equality is engaged because the proposed powers to impose immediate and ongoing orders may in some cases authorise discrimination on the basis of behaviour that is a symptom or manifestation of a disability. For example, engaging in vexatious communications, or causing disruption at a school, may in some cases be a manifestation of a psychiatric or cognitive impairment that affects a person’s ability to regulate their conduct or communicate appropriately with school staff. However, even if the provisions involve discrimination and limit the right to equality, in my view any limit is reasonable and justifiable. The powers to make immediate and ongoing orders are imposed for the important purposes of enabling schools to function effectively and to provide a safe environment for staff, students, and the wider school community. As discussed above, significant procedural safeguards are in place to ensure orders are reasonable and proportionate, and authorised persons must consider any vulnerabilities of a person before making an ongoing order—this would include a requirement to consider a person’s disability. Further, schools are required to prepare access and communications protocols to ensure that parents continue to be adequately informed about their child’s education, and student access to the school and school activities is not inhibited. Given these considerations, in my view, the provisions are compatible with the right to equality. I further note that the right to equality is limited by the requirement that immediate and ongoing orders may only be made in relation to persons aged 18 years or over who is not a student or staff member of the school. While this may be considered as treating adults unfavourably (by subjecting them to orders that do not apply to children), any such discrimination is likely to be reasonable and justifiable on the basis that differential treatment of children in this context promotes the best interests of children. Further, because of their different

BILLS 1374 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

stage of physical and psychological development, it is reasonable to hold children to a different standard of accountability than that applied to adults. I therefore consider that any limit on the right to equality is reasonable and justifiable in accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter. Fair hearing right Section 24(1) of the Charter provides that a person who is a party to a civil proceeding has the right to have the proceeding decided by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing. The term ‘civil proceeding’ in section 24(1) has been interpreted as encompassing proceedings that are determinative of private rights and interests in the broad sense, including some administrative proceedings. The right is engaged by the Bill because, to the extent that a school principal or school proprietor (or person authorised by the school) is an ‘authorised person’ who is able to make an immediate or ongoing order, the decision may not be free from the perception of bias. Such a person may be closely connected to the matter at hand—for example, they may be the employer of a school staff member protected by the order, or they themselves may be one of the relevant school staff members protected by the order. As such, in some cases where a principal may have been involved in the matter, the right to have a proceeding decided by an impartial tribunal could be limited at the original decision-making stage. The Bill addresses this limit by allowing for other appropriate authorised persons involved in a school’s administration to be authorised by the Secretary. The Ministerial Guidelines will also set out an expectation that decisions should, to the extent possible, be as impartial and free from bias as possible, including if that requires a person other than the principal to make a decision to issue an order. Further, whether or not a person is afforded a fair hearing is considered in light of the decision-making process as a whole, having regard to the nature of the decision and the entirety of the decision-making process, including any avenue of appeal or review. As such, the absence of an impartial tribunal in the making of the original decision to issue an order does not necessarily result in incompatibility with the right to a fair hearing. Given that immediate orders are made in circumstances where there is an imminent risk, only last for up to 14 days (unless an ongoing order is proposed to be made, in which case the order may remain in effect for a longer period to account for the period during which a person makes submissions), in my view it is appropriate in some circumstances that the decision-maker could be a person who is familiar with the matter at hand. Ongoing orders may have more significant and longer-term impacts than immediate orders. However, a person affected by such an order may seek both internal and external review of the decision. As such, considering the decision-making process as a whole, I consider that the right to a fair hearing is not limited by these provisions. The Hon. James Merlino MP, Minister for Education Second reading Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (10:41): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time. I ask that the second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard. Incorporated speech as follows: Today, the Victorian Government introduces a Bill to amend the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 to establish a new School Community Safety Order scheme that applies to all Victorian schools. The proposed scheme empowers appropriate but limited decision makers to issue School Community Safety Orders to protect school staff and other members of the school community from parents, carers or other adults who engage in harmful, abusive, threatening or disruptive behaviour on school grounds or other places where school activities occur. This Government is committed to ensuring schools are safe places of work and learning for both staff and students. All school employees are entitled to a safe place of work. Further, students perform better in school where staff feel safe, supported and have the training and skills they need to teach safely. In 2018, I established the Protective Schools Ministerial Taskforce that recommended that the I consider the benefits and risks of legislative change to address threatening or aggressive conduct towards staff. Most parents, carers and other adults within school communities have respectful, positive relationships with their child’s or children’s school. Unfortunately, there are a small minority of people who violate this community expectation, and behave in a way that is unacceptable, aggressive or violent.

BILLS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1375

Parents and carers often have high frequency contact with the same staff members for many years, depending on the number of children a family has attending the school. In most other service industries, incidents experienced by service staff that have a damaging or harmful impact are usually once-off incidents. In schools, due to the unique and enduring nature of staff’s relationships with parents and carers of students, these incidents can be ongoing, repeated over time, and can have significant impacts on the health, safety and wellbeing of individual staff members, and on students and other members of the school community. Summary of Bill The Bill confers powers on authorised persons to issue a School Community Safety Order to prohibit an adult person who is not a staff member or student of the school from: • entering, remaining on or being within a range of up to 25 metres of a school premises or being at any place where there is a school activity taking place; • approaching, telephoning, sending a message to or otherwise contacting the staff member(s), or causing a third person to engage in this conduct; • using or communicating on a communication platform or channel that is owned or controlled by, or established in relation to, the school; • continuing to engage in the behaviour which resulted in the order being issued; or • any other prescribed conduct. The Bill provides that an authorised person may issue a School Community Safety Order if they are satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the person: • poses an unacceptable risk of harm to a member of the school community at a school or at a place where school related activities are taking place and the order is necessary to lessen or prevent the harm; • poses an unacceptable risk of significant disruption to the operation of the school and the order is necessary to lessen or prevent the disruption from occurring; • poses an unacceptable risk of interfering with the wellbeing, safety or educational opportunities of students enrolled at a school (for example, a parent who refuses to leave the classroom or otherwise interferes with a teacher’s ability to instruct a class, but who does not behave in an offensive, intimidating or threatening manner); • has behaved in a disorderly, offensive, abusive, intimidating or threatening manner to a member of the school community at a school or at a place where school-related activities are taking place (for example, a person who acts in a threatening or offensive manner to a teacher who is attending a school event, but does not interrupt or interfere with the event itself); or • has engaged in vexatious communications relating to a staff member (for example, a parent who sends an unreasonable volume of correspondence to a school about a single complaint). In certain limited circumstances, an Immediate School Community Safety Order may be issued to prevent an adult person who is not a staff member or student of the school from entering, remaining on or being within a range of up to 25 metres of a school premises or being at any place where there is a school activity taking place. Those limited grounds are where the person poses an unacceptable and imminent risk of: • harm to a person on school premises or any place where there is a school activity taking place; • significant disruption to the operation of a school or activities carried on by the school (for example, where a parent or carer is causing disruption because they are refusing to leave school grounds); or • interference with the wellbeing, safety or educational opportunities of students (for example, where a parent or carer interrogates a staff member when they are teaching a class, impacting the education opportunities of the students in the class). The provisions for an Immediate School Community Safety Order allows schools to take swift and immediate action to remove a person from school grounds or places where school activities are taking place. For example, because the person is threatening harm towards a teacher, and where there may not be adequate time for the school to undertake the show cause and procedural fairness procedures required before a School Community Safety Order is issued. An Immediate School Community Safety Order can only be in place for a maximum of 14 days, after which time the authorised person must decide whether or not grounds exist to issue a School Community Safety Order. “Authorised persons” who are empowered to issue orders under the scheme include school principals, the Secretary to the Department of Education and Training for Government schools, the registered proprietor of non-Government schools, and any person or class of persons the Secretary authorises.

BILLS 1376 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

For Government schools and some non-Government schools, this will allow some decisions to be made by appropriate departmental or other staff members (such as Regional Directors) not involved in the day-to-day operations of the school, thereby enabling the principal and teaching staff to maintain a good working relationship with the person who engaged in the inappropriate conduct. The Bill provides greater procedural fairness to parents, carers and other adults who may be subject to a School Community Safety Order than what is currently afforded through existing legislative schemes. Before issuing a School Community Safety Order, an authorised person will be required to consider the impact of the order on the subject, such as their disability, that may be impacting their behaviour and whether issuing an order is the least restrictive means available to reduce the likelihood of the harm occurring, or the impact upon the operation of the school or the wellbeing of the school community. Further, persons who are proposed to be the subject of an order will have the right to make submissions, which must be considered by the authorised person, before a final decision is made to issue the order. This scheme is supported by robust and independent internal and external review processes. The Bill authorises a person who is subject to a School Community Safety Order to apply for an internal merit review of the order. The review must be undertaken by, for Government schools, the Secretary or their delegate and, for non-Government schools, a person nominated by the principal or the registered proprietor of the school. If a person fails to comply with an Ongoing School Community Safety Order or Immediate School Community Safety Order, the Secretary (for Government schools) or the registered proprietor (for non- Government schools) may apply to the Magistrates’ Court for an order compelling the person to comply or take specified action to comply with the School Community Safety Order, an order to issue a civil penalty of up to 60 penalty units, or any other order that the Court considers appropriate. Importantly, this ensures that School Community Safety Orders are not enforced through the criminal justice system, which is not considered appropriate in the circumstances. Inadequacy of existing legislative schemes To date, existing legal avenues for dealing with violence and aggression from parents, carers and other adults have been limited in their effectiveness, as they do not cover the range of behaviours that constitute violence and aggression in schools and do not contain adequate protections that are appropriate for the school environment. Conduct and behaviour This Bill expands the protections afforded to school staff by capturing a wider spectrum of harmful conduct and behaviours from parents, carers and other adult members of the school community often experienced in the course of their work. For instance, the Personal Safety Intervention Order scheme under the Personal Safety Intervention Order Act 2010 has a high threshold for conduct, which includes stalking, assault, sexual assault, harassment, property damage or interference or the making of a serious threat, before an order may be issued to protect a school staff member. The amendments I present to you today protect staff against lower level, but nonetheless harmful, behaviours such as verbal and online abuse that do not necessarily need to be engaged in on school grounds and can, over time, cause significant psychological harm to school staff. Furthermore, the proposed Scheme does more than just prohibit an adult person from entering or remaining on school grounds, as is the case with the existing trespass warning notice scheme under the Summary Offences Act 1966. Rather, the Bill includes provisions that provide flexibility for schools to address problematic behaviours in other ways, including, for example, by requiring a parent to communicate with the school via email rather than in person or over the phone if they are verbally aggressive. Appropriate protections for parents and families Unlike other existing schemes, the Bill properly balances the need to provide protection to school staff and other members of the school community from risks of harm with the need to acknowledge any relevant circumstances that may have caused or contributed to the behaviour or conduct causing the harm. In addition to ensuring procedural fairness is afforded through a show cause procedure and internal and external review avenues, the Bill also introduces other protections that existing schemes do not have including by: • limiting who may issue School Community Safety Orders to principals and other appropriate authorised persons, who have the appropriate skills and experience to be exercising the relevant powers under the proposed scheme; • requiring schools to consider how the decision would impact on the student’s right to access their education, the parent or carer’s ability to participate in the student’s education and the safety and wellbeing of the child so that interventions are limited to what is necessary; • requiring schools to put in place alternative arrangements to ensure a child’s education is not affected by a School Community Safety Order, including by requiring a school to establish a

BILLS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1377

communications and access protocol to ensure that the parent can continue to be informed of and participate in their child’s education. Conclusion This Bill will ensure that all Victorian schools have appropriate and proportionate powers to meet their occupational, health and safety obligations by strengthening legal protections for school staff, who work hard in the best interests of their students and families and deserve to work without fear for their personal safety. Protecting school staff and preventing and deterring violent and aggressive behaviours from adult members of the school community is essential to maintaining schools as positive, safe and inclusive places of work and learning for everyone. I commend the Bill to the house. Mr HODGETT (Croydon) (10:41): I move:

That the debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. Ordered that debate be adjourned for two weeks. Debate adjourned until Wednesday, 19 May. GAMBLING REGULATION AMENDMENT (WAGERING AND BETTING TAX) BILL 2021 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 Gambling Regulation Amendment (Wagering and Betting Tax) Bill 2021.

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (the Charter), I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Gambling Regulation Amendment (Wagering and Betting Tax) Bill 2021 (the Bill). In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with the human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement. Overview Part 6A of Chapter 4 of the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 (the Principal Act) imposes the point of consumption wagering and betting tax which commenced on 1 January 2019. Wagering and betting entities are liable to pay wagering and betting tax to the Commissioner of State Revenue on their net wagering revenue (NWR) from customers located in Victoria at the time of making a bet. The wagering and betting tax currently applies at a rate of 8 per cent of NWR that is in excess of the tax-free threshold of $1,000,000. The Bill amends the Principal Act to increase the wagering and betting tax rate from 8 per cent to 10 per cent. Human rights issues The human rights protected by the Charter that are relevant to the Bill are: • property rights, as protected under section 20 of the Charter. For the reasons outlined below, in my opinion, the Bill is compatible with section 20 of the Charter. Property rights (section 20) Increasing the rate of tax for wagering and betting entities Section 20 of the Charter provides that a person must not be deprived of his or her property other than in accordance with law. The Bill amends the Act to increase the tax rate for wagering and betting operators from 8 per cent to 10 per cent from 1 July 2021. To the extent that these amendments affect natural persons, the amendments may engage the right to property. However, the increased rate of the wagering and betting tax is not arbitrary because it is precisely formulated and will be administered in accordance with Part 6A of Chapter 4 of the Principal Act, which is a taxation law under the Taxation Administration Act 1997 (Taxation Act). The Principal Act and the Taxation Act are

BILLS 1378 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

adequately accessible, clear and certain, and sufficiently precise to enable affected taxpayers to inform themselves of their legal obligations and to regulate their conduct accordingly. Furthermore, taxpayers will have the protections provided by the Taxation Act including rights of objection, review, appeal and refund of any overpaid tax. Accordingly, I confirm that the Bill is, in my opinion, compatible with the right in section 20 of the Charter. Tim Pallas MP Treasurer Second reading Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (10:43): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time. I ask that my second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard. Incorporated speech as follows: This Bill amends the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 to increase the rate of wagering and betting tax from 8 per cent to 10 per cent from 1 July 2021. This revenue will support an increase in the share of tax revenue that is returned to the Victorian Racing Industry from 1.5 per cent to 3.5 per cent of net wagering revenue. The balance of the revenue will continue to be distributed to the Hospitals and Charities Fund. From 1 January 2019, the Government introduced a point of consumption framework for the taxation of wagering and betting in Victoria. This framework ensures a level playing field for all wagering operators and better aligns Victoria’s tax system with the increasingly digital betting environment. The Government designed the wagering and betting tax to ensure the racing industry in Victoria was no worse off as a result of the changes. The design of the tax was a result of extensive consultation with key industry stakeholders and included the return of a share of revenue received by the Government to the Victorian Racing Industry. 1.5 per cent of net wagering revenue from Victorian consumers is paid to the industry under current settings, representing 18.75 per cent of total tax revenue. In November last year I tabled a review of the point of consumption framework for the wagering and betting tax which assessed its impact on the Victorian Racing Industry. The review concluded that the point of consumption framework appropriately achieves its objective of levelling the playing field for wagering operators, while supporting the viability of the wagering industry and the sustainability of the Victorian Racing Industry. However, the pre-eminence of the Victorian Racing Industry continues to be challenged by New South Wales racing. This Bill will lift the wagering and betting tax rate from 8 per cent to 10 per cent from 1 July 2021. This will match the 10 per cent tax rate in New South Wales and will continue to be lower than the corresponding tax rates in other states that have implemented a 15 per cent rate. Smaller wagering operators will continue to be protected by the $1 million tax free threshold. This includes smaller wagering operators, including Victorian licensed bookmakers who predominantly operate on course. The increase in the wagering and betting tax rate will enable the Government to lift the amount of wagering revenue returned to the Victorian Racing Industry, assisting them to bridge the gap between the Victorian and New South Wales racing industry funding frameworks. Under current arrangements, the New South Wales racing industry receives 2 per cent of taxable net wagering revenue in that state from all Australian-licensed wagering operators. The overall wagering tax arrangements, however, mean that the New South Wales Racing Industry will continue to receive a greater share of taxable net wagering revenue in that State than the Victorian Racing Industry receives as proposed under this Bill. These changes are expected to increase the gross annual point of consumption tax payments to the Victorian racing industries by around $47.6 million to $83.3 million in 2021–22. The adjustment to the Victorian racing industry payment will be implemented by way of a determination to be published following passage of this Bill. The increased payments will encourage ongoing investment in an industry that injects an estimated $4.3 billion annually into Victoria’s economy and sustains more than 33,000 full time equivalent jobs. Racing is particularly important to regional Victoria, where more than 100 clubs support over 9,700 full-time equivalent jobs and provide an estimated $1.15 billion annually in economic value. For Government, the additional tax revenue will largely offset the fiscal impact of the increased payment to the Victorian Racing Industry.

BILLS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1379

The increased tax revenue will also boost the Government’s annual contribution to the ANZAC Day Proceeds Fund by approximately $100,000 per year, under the formula set out by the legislation. The Government previously legislated to enshrine this contribution in the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 to ensure the ongoing sustainability of the ANZAC Day Proceeds Fund. The increased funding will provide more money for a range of welfare activities that support the veteran community. These changes support the Government’s commitment to work closely with Victoria’s racing industry to respond to challenges and ensure that thousands of jobs are retained and Victoria maintains its status as Australia’s pre-eminent racing state. The reforms strike the right balance in providing additional industry support and encouraging ongoing investment that underpins thousands of jobs across the state. I commend the Bill to the house. Ms McLEISH (Eildon) (10:43): I move:

That the debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. Ordered that debate be adjourned for two weeks. Debate adjourned until Wednesday, 19 May. CHILD WELLBEING AND SAFETY (CHILD SAFE STANDARDS COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT) AMENDMENT BILL 2021 Statement of compatibility Mr DONNELLAN (Narre Warren North—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers) (10:45): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the Child Wellbeing and Safety (Child Safe Standards Compliance and Enforcement) Amendment Bill 2021.

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (the Charter), I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Child Wellbeing and Safety (Child Safe Standards Compliance and Enforcement) Amendment Bill 2021 (the Bill). In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with the human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement. Overview of the Bill The Bill amends the Child Wellbeing and Safety Act 2005 (CWS Act) and the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 (ETR Act) to: • Amend the CWS Act to increase monitoring and enforcement powers in relation to compliance with the Child Safe Standards (Standards). • Amend the ETR Act to include requirements for relevant entities to comply with the Standards and provide for monitoring and enforcement powers relating to the Standards. • Amend the CWS Act to provide for information collection, disclosure, use and reporting in relation to the new and amended provisions in the CWS and ETR Acts. Human rights issues The CWS Act establishes principles for the wellbeing of children. It provides for the Minister to make the Standards, and for the Commission for Children and Young People (Commission) and other regulatory bodies to monitor and enforce compliance by certain entities with the Standards. The object of the Standards is to support cultural change in organisations so that they embed child safety into every day thinking and practice. The Standards support organisations to be safer for children by requiring them to implement policies and procedures to prevent, respond to, and report allegations of child abuse. In 2019, the Victorian Government conducted a review of the Standards. The Final Report of the Review of the Victorian Child Safe Standards was handed down in December 2019 (Final Report). This Bill implements recommendations of the Final Report requiring legislative change by: • providing regulators of the Standards with a graduated suite of compliance and enforcement tools; • including a mechanism that clearly identifies the regulator for each sector that is subject to the Standards;

BILLS 1380 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

• providing the Commission with additional state-wide leadership and capacity building functions; and • facilitating improved information sharing between regulators. The Bill also provides for integrated sector regulators, where a regulator will have powers and functions relating to monitoring and enforcing the Standards integrated into existing legislation under which the regulator already regulates relevant entities. Integrated sector regulators will be the Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority (VRQA), plus any regulators that are prescribed by the regulations (new section 25F). These amendments engage a range of rights under the Charter, including the rights to privacy (section 13(a)), the rights of children (section 17(2)), the right to property (section 20), the right to freedom of expression (section 15), the right to the presumption of innocence (section 25(1)) and the right to a fair hearing (section 24). These rights are discussed below. Right to privacy (s 13(a)) Section 13(a) of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. An interference will be lawful if it is permitted by a law which is precise and appropriately circumscribed, and will be arbitrary only if it is capricious, unpredictable, unjust or unreasonable, in the sense of being disproportionate to the legitimate aim sought. Information collection, use and disclosure powers Clause 15 of the Bill sets out an expanded list of functions of the Commission, which relevantly includes collecting, analysing and publishing information and data relating to the Standards and promoting the ongoing information exchange between the Commission, sector regulators, integrated sector regulators and other persons and bodies in relation to the safety of children and relevant entities’ compliance with the Standards. Clauses 38 to 48 of the Bill extend the existing confidentiality and disclosure scheme for ‘protected information’ under Division 4 of Part 6 of the CWS Act to sector regulators and integrated sector regulators. ‘Protected information’ is defined as information acquired by a relevant person (a category which, under amended section 40, includes the Commission, sector regulators, and integrated sector regulators (other than exempt sector regulators)) under Part 6 of the CWS Act. Clause 39 of the Bill also inserts new definitions for ‘exempt information’ and ‘privilege information’, which are types of information which fall within the category of protected information but have additional sensitivities. ‘Exempt information’ is defined to mean information, the use or disclosure of which could be reasonably expected to result in certain adverse circumstances (for example, endangering a person’s life, prejudicing various forms of legal proceedings, or ascertaining the identity of a confidential source of information). ‘Privilege information’ is defined to mean information subject to legal professional privilege or client legal privilege. Disclosure of protected information by a relevant person is prohibited except as authorised under the CWS Act or another Act (new section 41HA, inserted by clause 48). Relevant persons are permitted to disclose: • protected information, other than ‘exempt information’ or ‘privilege information’, for purposes relating to the performance of functions or exercise of powers (section 41B). • protected information, including exempt information, to other relevant persons for the purpose of either relevant person performing a function or exercising a power under any Act (section 41C). • limited information about relevant investigations, referrals, or enforcement actions, to individuals who have provided information regarding compliance with the Standards (section 41BA). • protected information (which may include exempt or privilege information), in the limited circumstances set out in sections 41D–41H of the Act, noting that section 41H of the Act is also amended by clause 47 to expand the list of authorities to whom protected information may be disclosed. Relevant persons may also request information from any person for purposes related to monitoring and enforcement of the Standards (or to perform other functions or exercise other powers under the CWS Act) (new section 40A, inserted by clause 40). Persons may provide the requested information despite anything to the contrary in other legislation (other than the Charter). Further, persons making good faith disclosures to relevant entities that relate to the Standards are protected from liability under section 41A (as amended by clause 42). These provisions broaden the circumstances in which documents or information can be shared between relevant persons and various other bodies and persons. However, to the extent that this may interfere with the privacy of persons to whom the information or documents relate, the interference will be neither unlawful nor arbitrary. The interference will be prescribed by law, and information may only be shared for prescribed purposes or with prescribed bodies. Exempt information, the most sensitive category of information, may only be shared between relevant persons (and only for limited purposes). To the extent that other protected information may be shared under section 41B with persons or bodies who are not relevant persons (and who

BILLS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1381

may not be subject to privacy legislation), persons receiving such information will be subject to an obligation not to use or further disclose that information other than for the purposes of the original disclosure or as otherwise permitted or required by an Act (section 41B(3)). Further, the provisions authorising the sharing of protected information are subject to various safeguards which protect the right to privacy. In particular: • When requesting information or documents, relevant persons must inform the person to whom the request is made of the proposed use of the information or document (section 40B(1)). • Privilege information may only be disclosed under section 41B with the written authority of the person to whom the privilege relates (section 41B(2)). • Certain identifying information must not be disclosed under section 41BA(2). • While section 41H(1)(s) authorises disclosures to bodies in other jurisdictions with responsibilities relating to corresponding Standards, disclosures cannot be made unless the relevant person is satisfied that the person or body has in place sufficient arrangements to protect the privacy and confidentiality of the protected information (new section 41H(3)). Significantly, a person disclosing exempt or protected information under Part 6 of the Act must have regard to the factors outlined in section 41 in deciding whether to disclose information. These matters include the public interest in promoting the safety of children, the prevention of child abuse and the proper response to allegations of child abuse. Crucially, the sharing of information will promote the important purposes of ensuring the oversight of relevant entities is conducted efficiently, effectively monitoring compliance with the Standards and protecting the best interests of the child. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Royal Commission) emphasised the importance of oversight bodies having access to information to prevent child abuse. The Final Report confirmed the Royal Commission’s finding that information sharing is critical to ensuring child safety. Given the existence of the above safeguards, I consider that any interference with privacy will be neither unlawful nor arbitrary, and compatible with the right to privacy. Although the Bill represents some recalibration of rights to give precedence to the rights of children to such protection as is in their best interests in some circumstances (by enabling better enforcement of the Standards) over the right to privacy, it retains appropriate protections through the exclusion of exempt information and privilege information from disclosure requirements, and the imposition of the applicable thresholds that must apply for the information to be requested and provided. To the extent that it is relevant, I also consider that any limit on the right is reasonable and justifiable in accordance with s 7(2) of the Charter. Identity cards Clause 23 inserts a new section 28 into the CWS Act providing that authorised officers must be issued with an identity card stating the authorised officer’s name, containing a photograph of the authorised officer, and stating that the person is an authorised officer. Authorised officers must produce the identity card in various circumstances when exercising powers under the Act. These requirements interfere with privacy by requiring authorised officers to disclose their name, photograph and status as an authorised officer in specified circumstances. However, the interference with privacy is neither unlawful nor arbitrary, as it is a proportionate and necessary measure to ensure that persons dealing with authorised officers are able to identify them, as well as providing some protection against people fraudulently claiming to be authorised officers and seeking to exercise the powers of those officers. I therefore consider that these clauses are compatible with the right to privacy. To the extent that it is relevant I also consider that any limit on the right is reasonable and justifiable in accordance with s 7(2) of the Charter. Powers of authorised officers Clause 24 inserts new sections 29–29S into the CWS Act, which provide a range of powers enabling authorised officers to enter and inspect premises and seize documents and items. New section 29A provides that an authorised officer may enter and inspect any premises if they reasonably believe it is a premises or place from, or in which, a relevant entity: (a) provides services or facilities for children (b) employs or engages a child to assist with the provision of any services or facilities, (c) provides support for an activity described in (a) or (b), or (d) keeps equipment, materials or documents relating to an activity described in (a) or (b). Authorised officers may enter premises: • with consent of the occupier • pursuant to a warrant

BILLS 1382 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

• without warrant and without consent if the authorised officer reasonably believes that the relevant entity is not complying, or has not complied with the Standards or Part 6 of the CWS Act. Warrants can be issued by a Magistrate where there are reasonable grounds to believe that entry to the premises or place is necessary to investigate whether a relevant entity is complying with the Standards or whether a person or body is an entity that must comply with those standards, or on the grounds that activities are or have been engaged in at the place or premises that contravene the Standards, or documents may be present at the place or premises (section 29E). Where an authorised officer enters a place or premises, they may exercise the powers specified in new sections 29C (in the case of entry authorised by consent), 29G (in the case of entry by warrant), and 29I (in the case of entry without consent or warrant). These powers differ, depending on the basis on which a person’s entry is authorised, but broadly include powers to search the premises or place, inspect or examine documents, make enquiries of persons at the premises or place, observe activities being conducted there, take photographs or make recordings or sketches, copy or take an extract from documents, use and operate materials at the premises or place, secure electronic equipment, request information from persons at the premises, and seize documents or things in certain circumstances. Further, an authorised officer who has entered a place or premises by consent may request that persons at the premises or place provide reasonable assistance, to or comply with lawful directions of the authorised officer. Where the entry does not rely on consent, authorised officers have stronger powers, and may require a person to produce documents, disclose certain information, or operate equipment. Where entry is authorised by warrant, the authorised officer may also require a person to provide assistance or comply with lawful directions. Under new sections 29H and 29K a person may be subject to a civil penalty if they fail to comply with a requirement issued under new sections 29G or 29I without reasonable excuse. The powers enable significant interference with privacy, including information privacy and privacy of the home, as authorised officers may inspect both workplaces and, in limited circumstances, residences and accommodation. However, a number of safeguards apply to the exercise of such powers to ensure they are not exercised arbitrarily or unlawfully. In particular, authorised officers: • must only enter a part of a premises in which the relevant entity provides accommodation or residential services either under a warrant or with consent (subsection 29A(3)). • must only exercise powers of entry during normal business hours or during the entity’s usual hours of operation (unless otherwise provided for under a warrant, or by consent) (subsection 29A(8)). • must leave a premise or place if consent is withdrawn (unless the entry is by warrant or does not require consent) (subsection 29A(9)). • may only exercise powers (other than under a warrant) if they reasonably believe it is necessary to do so to investigate whether a relevant entity is not complying or has not complied with the Standards or Part 6 of the CWS Act, or whether a person or body is required to comply with the Standards. • must not secure electronic equipment for more than 24 hours (other than with consent or a warrant, or with an extension granted by a magistrate) (subsection 29G(6)). • when consent is required to exercise a power, must explain certain matters including the person’s right to refuse to consent, and seek a signed acknowledgment of consent (subsections 29A(4), 29B(1), 29D(1), and 29J(1)). • when exercising powers of entry under a warrant, must generally announce that they are authorised by warrant, give a person at the place or premises the opportunity to allow entry, and provide a copy of the warrant to the occupier (if present) (section 29F). Further, new section 29R also sets out a complaints process enabling a person to complain about the exercise of a power by an authorised officer to either the Commission or a sector regulator. The Commission or the sector regulator must investigate the complaint and provide a written report to the complainant and the authorised officer. As such, a broad range of safeguards apply to ensure the powers of authorised officers may only be exercised in a reasonable and proportionate way that protects the privacy of individuals as much as possible. The powers serve the important purpose of enabling authorised officers to effectively investigate potential non- compliance with the Standards and Part 6 of the CWS Act, which serves the broader interest of protecting the best interests of children by protecting children from neglect or abuse. The powers are appropriately tailored to reflect the source of the authority to enter premises and exercise associated powers, with the most significant powers being reserved to circumstances where a magistrate has granted a warrant. Unless a person consents to entry of a residential premises or accommodation, or unless a warrant is issued, authorised officers are restricted to entry of commercial or public premises and places, at which there is generally a lesser

BILLS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1383

expectation of privacy. Further, where a person considers that powers have been exercised inappropriately, the legislation sets out a clear process enabling the making of a complaint. In addition to the amendments to the CWS Act described above, clause 73(2) also amends section 5.8.3 of the ETR Act to provide authorised officers exercising certain powers of entry under that Act to do a similar range of things (such as inspecting documents, observing activities, taking photographs and seizing documents or things). Notably, such powers may only be exercised during ordinary working hours, and authorised officers must not exercise any of the relevant powers in relation to premises used or used mainly as residential premises, except with the consent of the occupier. Taking into account the above safeguards in relation to both the CWS Act and ETR Act amendments, and the important purpose served by the provisions, I consider that to the extent that the powers authorise interference with privacy rights, that interference will be lawful and non-arbitrary. To the extent that it is relevant, I also consider that any limit on the right to privacy would be reasonable and justifiable in accordance with s 7(2) of the Charter. Notices to produce Clause 25 inserts a new section 30(1) into the CWS Act providing that a sector regulator may issue a ‘notice to produce’ if it reasonably believes that any document or information is necessary to determine whether a relevant entity is complying with the Standards or whether a person or body is an entity that is required to comply with the Standards. The notice can be issued to a relevant entity or to any person or body that the sector regulator reasonably believes possesses the document or information. Under new subsection 33(1) of the CWS Act, inserted by clause 28, the Commission or sector regulator may apply to a court for a declaration that a person, body or entity has failed to comply with a notice to produce, and may seek a pecuniary penalty or an injunction. Failure to comply with a notice to produce without reasonable excuse is also a criminal offence (new section 34D) (although notably section 34E protects against any risk of double punishment in relation to the criminal and civil penalties available). Where there is a criminal conviction, or a declaration under s 33(1), new subsection 34C provides that the Commission or sector regulator may also apply for an adverse publicity order. New Division 5 of Part 5.8 of the ETR Act, inserted by clause 76, provides similar powers to the VRQA to issue a notice to produce for purposes related to compliance with the Standards or with certain prescribed minimum standards under that Act, or for the purposes of a review under section 4.5.4 of that Act. Civil and criminal penalties are available in relation to a failure to comply with such a notice which are similar to those available under the CWS Act provisions (new sections 5.8.11–5.8.15 of the ETR Act). As with the ‘failure to comply’ offences under the CWS Act, the Bill ensures that people are not punished twice for the same offence (new section 5.8.23). Where there has been a failure to comply with a notice, clause 73 also amends section 5.8.3 of the ETR Act to empower authorised officers to exercise powers to make inquiries, or inspect, examine, or take copies or extracts from documents. The above provisions involve significant interference with privacy, as notices may be issued in relation to the private documents of persons who have no association with a school or relevant entity, so long as the body issuing the notice reasonably believes the document or information is necessary for one of the purposes outlined above. Further, the provisions enable adverse publicity orders to be made which may require publication of information that may affect people’s privacy. While the interferences with privacy are significant, in my view they are not arbitrary or unlawful. The expansion of the enforcement powers as described above serve the important purpose of promoting compliance with the Standards, which reduces the risk of child abuse occurring and enabling an effective response when it does occur. Further, expanding the enforcement options better allows the Commission and sector regulators to regulate in a more responsive and proportionate manner. This is particularly important given the broad scope and diversity of organisations required to comply with the scheme. Importantly, only a court may impose sanctions for failure to comply with a notice, and civil penalties are only available if the failure to comply is unreasonable. Similarly, a person will not be found to have failed to comply with a notice if they have a ‘reasonable excuse’. As such, a person who has a valid reason for refusing to comply with a notice (for example, if they do not have the relevant information requested in a notice to produce) will not be subjected to a civil or criminal sanction. Further, the privilege against self-incrimination is preserved in relation to notices to produce. Before imposing a civil penalty, courts must consider a range of matters including the size of a person, body or relevant entity (other than an individual), the impact of the amount of penalty on the person, body or relevant entity, and whether the non-compliance by the person, body or relevant entity with the notice to produce or notice to comply was wilful or serious (new section 34 of the CWS Act and new section 5.8.12 of

BILLS 1384 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

the ETR Act). This ensures that civil penalties imposed for failure to produce are not unduly harsh and adequately take into account the circumstances of the person or body on which they are imposed. In addition, the entities empowered to issue notices to produce are all subject to privacy legislation which imposes a range of requirements in relation to how private information is collected, handled and disclosed. These requirements impose additional safeguards to ensure that personal information collected through the notice to produce is dealt with appropriately. I therefore consider that the notice to produce provisions are compatible with the right to privacy. Provision or publication of information Various clauses inserted into the CWS Act and ETR Act require information to be provided to specified bodies or entities for particular purposes, or enable information to be published for particular purposes. In particular: • new sections 34C of the CWS Act and 5.8.30 of the ETR Act enable an adverse publicity order to be made in relation to failures to comply with notices under the Acts. • new sections 36D of the CWS Act and 5.8.28 of the ETR Act require regulators to maintain a register of undertakings, which may in some cases contain personal information; • new section 36I of the CWS Act and 5.8.31 of the ETR Act authorise regulators to publish specified information on a website if a relevant entity is found guilty of certain offences or if a court has made a declaration that the relevant entity has failed to comply with a notice under those Acts. These provisions may affect the right to privacy of individuals, where personal information is required to be included in documents or authorised to be published. However, to the extent that these rights are interfered with by the provisions, in my view any interference will be neither unlawful nor arbitrary, as the provisions are specific, tailored, accessible and proportionate. To the extent that it is relevant, I also consider that any limit on the right is reasonable and justifiable in accordance with s 7(2) of the Charter. Reporting obligations for regulators of the Standards Clause 49 of the Bill substitutes a new section 41K of the CWS Act to provide for reporting on compliance by relevant entities with the Standards. These requirements reflect the Commission’s new functions and powers, including details of compliance by relevant entities throughout Victoria with the Standards and Part 6 of the CWS Act, as well as details of the activities engaged in by the Commission, sector regulators and integrated sector regulators to monitor or enforce compliance with the Standards or Part 6 by the relevant entities. Generally, reports will contain aggregated information, rather than personal information. However, it is possible that individuals, such as the operator of a relevant entity, may be identified in a report. This could interfere with personal privacy or cause damage to reputation; however, any such interference will be neither unlawful nor arbitrary. The circumstances in which a report can be made are clearly set out in the legislation, and under the Act, children are protected from being identified in reports (section 41L), and relevant entities have the opportunity to comment on any adverse comment or opinion in a report that relates to that entity (section 41M). Further, the reporting process serves the important purpose of ensuring that departmental secretaries, ministers and Parliament are adequately informed and can take appropriate action to promote compliance with the Standards. In my view, to the extent that the above provisions interfere with the right to privacy, they are neither unlawful nor arbitrary, and are therefore compatible with the right to privacy under the Charter. To the extent that it is relevant, I also consider that any limit on the right is reasonable and justifiable in accordance with s 7(2) of the Charter. Best interests of the child (s 17(2)) Section 17(2) of the Charter provides that every child has the right, without discrimination, to such protection as is in their best interests and is needed by them by reason of being a child. Overall, the Bill promotes this right by improving the monitoring and enforcement of the Standards and reducing the risk that children will be subject to neglect or abuse. However, certain provisions may limit the individual rights of particular children, as discussed below. Disclosure of information It is possible that disclosure of protected information (under one of the provisions discussed above) that identifies a child may have some negative consequences for a child by interfering with their right to privacy. However, in my view, because the amendments are for the purpose of protecting children from abuse, they are likely to be in every child’s best interest overall. In particular, I note that in considering whether to disclose information under the CWS Act, a relevant entity must consider the public interest in promoting the safety of children, the prevention of child abuse, and the proper response to allegations of child abuse (section 41D). Further, protected information which, if disclosed, may cause a child to be at risk of danger, is categorised as

BILLS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1385

‘exempt information’ and may only be shared in limited circumstances. This reduces the risk that information will be shared in a way that is detrimental to a child. Accordingly, I consider that the information sharing provisions are compatible with the right of the child to such protection as is in their best interests under section 17(2) of the Charter. Power to interview children Pursuant to new section 29L, authorised officers are permitted to interview a child when exercising powers of entry under the Bill. Before interviewing a child, the authorised officer must consider, and take all reasonable steps to mitigate, any negative effect that the interview may have on the child. The authorised officer must also consider whether the child’s primary family carer should be present during the interview. However, in some circumstances, the exercise of this power may not be in the best interests of a particular child, and so may limit the rights of the child under section 17(2) of the Charter. I consider that any limit on the rights of a child is likely to be minimal. However, to the extent that the right is limited, I consider any such limit to be reasonable for the important purpose of enabling regulation of entities to ensure that the Standards and Part 6 of the CWS Act are complied with. While individual children may find the process of being interviewed stressful, the overall intention of the scheme (including the power to interview children) is to protect children from harm associated with non-compliance. Further, the power is appropriately tailored to limit any negative effects on children, having regard to the requirements that the authorised officer consider the matters set out in section 29L. I note that while a primary carer is not always required to be present for an interview, this is consistent with child empowerment, which may be undermined if there is a general requirement for a parent or independent person to be present regardless of the child’s circumstances, ability, and support needs. As information about the experience of children in relation to an entity will sometimes be essential to identifying whether the entity has complied with the relative regulatory requirements, I consider that there is no less restrictive means reasonably available to achieve the purpose of effective regulation. I therefore consider that the limit on rights is reasonable and justified in accordance with s 7(2) of the Charter. Right to Property Section 20 of the Charter provides that a person must not be deprived of their property other than in accordance with law. This right is not limited where there is a law that authorises a deprivation of property, and that law is adequately accessible, clear and certain, and sufficiently precise to enable a person to regulate their conduct. As set out above, the Bill enables authorised officers to seize documents and things in certain circumstances. Under the CWS Act provisions, items may only be seized with a warrant or with consent. Where an item is seized, section 29N provides a process by which the owner is informed about the reason for the seizure, and provides that seized items must be returned if no longer required or if consent is withdrawn, and generally can only be retained for up to three months (with limited exceptions). An authorised officer may apply to a magistrate for an extension of that period for up to an additional three months at a time, for a total period of no more than 12 months. The magistrate can only grant such an extension if satisfied that the extension is necessary for the purposes of an investigation into a relevant entity’s compliance with the Standards or Part 6 of the CWS Act. Under new section 29O, seized items may be destroyed where an authorised officer is not able to return them to the owner, with the permission of the magistrate. The right to property is also engaged by the power granted to authorised officers under new subsection 5.8.3(3A)(d) to seize items when exercising a power of entry under section 5.8.3. However, the Bill sets out a process for notifying the owner of any seizure and providing copies of documents seized. Further, seized items may not be retained for longer than necessary, and can generally only be retained for up to three months (unless relevant proceedings are on foot, or unless a Magistrate grants an extension). These powers engage the right not to be unlawfully deprived of property under s 20 of the Charter. However, as any deprivation of property associated with these provisions will be governed by a clear and accessible process set out under the legislation, any interference with property rights will be lawful, and the right will therefore not be limited. To the extent that it is relevant, I also consider that any limit on the right would be reasonable and justifiable in accordance with s 7(2) of the Charter. Right to freedom of expression Section 15 of the Charter provides that every person has the right to hold an opinion without interference and has the right to freedom of expression which includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds. Section 15 also provides that lawful restrictions may be reasonably necessary to respect personal rights and reputations, or for the protection of national security, public order, public health or public morality.

BILLS 1386 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

This right is engaged by new section 41HA, which provides that a relevant person must not disclose protected information other than as authorised by legislation. The right may also be engaged by new section 29Q of the CWS Act, inserted by clause 24, which provides that it is an offence for a person who is not an authorised officer to hold themselves out to be an authorised officer. The right may also be engaged by new section 32, inserted by clause 27, a person must not give false or misleading information in purported compliance with Part 6 of the CWS Act. These provisions may engage the right to freedom of expression by limiting the kind of information that a person may impart, or by preventing that person from misleadingly presenting themselves as an authorised officer. However, to the extent that the right is engaged, any limitation imposed would fall within the internal limitations to the right in section 15(3), as reasonably necessary to respect the rights and reputation of other persons, or for the protection of public order. The restriction on disclosing protected information protects the right to privacy, while the restrictions on false or misleading conduct and on impersonating an authorised officer enable protection of the right to privacy (by preventing people from purporting to exercise the powers of authorised officers where they are not authorised officers) and of the rights of the child (by promoting the effective monitoring and enforcement of the Standards). They also protect public order by promoting the effective operation of the scheme. Accordingly, I consider these provisions to be compatible with the right to freedom of expression under the Charter. I note that the right to freedom of expression may also be engaged by new section 34C of the CWS Act and new section 5.8.30 of the ETR Act enabling a court to issue an adverse publicity order. Under those provisions, a court may order a relevant entity to take action to publicise or notify a person (or class of person) of certain matters, such as the relevant entity’s failure to comply with the Standards, or any harm or risk of harm caused by the failure to comply. Such orders can only be made if the entity has been found guilty of an offence relating to failure to comply with a notice, or if a court has declared that the entity has failed to comply. These provisions may engage the right to freedom of expression, which has been held in some circumstances to include the freedom not to express. However, in my view, these provisions constitute a lawful restriction reasonably necessary to protect the rights of others, and in particular the rights of children to be free from harm and abuse. In particular, they enable courts to make orders ensuring that persons are adequately informed of matters relating to compliance with the Standards. I therefore consider that these provisions are compatible with section 15 of the Charter. Right to 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 law. The right is relevant where a statutory provision shifts the burden of proof onto an accused in a criminal proceeding, so that the accused is required to prove matters to establish, or raise evidence to suggest, that they are not guilty of an offence. This right is engaged by new sections 29A, 29B, 29D, and 29J of the CWS Act, inserted by clause 24 of the Bill. As discussed above, these provisions authorise authorised officers to enter certain places and seize items with the consent of certain persons, and require that the person sign an acknowledgement of that consent. Relevantly, in any proceeding, if the signed acknowledgment is not produced to the court or tribunal, it must be presumed ‘until the contrary is proved’ that the person did not consent. In some circumstances, this may confer a legal onus on the defendant in a criminal proceeding to ‘prove’ a matter on the balance of probabilities—for example, if an authorised officer were to be prosecuted for trespass or burglary (in relation to the entry or seizure) and no signed acknowledgement of consent is produced, the authorised officer would need to prove that consent was in fact given. As such, the right to presumption of innocence may be limited by these provisions. However, in my view, any limit is reasonable and justified for the important purpose of imposing a strong incentive on authorised officers to ensure that the processes under the Act to protect individual rights are complied with. In particular, the requirement that a signed acknowledgement of consent be produced helps ensure that individuals are able to give free, informed and genuine consent. Given the fact that authorised officers will understand their statutory responsibilities in this regard, and the unlikely prospect of a prosecution occurring, I consider that the risk of a conviction of an innocent person as a result of this provision is very low. I therefore consider that to the extent, if any, that the right to presumption of innocence is limited by this provision, that limit is reasonably justifiable in accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter. The right to presumption of innocence also arises in relation to new section 32, inserted by clause 27. Under that provision, it is a defence to offences relating to provision of false or misleading information if the person reasonably did not know that the information, statement or document provided was false or misleading. The creation of this defence involves an imposition of a burden on the accused to establish the defence, which may amount to a limit under the right to be presumed innocent (to the extent that the state of mind of the accused is an essential element of the offence). However, in my view, to the extent (if any) that the right is limited by this provision, the limit is reasonably justifiable under s 7(2). In particular, the prosecution is still

BILLS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1387

required to prove all the other elements of the offence—this provision simply carves out a defence in circumstances where the person was not aware of the misleading or false nature of the information (unless the lack of awareness was unreasonable—for example due to the defendant’s failure to take proper care to ensure the information is correct). The existence of this defence is a matter that is in the particular knowledge of the accused, and so it is appropriate that the defence bear the onus of establishing the defence. In the circumstances, the risk of conviction of an innocent person as a consequence of this provision is very low. I therefore consider that to the extent, if any, that the right to presumption of innocence is limited by this provision, any limit is reasonable and justified in accordance with section 7(2). The right to presumption of innocence is also engaged by various new provisions of the CWS Act, and ETR Act which provide that it is an offence to do certain things ‘without reasonable excuse’. The right is relevant to these provisions because of the requirement that a person show that they have a ‘reasonable excuse’ in order to avoid criminal responsibility. However, in my view, although these provisions require an accused to adduce certain evidence, they do not limit the right to be presumed innocent. The prosecution must still prove the essential elements of the relevance offences; an accused need not prove any matters in order to escape liability. Therefore, the right to be presumed innocent under section 25(1) of the Charter is not limited by these provisions. Right to a fair hearing Section 24(1) of the Charter provides that a person charged with a criminal offence or a party to a civil proceeding has the right to have the charge or proceeding decided by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing. The right generally encompasses the established common law right of each individual to unimpeded access to the courts of the State, and may be limited if a person faces a procedural barrier to bringing their case before a court. The right is engaged by the provisions in the Bill enabling ex parte applications to be brought for interim injunctions under amendments to both the CWS Act and the ETR Act. In these circumstances, parties affected by interim injunctions will not have the opportunity to be heard. The aim of these provisions is to enable interim injunctions to be quickly put in place in circumstances where it is not possible or appropriate to notify the other party (for example, in circumstances of great urgency). Affected parties will have the opportunity to be heard prior to the making of a final injunction. I therefore consider that the right to a fair hearing is not limited by these provisions. This right is also engaged by new section 32B of the CWS Act, inserted by clause 27, which provides an immunity for the Commission and any sector regulator, integrated sector regulator or their staff, in relation to things done in good faith in the exercise of a power or discharge of a duty under Part 6 of the CWS Act or the regulations or in the reasonable belief that the act or omission was in the exercise of such a power or discharge of such a duty. This immunity does not apply to a power exercised under the entry, search and seizure provisions discussed above. However, this provision does not remove available causes of action, but instead shifts liability to the State. I also note that an individual could still initiate legal proceedings against the Commission or a sector regulator for actions not taken in good faith. As such, the right to a fair hearing is not limited by this provision. In any event, the relevant immunity and protections are, in my view, appropriately granted. The provisions ensure that decisions in relation to monitoring and enforcement of compliance with the Standards can be made without fear of legal retribution. Hon Luke Donnellan MP Minister for Child Protection Second reading Mr DONNELLAN (Narre Warren North—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers) (10:45): 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: Children’s safety and the best interests of the child must be at the very centre of an organisation’s operations. As a community, we cannot accept anything less. As we have heard from the heartbreaking testimonies of the many thousands of individuals who bravely told their stories to the 2013 Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry, the Betrayal of Trust Inquiry and the McClellan Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse—the harms and costs to individuals, their families and the broader community are unacceptably high.

BILLS 1388 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

Victoria has led the country in legislative protections for children and young people. It introduced mandatory child safe standards on 1 January 2017 and the reportable conduct scheme from 1 July 2017. Both of these regulatory schemes are a key response to the Betrayal of Trust Inquiry which found serious incidences of child abuse in some of our most trusted and important institutions and organisations. The overarching objective of the Child Safe Standards is to support cultural change in organisations so that they embed child safety into every day thinking and practice. They support organisations to be safer for children by requiring them to implement policies and procedures to prevent, respond to, and report allegations of child abuse. In 2019 the Victorian Government completed the Review of the Victorian Child Safe Standards. The purpose of the review was to ensure the regulatory scheme is as efficient and effective as possible. The review found strong support for and commitment to the Standards across Victoria’s diverse sectors and organisations. It found that most organisations that engage in child-related work are acutely aware of the importance of providing a safe environment for children and young people, and genuinely seek to do so. The current framework has provided a base for this to occur. However, it also found that the regulatory framework is not fit for purpose and requires significant reform. The review makes 15 recommendations which were all accepted by government, including to: • improve regulatory oversight and clarity of regulator’s functions • provide regulators with a contemporary, graduated set of regulatory powers to monitor and enforce compliance with the Standards • improve information sharing between regulators to allow regulators to coordinate regulatory activity and share intelligence, to better identify risks to children and young people and to inform educational activities • provide the Commission for Children and Young People with critical state-wide leadership and capacity building functions. A comprehensive regulatory framework is required to ensure that organisations are supported to comply with the child safe standards by consciously and systematically creating conditions that prevent child abuse, promote child safety, and properly respond to allegations of child abuse. It is also required to address those organisations that fail to provide a safe environment for children and young people. The initiatives in this bill are significant. They will support the 50,000 organisations required to comply with the Standards to make improvements to embed child safety into everyday thinking and practice. The Commission’s state-wide leadership role and the new functions for regulators will support the diverse range of Victorian entities that provide services to children and young people to comply with the Standards and promote consistent child safety outcomes across the State. The reforms will strengthen the effectiveness of the Victorian Child Safe Standards scheme, making organisations safer for Victoria’s children and young people. This includes schools, hospitals, child protection services, youth justice facilities, sports clubs, youth organisations, certain private sector businesses and religious bodies. Specifically, the Bill will: • make organisations safer for children and prevent child abuse by: ◦ providing regulators of the Standards with a much broader range of contemporary monitoring and enforcement powers to promote compliance with the standards. This will include: – enabling the Commission and sector regulators to respond to less serious non- compliance by issuing official warnings or infringement notices, while also being able to respond to more serious breaches by accepting enforceable undertakings, issuing compliance notices and seeking various remedies from a court, including criminal or civil penalties. – the Commission and sector regulators will also have powers to enter and inspect certain premises without an entities’ consent in limited circumstances. To ensure these powers are proportionate and appropriately targeted, numerous safeguards are proposed including that inspections only take place in business hours unless permitted under a warrant, and where the regulator reasonably believes the Act or the Standards have been contravened. ◦ facilitating improved information sharing between regulators so that non-compliance with the Standards can be more effectively and efficiently identified and addressed

BILLS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1389

◦ providing the Commission with additional state-wide leadership and capacity building functions, to promote compliance and consistent child safety outcomes across sectors • reduce confusion, duplication and regulatory burden for regulated entities, by including a mechanism that clearly identifies the regulator for each sector that is subject to the Standards and articulating regulators’ functions in relation to the Standards. Reports from the public also play a critical role in supporting regulators to monitor compliance with the Standards and identify risks of harm to children which may otherwise go undetected. The Bill will provide strong protections for members of the public, such as parents and staff of organisations, to report child safety concerns in good faith to regulators without fear of retribution or legal liability. This is vitally important because child safety is everyone’s responsibility. These reforms are supported by an extensive consultation process undertaken during the review of the Standards including with regulators of the Standards, organisations that are subject to the Standards, child advocacy groups and the Victorian community. I want to take this opportunity to again thank every person and organisation that took the time to contribute to this important work. The Review also found that where regulators of the Standards can effectively integrate the Standards into their existing regulatory frameworks, this approach should be used. Therefore, the Bill proposes to amend the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 to integrate the Standards into that Act for the education and training regulator—the Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority—the Authority, and to provide the Authority with additional powers to ensure it has a comparable set of monitoring and enforcement tools as the Commission and sector regulators. The Bill also provides for the Authority to have a similar set of monitoring and enforcement powers for the purpose of regulating registration and approval requirements under the Education and Training Reform Act. This includes the power to issue a notice to produce, or accept an enforceable undertaking, rather than limiting their use to monitoring and enforcing the Standards. These additional proposals have also been subject to a consultation process with the education and training sectors, including the regulator, stakeholders representing independent schools, catholic schools, principals from Government schools, as well as unions representing teachers from Government schools and TAFE sector leaders. The amendment to the definition of child is intended to commence on Royal Assent, the remaining provisions in the Bill are intended to commence on 1 January 2023. These reforms are significant, so a relatively long implementation period is proposed. Sector regulators and the Commission will be required to undertake significant organisational and systems changes to prepare for the new arrangements. They will be required to comprehensively overhaul their compliance and enforcement frameworks and guidance materials and communicate these changes to their regulated entities. In many cases they will also be required to recruit and train authorised officers to support the shift to a regulatory approach that is proactive, and risk based. In conclusion the reforms in this Bill are significant. They will promote and enhance compliance with the Standards in over 50,000 Victorian organisations and in doing so, will protect children and young people from abuse. I’m proud to be part of a Government that is continually working to improve the safety and wellbeing of children and young people. This Bill will ensure that Victoria’s regulatory framework for the Child Safe Standards is as strong as possible to promote the safety of Victorian children. I commend the Bill to the house. Ms McLEISH (Eildon) (10:46): I move:

That this debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. Ordered that debate be adjourned for two weeks. Debate adjourned until Wednesday, 19 May.

BILLS 1390 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

TRANSPORT LEGISLATION MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS BILL 2021 Second reading Debate resumed on motion of Mr CARROLL: That this bill be now read a second time. Ms RYAN (Euroa) (10:46): It is a pleasure to rise today to outline the opposition’s position on the Transport Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2021. This is an omnibus bill—quite a large bill—that amends 14 different acts of Parliament, in fact. It deals with everything from changes which affect Victoria’s bus operators—quite substantially, I might add—to the transferral of powers to the Victorian Fisheries Authority, so it is quite wide. But in the main it amends three different acts: the Bus Safety Act 2009, the Road Safety Act 1986 and the Victorian Fisheries Authority Act 2016. I was interested to note in the minister’s second-reading speech that the government claims the bill will support the delivery of Big Build projects. The only thing I can really see in this bill when I look that references the Big Build is the Alphington link project, and I note that the only thing this bill actually does is authorise the compulsory acquisition of a strip of land some 4 metres wide, I believe, by 150 metres long, from the Latrobe golf course for that project. So I know that the government loves to talk about its Big Build, but I do not think that this bill actually does a great deal in that space. Nevertheless, I think no debate around transport in this place is really complete without a telling of the very sorry mess this government has got us into with cost overruns and budget blowouts. I am sure that the member for Sandringham would agree, and he will also address that in his contribution. The Big Build—which I note the government capitalises in the second-reading speech as though it has some kind of life of its own; it is a person, perhaps, or a proper noun—should really be renamed the ‘Big Bust’, I would contend. We know that the government’s major projects, its so-called Big Build, have blown out by more than $25 billion. Like the Big Build, that is billion with a ‘b’, and there is more to come. Of course the full extent was quite extraordinarily hidden away by this government when they decided not to publish budget paper 4 in the last budget, and I find that to be quite extraordinary. Ms Ward: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I would ask that you ask the speaker to come back to the actual bill that she is talking about. If she wants to talk about our Big Build projects, that is terrific. She may also note that the bill does refer to buses, and replacement buses are incredibly important in our Big Build projects because we have so much going on, we have a lot happening and we do need buses to replace trains. Ms RYAN: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, I note that in the minister’s second-reading speech he explicitly refers to the government’s Big Build and this legislation being instrumental in delivering that. Now, I am putting the contention that it is in fact not particularly instrumental to the government’s Big Build, but I think given it has been directly referenced by the minister I am perfectly within bounds to talk about it, and I would also note that as lead speaker I have a certain degree of latitude in the topics I cover within the transport space. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, but I do ask the member to focus on the bill at hand. Ms RYAN: I am very happy to, Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, there are a whole range of projects that we know are running over budget and behind schedule—for example, the Alphington link project. We have not actually got an update on where that project is at, because the government has not even published budget paper 4. It is like something out of Donald Trump’s America that the government would just seek to completely abolish a source of information that is critical to Victorians and critical to this state on how money is expended in this state. I think it really goes to the point that those opposite do not see taxpayers money as taxpayers money—the money that hardworking mums and dads and Victorians pay to the state for better services. Instead they seem to see it as their money.

BILLS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1391

At last count we knew that Melbourne Metro was $2 billion over budget. We know that the West Gate Tunnel—a road which was initially promised in 2014 at a cost of $500 million—is now at $6.2 billion more than was initially promised. Level crossing removals are billions of dollars over budget, and the North East Link, which was promised at $5 billion initially by those opposite, was last reported as having a price tag of $15.79 billion. They are more than $10 billion out on the price tag for that project. It is extraordinary when you tally it up. As I said, we know that it is more than $25 billion. We do not know how much more it is. Hopefully when we next sit, on 20 May, the government may finally come clean on the price tag and the delays in a lot of those projects and actually publish budget paper 4— do the right thing. But stop and think about it for a moment. Think about how far that money could have gone, what that money could have done—the schools it could have built, the hospitals it could have built, the ambulances it could have funded and the country roads it could have upgraded. If I draw you to a very local example, in 2014 the then Shadow Minister for Roads, the member for Narre Warren North, marched up to Kilmore to tell locals that they had been dudded because the Liberals and The Nationals had not completed the town’s promised bypass. Now, that was despite the fact that we were on track to have that project done by the end of 2017, in line with the commitment that we had always given to the people of Kilmore. Labor won the election, as we know, and the town, seven years later, is still waiting for capital funding to build that project—or in fact for the government to show any interest in it whatsoever. Now, if you have a look at the money that this government has wasted on its notional Big Build, the cost overruns and the project blowouts, it could have built the Kilmore bypass 125 times over. It is an astronomical amount of money. As I said, we are currently in the grip of an ambulance crisis in this state. The head of Ambulance Victoria, Mick Stephenson, has acknowledged that they are not responding to people because their resources are stretched. How far would $25 billion have gone? There is a fascinating correlation between the amount of money the government borrowed for its COVID response—about $24.5 billion if I am not mistaken, in its last budget—and the $25 billion— Ms Green: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I know that the lead speaker does have some latitude as the lead speaker, but I think the correlations that she is trying to make are drawing an extremely long bow, so I would ask you to return her to debate on the transport legislation. We are not discussing ambulance services. Ms RYAN: Again, on the point of order, Deputy Speaker, the government very clearly references its Big Build and how this piece of legislation is instrumental to delivering its Big Build, and I think I am within my rights to put my contention that the Big Build is currently facing a few issues and to argue what the alternative spend of that money could have been. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Euroa strayed somewhat from the Big Build and from the transport legislation, and I would ask her to come back to the bill. Ms RYAN: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I guess you can give the Big Build capital letters, you can make some glossy videos and you can wrap it in a bow. It does not change the fact that this Labor government has blown some $25 billion and that is going to leave Victorians with poorer services for years into the future. The other aspect of the minister’s second-reading speech that I found somewhat perplexing was the so-called reforms to improve our regulatory system to reduce red tape, because I do not really see any evidence of that in this bill. In fact I see the exact opposite. Currently bus operators are required to obtain a bus operator accreditation or registration, depending on the type of bus service provided or the type of bus that is used. So obviously within the bus space we have a varying degree of operators from operators who have hundreds of buses operating school bus routes or operating public transport routes right down to an aged-care home or a local scout group that has a bus to run their members around, which are kind of known as incidental operators.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 1392 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

So part 2 of the bill amends the Bus Safety Act to consolidate the bus operator accreditation and registration scheme so that all new bus operators are required to demonstrate competence and capacity before they are permitted to operate. What we are concerned about is that we believe that is likely to lead to far more onerous requirements on those small incidental bus operators. I think it is absolutely ridiculous that the government plans to treat local community groups who own a bus—as I said, like senior citizens groups, aged-care facilities, scout groups or disability support organisations—the same way as they might treat a major bus operator who has hundreds of buses on the road. Quite simply, those small community groups are not resourced to be able to deal with the onerous registration requirements that a major bus operator has to go through, and I am concerned that they will have no choice but to actually stop providing those services under these arrangements. And it is something that I would strongly urge the government and government members to consider when voting on this bill. I also want to go to clauses 42 to 44 of the bill, which permit operators from other jurisdictions to operate in Victoria. This is a significant expansion of rights of interstate bus operators, and I find it a somewhat curious move by those opposite because, whilst we are not averse to competition, I think it is inherently unfair of the government to open up Victoria when Victorian bus operators and Victorian bus companies do not have those reciprocal rights in other jurisdictions. So under standing orders I wish to advise the house of amendments to this bill, and I request that they be circulated. Opposition amendments circulated by Ms RYAN under standing orders. Ms RYAN: The amendment I have proposed would see clauses 42 to 44 apply if there is a reciprocal agreement in force between Victoria and another jurisdiction. So in other words the safety director who is responsible for accrediting bus operators must not accredit an interstate operator in Victoria unless there is a reciprocal agreement in force and that agreement has been tabled in the Parliament. I would urge those opposite to very carefully consider these amendments, because a failure to do so and a failure to accept them will undercut Victorian jobs and Victorian businesses, and I would be surprised if those opposite would wish to vote for such a position. You will be leaving Victorian bus operators on a very, very uneven playing field if you allow the bill to proceed as it is currently drafted. Section 41 of the Bus Safety Act deals with the rights of unaccredited operators in Victoria, such as tour buses and the like, which come interstate from other jurisdictions, and from speaking with the bus association I know that they have made it clear to the government that they have been advocating without success now for some 12 years to other states and territories. They have been dealing with their red-tape commissioners, cross-border commissioners and the like to actually have them reciprocate the rights. Business interrupted under sessional orders. Questions without notice and ministers statements COVID-19 Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (11:01): My question is to the Acting Premier. The general manager of COVID-19 Quarantine Victoria Infection Prevention and Control, Matiu Bush, has twice defied a defence force direction for a mandatory COVID-19 test and has breached infection control protocols. What confidence can Victorians possibly have in Labor’s hotel quarantine system when the people making the rules are also breaking them? Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health) (11:01): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Firstly, a couple of things in regard to the staff member in question, who has—as the minister responsible and Commissioner Cassar outlined this morning— been stood down. There are two things. In terms of that staff member’s role, the requirement is that that staff member is COVID-tested at the end of the day. The staff member has been stood down on the basis of his behaviour and his leadership in regard to the role he has in hotel quarantine. So that is in regard to the staff member. In regard to hotel quarantine in general—

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1393

Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, I note the Acting Premier has only done this when it has been exposed in the press, not the two times he actually breached those protocols. Can the Acting Premier actually flag whether this man has been stood down on full pay or not? The SPEAKER: Order! The Acting Premier is being directly relevant to the question that has been asked. Mr MERLINO: So, the staff member has been stood down. In regard to hotel quarantine in general there is continuous improvement—continuous assessment about what needs to be done to make our hotel quarantine as safe as it can possibly be. We had the ventilation assessment review— Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Acting Premier to resume his seat. I need to be able to hear the Acting Premier answer the question. Members on both sides of the house will not shout across the chamber or they will be removed from question time. Mr MERLINO: We have had the ventilation assessment on all of our hotels— Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Kew can leave the chamber for the period of 1 hour. Member for Kew withdrew from chamber. Mr MERLINO: We have had the ventilation assessment review across all our hotels and have made those capital improvements in accordance with that assessment. We have had Professor Cheng’s review of variants of concern and we have got continuous oversight of Safer Care Victoria and we have implemented all of the recommendations that Safer Care Victoria have made. I have made the point a number of times, as have premiers around this country, that hotel quarantine is not a fit-for- purpose model and never has been—it never has been. Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Evelyn and the Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers will leave the chamber for the period of 1 hour. Members need to cease shouting across the chamber. Member for Evelyn and Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers withdrew from chamber. Mr MERLINO: Hotel quarantine has never, ever been a zero-risk environment—never has and never will be. We have seen infection prevention control breaches in every jurisdiction across the country. We have seen outbreaks in New South Wales, in Queensland, in WA. It is not a zero risk— A member: New Zealand. Mr MERLINO: In New Zealand. It is not a zero-risk environment. What we have put in place is even the smallest breaches— (Time expired) Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (11:05): Over 800 Victorians died last year when Labor’s hotel quarantine system failed. Today’s revelations of further quarantine breaches prove the government has not learned the lessons from those 800 tragic deaths or from the Coate inquiry that followed. Under the Westminster system a minister is ultimately responsible for everything that occurs on his or her watch. Acting Premier, why has no minister taken responsibility for these shocking failures and resigned? Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health) (11:06): Gee whiz, if we took the advice of the Liberal Party, we would still be in lockdown. That is the truth of the matter—we would still be in lockdown if we followed the advice of those opposite.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 1394 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, a member of the gang of eight who contributed to 801 deaths should not be lecturing anybody. Just answer the question. Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition! I ask the Acting Premier to come back to answering the question, not attacking the opposition, and I ask the Leader of the Opposition to make points of order in the appropriate manner. Mr MERLINO: Any breaches, even minor technical breaches, are reported, escalated and acted upon, and we have got continuous oversight from Safer Care Victoria. But even more importantly, we have put a proposal to the federal government for an alternative quarantine hub, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s comments yesterday that they have— Members interjecting. Mr MERLINO: The Prime Minister said yesterday that he welcomes the comprehensive proposal from the state government— Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, the question was: why has no minister taken responsibility for these failures and resigned? I ask you to bring the Acting Premier back to answering that question. When is there going to be some accountability? The SPEAKER: Order! The Acting Premier is being relevant to the question that was asked. Mr MERLINO: The Prime Minister responded yesterday that it is a comprehensive proposal. It is being taken seriously and in good faith. I welcome that response from the Prime Minister. We are going to continue to work with the commonwealth. At least the federal Liberals are taking it seriously. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health) (11:09): I rise to update the house on how the Andrews Labor government is getting on with delivering last year’s stimulus investment of over $3 billion in school infrastructure. To name just a few of these projects: an architect was recently appointed to work with Melton Specialist School—a $9.6 million upgrade to modernise the school as well as rebuild the junior building. At Delacombe Primary School in the member for Wendouree’s electorate students will soon be able to enjoy their new competition-grade gym, with construction on track to finish this month. We committed to rebuilding Clifton Creek Primary School after the bushfires, and I am pleased to report to the house that we are delivering on our commitment, with the slab being poured and school installation now commenced. Just last week Rosebud Primary School in the member for Nepean’s electorate had its builder appointed for a $13.7 million upgrade, which will add new facilities to support an additional 200 students. At Croydon Community School, in the Shadow Minister for Education’s electorate, construction of new facilities is underway to enable the school’s relocation to the new Croydon Road site, with site works having begun for the project. We also recently appointed an architect to design the $10 million upgrade at Rosehill Secondary College in the member for Niddrie’s electorate, including modernising blocks A and C and the music block. Our school-building boom has not only invested to date more than $9 billion in more than 1600 school upgrades, it has created more than 10 000 construction jobs right across Victoria. So while those opposite are focused on just one job and while the view of those opposite is that school capital is a distraction, we are getting on with rebuilding school infrastructure across Victoria. COVID-19 Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (11:11): My question is to the Acting Premier. The Premier and the chief health officer blamed a returned traveller using a nebuliser for the outbreak that led to the Valentine’s Day lockdown. Leaked reports have shown that it was in fact poor

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1395 swabbing practices by hotel quarantine staff that caused the outbreak. Will the Acting Premier now, at last, apologise to this man for falsely accusing him of being responsible for the five-day lockdown when the government knew it was their own infection control failures that caused it? Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health) (11:11): The Leader of the Opposition is completely wrong. As we have said consistently, as Commissioner Cassar said this morning and as she said back in March—I was standing next to the commissioner when we released the ventilation assessment and the recommendations of Safer Care Victoria and Professor Cheng’s review into variants of concern—the nebuliser was a significant contributor to that outbreak. It is completely consistent. The Leader of the Opposition is completely and utterly wrong, as per usual. Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Bulleen can leave the chamber for the period of 1 hour. Member for Bulleen withdrew from chamber. Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (11:12): The Premier has previously claimed ‘the nebuliser was the issue’. This government has known since March that this man was innocent of causing any outbreak yet has continued to vilify him. Why? Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Sunbury can leave the chamber for the period of 1 hour. Member for Sunbury withdrew from chamber. Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health) (11:13): Once again the Leader of the Opposition is completely wrong. Just because you say it does not make it so. As we said in March, as we have said today, the nebuliser was a significant contributor to that outbreak, full stop. It is completely consistent with what we have said all along. Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, again, I am quoting the Premier: ‘the nebuliser was the issue’. Address that question. The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition knows that is not the correct way to make a point of order. The Acting Premier has concluded his answer. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: VICTORIA’S BIG BUILD Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop) (11:13): Since Parliament last sat in March, I have had great opportunity to visit many of our project sites right across Victoria and to meet with many of the workers who are employed and working right now on our infrastructure pipeline. Of course I could not get to meet all 18 000 workers, because we have got 165 projects across our Big Build program, but I want to share a couple of examples with you. Just this morning I was at Arden station, and it is amazing. The station is taking shape. We were standing on the platform that will be receiving trains through the Metro Tunnel—the tunnel that is really taking shape and is on track to be finished a whole year ahead of schedule. I was in Hoppers Crossing last week talking about how the Big Build in the west is seeing more trains to every single train station in the western suburbs and the western roads upgrade is delivering significant travel-time savings, and of course Hoppers Crossing is one of the 75 locations that is seeing a dangerous and congested level crossing being removed. Last week I was also in Mordialloc with the member for Mordialloc and the member for Clarinda. We were inspecting the great progress on the Mordialloc freeway. It will be finished at the end of 2021. Of course, as the members for Mordialloc and Carrum know, there are another five level crossings to go in that part of the world as well. In regional Victoria there is great work underway at the Echuca-

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 1396 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

Moama bridge and Princes Highway east is getting under construction later this year. There is the Waurn Ponds duplication, and we continue to have works right across the state on level crossings, including the works I was able to see at Glenroy, where there is major construction underway. And there are the supply chains too that get support. I was with the member for Melton at Westkon in Melton meeting those workers. This is what you have when you have a pipeline, and those opposite have signalled they will kill this pipeline. They will scrap this infrastructure pipeline and the jobs that go with it on construction sites and right across the supply chain in Victoria. AMBULANCE RESPONSE TIMES Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (11:15): My question is to the Minister for Ambulance Services. In referring to Victoria’s health crisis as the worst it has been for decades, Dr Sarah Whitelaw of the Australian Medical Association said:

We will look back on this period and find there have been deaths associated with the situation. Patients with heart attack symptoms and spinal injuries have been forced to wait in ambulances outside of hospitals for up to 5 hours. With ambulances being forced to ramp outside hospitals, how many Victorians have died because of delayed code 1 response times, Minister? Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Equality) (11:16): Can I thank the honourable Leader of the Opposition for his question. Any death is a tragedy when it is associated with our health system. Sadly, deaths are all too frequent an occurrence in our health system because of the very nature of how our health system operates. In regard to the specific question that the honourable member raised, the response times to lights and ambulance, code 1 response times, are reported on a regular basis, and we will continue to report those as that data is appropriate and as it comes to hand. In regard to the wider issues that the honourable member talks about, we know that our hardworking paramedics and our hospital system are frankly, in my view, the best in the country. They are under incredible pressure at the moment—incredible pressure that we are seeing repeated right across the commonwealth. We are seeing unprecedented levels of demand on our services. Just in the last quarter alone, compared to the quarter before, we saw an increase of 10 000 call-outs for our ambulances. This is an unprecedented level of demand. Even though this government has increased funding to these services to the tune of more than $1 billion and has seen an increase in services for some of the issues that I referred to yesterday, whether they be 77 further graduate paramedics— Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, I note in the minister’s answer he referred to the fact that code 1 response times are published, but my question actually went to how many Victorians have died as a result of a failure to meet the benchmarks for code 1 response times. I ask you to bring the minister back to answering that question. Ms Allan: On the point of order, Speaker, the minister was being entirely relevant to the question that was asked. There was a lot of detail and preamble to the question, and the minister was being relevant to the question that was asked. I ask that you rule the point of order out of order. The SPEAKER: Order! I understand the point of order, but the minister is being relevant to the question. Mr FOLEY: Thank you, Speaker. As I was indicating, we have seen a whole range of complex, interplaying factors, but most singularly the impact of the COVID-19 global pandemic on our health services has seen a change in not just the level and extent of demand but the acuity of demand and the complexity of demand. We are seeing the implications of what happens when there are delayed presentations for screening, people being reluctant to come forward to primary health services and a change of processes with arrangements—for instance, aged-care services not engaging with GPs and relying on the 000 service instead for those medical services. We are seeing a whole range of complex factors come into play in both our ambulance and health services in a way that has put those services

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1397 under enormous pressure, and that enormous pressure plays out in different ways. That is why this government is determined to work with our healthcare professionals, with our emergency first responders and with all of those areas to build on the record investment that we have made to date and that we will continue to make in this important area to overcome this set of current challenges. Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (11:20): On 17 September 2015 Jill Hennessy, who was then the Minister for Ambulance Services, said, and I quote:

Hospital bypass will no longer be used in Victoria from Wednesday 7 October 2015. However, in six years all the government has done is change the word ‘bypass’ to ‘divert’, because hospital diversion occurs on an almost daily basis. Minister, six years on from this Labor commitment, why are ambulances still bypassing hospitals? The SPEAKER: Order! I do ask the Leader of the Opposition to use members’ correct titles. Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Equality) (11:20): I thank the honourable member for his supplementary question. I take the opportunity to acknowledge the astounding contribution that the member for Altona made in making sure that the Victorian ambulance response services, with an over $520 million increase in investment made by the honourable member in her time in ambulance services, saw the ambulance response times for code 1 reach their highest performance level in Victoria’s history. That is what happens when you invest and work with— Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, the minister is now debating the question. The question was: why was the commitment to abolish bypass not honoured—why have they simply replaced ‘divert’ with ‘bypass’? The SPEAKER: Order! I do not uphold the point of order. The minister is being relevant to the question that was put. Mr FOLEY: Thank you, Speaker. As I was saying, what we saw under the honourable member for Altona’s stewardship was the outstanding response of what happens when you invest in and work with your workforce. And that is a model that this particular Minister for Health intends to replicate, because what we will do is work with our healthcare professionals, address this issue and fix this issue. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: HEALTH INFRASTRUCTURE Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Equality) (11:22): I rise to share with the house the outstanding efforts that we have seen in regard to our investment in health infrastructure right across this state—an $8 billion pipeline of investment in new infrastructure to deliver world’s best quality services, jobs and support, whether it be our ambulance services, our health services or our community health services and all the range of supports that they bring with them, whether it is the brand new hospital and growing commitments that we have seen in some of the recent visits that I have shared—most notably with the honourable member for Footscray and the Acting Premier, when we visited the single biggest infrastructure health project in this state’s history, the new Footscray Hospital, to be delivered to the booming western suburbs. What an enormous contribution that will make to making sure that our emergency departments, our ambulance services and all of the health professionals that go with that area are delivered in the booming western suburbs through our friends at Western Health. I also had the pleasure recently, again, of joining with the Acting Premier and our local members in the west in regard to a number of other services, particularly the opening of the emergency department at Sunshine. What an outstanding investment that is in the booming western suburbs, again with the important support that we can bring there to see thousands and thousands of extra presentations in that state-of-the-art facility.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 1398 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

I also joined the honourable member for Clarinda and the Acting Premier when we visited Monash Health’s new investments. It was a bit hard to determine whether we were there see the progress in the new emergency department or the new children’s hospital out there at that facility, with such a rich array of investments in the future of our public health. MURRAY-DARLING BASIN PLAN Ms SHEED (Shepparton) (11:24): My question is for the acting Minister for Water. Minister, you attended the ministerial council meeting of water ministers last Thursday, representing the Victorian government. Your press release following that meeting expressed your frustration at the failure of the commonwealth government to address the central issue of the inability to deliver the full 605 gigalitres of water required under the Murray-Darling Basin plan by 2024, only three years away. The dairy farmers, fruit growers and mixed farmers in northern Victoria are anxious about their futures, and on their behalf I ask you: what can the Victorian government do to protect them from further buybacks when the targets for delivery are not met by 2024? Mr WYNNE (Richmond—Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing) (11:25): I thank the member for Shepparton for her question and her continued advocacy around these important issues. I think it is appropriate that I should acknowledge today, as I am sure the house would, that we do wish the member for Bellarine a full recovery at home. She is at home and recovering, and we— Mr Merlino: Hopefully not watching. Mr WYNNE: Well, actually, I hope she is not watching. I know I speak for the Parliament that we do wish her a full and complete recovery, because frankly what I have learned in this very interesting portfolio is that the member for Bellarine has literally led the debate nationally in terms of water issues more generally. Last week, as the member for Shepparton indicates, I met with Murray-Darling Basin ministers and, really, I was able to use the strength of the position that the minister had put in place to continue to advocate on some really fundamental issues. Frankly, the federal minister again failed to address the central issue of successfully delivering the remainder of the basin plan. Members interjecting. Mr WYNNE: Tune in. I will let you know, okay? I was really very upset because this is the third time, as the Leader of the National Party knows, that we have attempted to try to negotiate a better outcome from the commonwealth. Members interjecting. Mr WYNNE: Victoria has achieved all of its obligations. I will not be deflected by them, Speaker. It is a disgrace. We will complete 19 of the 22 projects that we are required to complete by 2024. Everyone at the meeting recognised that the deadlines cannot be met for three of our projects and four in New South Wales by 2024, and this is recognised by independent reports and also by our friends the Victorian Farmers Federation and the Goulburn-Murray irrigators leaders group. These projects include very significant impacts, including river overflows onto public and private land, which clearly require extensive consultation with landowners, traditional owners and local government. In that respect we simply cannot get those projects finished by 2024 because we have to take communities with us. Clearly, member for Shepparton, I again raised the question of buybacks, which are absolutely opposed by Victoria, and the federal minister indicated that there would not be buybacks but it still sits in the legislation at 2024. Ms SHEED (Shepparton) (11:28): On my recent trip to the northern basin I saw huge storage dams built on private land for the purpose of flood plain harvesting, while we in Victoria were heavily regulated back in 1998 to stop that behaviour. Minister, is your government, your department, watching closely what is happening in New South Wales right now and the impact of that behaviour on Victoria?

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1399

Mr WYNNE (Richmond—Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing) (11:28): I thank the member for Shepparton, who came to give me a briefing on her visit up through the region and into Menindee Lakes and beyond, indicating some of the activity that is going on in New South Wales. Obviously we have been long concerned about flood plain harvesting in the northern basin, and we know of the environmental impacts of lack of flows, particularly down the Darling River. In that respect we know that the environmental impacts of this are really quite devastating. So my colleague, of course, the member for Bellarine has raised these issues publicly through the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council over a number of years, and I will continue to make representation on these matters to New South Wales. We look forward to them working with us to ensure that we protect the environment, and the moves this week to regulate and meter flood plain harvesting I think are an important step forward in that endeavour. So thank you for your interest in it. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE Mr CARROLL (Niddrie—Minister for Public Transport, Minister for Roads and Road Safety) (11:30): I rise to update the house on the delivery of important road safety and infrastructure projects that are making a real difference to reliability, safety and smoothness on Victoria’s roads. As part of our Big Build initiative, $1.6 billion is being invested by the Andrews Labor government across our road safety and infrastructure upgrades. This is making a real difference to road, rail, tram and active transport across every corner of this great state of ours. I had the great pleasure recently of visiting Camperdown, where roadworks have commenced on a $272 million initiative—a very important initiative that will also help our freight routes across the great south-west. We know road surfacing, road widening and road safety as well as bridge upgrades right across regional Victoria make a real difference to our freight and local communities as we speak. Also in February I had the great pleasure to join the Deputy Prime Minister in announcing a $245 million investment in joint initiatives right across Victoria. Of these 100 projects, since February we have already delivered seven projects. I know the member for Bass is very happy that her advocacy has seen $1.2 million delivered around Koo Wee Rup, and I really thank the member for Bass for her advocacy on those road safety projects. You have got the member for Geelong and the member for Lara—they are very happy with all the projects that are happening right along the Bellarine Peninsula and, most importantly, Portarlington Road. The member for Macedon and the member for Bendigo West I know have been great advocates for their road safety projects as well. They know the Midland Highway will make a real difference to people getting home safely and on time. We do not play politics with road safety like the failed Leader of the Opposition over there. We get on with the job of delivering jobs and making sure we get on with it. I thank the member for Malvern, and I look forward to the member for Kew making a very important contribution to road safety as well. Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Roads and Road Safety and the member for Gembrook can leave the chamber for the period of 1 hour. Minister for Roads and Road Safety and member for Gembrook withdrew from chamber. AMBULANCE RESPONSE TIMES Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (11:32): My question is to the Minister for Ambulance Services. Leaked Ambulance Victoria documents have revealed that Victorians ringing to request an ambulance, needing an ambulance to attend, have been told that with the system in crisis the quickest way to get to the hospital is to hire a taxi. Minister, how many times in the last six months have critically ill Victorians been told that the quickest way to get to hospital is in a taxi? A member: It’s the best in Australia, Martin. Back it up.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 1400 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Equality) (11:33): I know it is disorderly to respond to interjections, but I do firmly believe that we have the best ambulance service in Australia. It is staffed by high-level professionals. It is actually staffed by 300 more high-level professionals over recent months as a result of continuing investments that this government has made in this space. It is a system that responds to demand. In regard to the specific issue that the honourable Leader of the Opposition raises about data and the release of material in regard to what is put on the public record, that data is released in quarterly arrangements, and it will be released in due course when that material is finalised. Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, ministers’ responses are required to be factual. The data that is released does not tell us how many times patients have been told to get a taxi. That was the question. I ask you to bring the minister back to answering the question: how many times were patients told to get a taxi because there was no point waiting for an ambulance? The SPEAKER: Order! The minister is being relevant to the question that was asked. Mr FOLEY: Thank you, honourable Speaker. As I was indicating, what the Victorian government has committed to is making sure that our best ambulance service in the country is supported in the way in which we can make sure that our investment services deliver the support that Victorians come to rely on, and that is responding in these circumstances to an unprecedented level of demand. We have seen, for instance, a very senior member of Ambulance Victoria’s staff refer to the fact that essentially what we are dealing with now day in, day out, is the equivalent of New Year’s Eve demand every day for our Ambulance Victoria services. When we see 300 extra paramedics brought onto the roster systems in response to that and when we see dedicated increases in roster services, particularly for our regional and rural ambulance services who are facing even greater challenges in this space, we know that there is even more important work to be done. We will continue to work with our ambulance services and with our hospital systems in partnership and in a collective manner to address these unprecedented levels of demand. We will overcome these issues by a cooperative working relationship with all Victorians, with our hospital systems and with our ambulance services. We will respond as other jurisdictions are doing around this country in response to the unprecedented levels of service demand to address these issues and we will get on top of this in the way in which— Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, this word-salad of a response is not actually answering the question: how many Victorians have been told to get a taxi instead of an ambulance? The SPEAKER: Order! The minister is being relevant to the question. Mr FOLEY: As I was indicating, the way to deal with this real challenge that we are facing in our ambulance services is through a consultative, participatory way that works with our workforce rather than declares war on them, and through investing the necessary support and capital to make sure that we get on top of this issue and return our ambulance services and indeed our whole health system to a sustainable, world-class, first-class system. Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (11:36): Yesterday in question time the minister admitted that Victoria’s health system is in crisis—7-hour waits for ambulances, people dying waiting for ambulances, people being told to get taxis to get to hospital. Does the minister take responsibility for the crisis in Victoria’s health system that has developed on his watch? Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Equality) (11:37): I thank the honourable member for his question. What I take responsibility for is the circumstance of responding, with our healthcare professionals, to a once-in-a-lifetime global pandemic that has put on services right across the world, let alone right across this country, unprecedented levels of demand. The COVID crisis of 2020 has a very long tail. It delivers changes of acuity. It delivers changes to van patterns. It delivers changes of presentations to primary healthcare

CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1401 services. It delivers changes of patterns to how our ambulances and paramedics and emergency departments have to risk-manage those people who come in their doors, and all of that has come together in an almost perfect storm of arrangements that has seen what one of the leaders of the— Mr Walsh: On a point of order, Speaker, on the issue of relevance, the minister can be mind- numbing in the detail that he is describing but he is not actually fixing the issue. He is not actually fixing the issues. There are people dying— The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals is not raising a point of order. The Leader of the Nationals will resume his seat. When the house comes to order! Members interjecting. Mr FOLEY: I will actually take that as a compliment, by the way, because I take it as a compliment that we work with our ambulance services rather than— (Time expired) MINISTERS STATEMENTS: ECONOMY Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (11:39): It is an exciting time to be a Victorian, with the state’s economy rebounding out of the pandemic with the fastest growth rate of any of the states. Business conditions are up, with the NAB business survey clocking in at a plus 21. That is not only above the long-term average, it is more than double what it was at any point when those opposite were on the government benches in the four long, lost years. Our state is witnessing a jobs-led recovery supported by a $134 billion Big Build; 243 000 jobs have been created since September of last year and our employment numbers now are above where they were pre pandemic, so we are smashing our interim jobs target. But I am sorry to say that the media recently reported that there are some who advocate alternative policies. They want to cut infrastructure spending and slash the public service. These zealots should not be vague; they should come clean to the people of Victoria about the critical projects that they would cancel: North East Link, Regional Rail Revival, or maybe they can tell us which of the 75 level crossings they would like to get rid of? Like Rocky Horror Show, they are living in a time warp, pushing a zombie toll road that loses 55 cents in every dollar and at least two elections, but we are still counting. It is a step to the far right—just a step to the far right—and it is being led by the member for Ripon and her cuts to infrastructure spending. Victoria is bouncing back from the pandemic with an infrastructure and jobs-led economic recovery— Members interjecting. Mr PALLAS: You’re the punchline. Ms Staley: On a point of order, Speaker, I did not want to disrupt the flow of question time, but the form of the question from the member for Shepparton repeatedly referred to ‘you’, and it went therefore through to you. Now, we have often been called by you to rephrase our questions, and I am just inquiring whether it is one rule for us and a different one for her or whether you just could counsel her. The SPEAKER: I did note that there were a number of questions today in fact where questions were not correctly directed through the Chair. I will have a look at Hansard and I might speak directly to members about the framing of their questions. Thank you, member for Ripon. Constituency questions EVELYN ELECTORATE Ms VALLENCE (Evelyn) (11:42): (5831) My question is for the Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers. Will you urgently at least fund $650 000 to ensure that the Victorian volunteer resource centres across Victoria, including Eastern Volunteers in my electorate, can continue to function fully, including retaining vital infrastructure, delivery of support services and volunteer placement programs? Volunteers contribute $58.2 billion to the Victorian economy. In my community Eastern

CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS 1402 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

Volunteers supports over 560 000 hours per year of volunteering, contributing to $291 million in civic and community benefit to our outer eastern communities. During Victoria’s COVID lockdown Eastern Volunteers deployed many people to help those in need, but without vital funding their doors could be closed at 30 June of this year. The Labor government must commit to this funding. RINGWOOD ELECTORATE Mr HALSE (Ringwood) (11:43): (5832) My question is to the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change and Minister for Solar Homes. How does the government’s plan to facilitate a just transition to a clean economy and to cut our emissions by 45 to 50 per cent help workers, the Victorian economy and any consumers in my electorate and across Victoria in the long term? GIPPSLAND SOUTH ELECTORATE Mr D O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (11:43): (5833) My question is to the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, and I ask: when will funding be advanced for planning and construction for badly needed works on the South Gippsland Highway, including stage 2 of the Leongatha heavy vehicle alternative route, the Coal Creek bends at Korumburra and the realignment of the Grassy Spur section between Stony Creek and Foster? While stage 1 of the Leongatha alternative route has taken trucks out of Bair Street, it has left a dangerous and congested mess at the intersection of the highway and Roughead Street–Long Street that continues to frustrate locals and visitors alike. Properly finishing this bypass as well as ironing out the blackspots at Coal Creek and the Grassy Spur should be a priority in the forthcoming budget. I look forward to funding for both the planning and ultimately the construction of those projects coming soon. NARRE WARREN SOUTH ELECTORATE Mr MAAS (Narre Warren South) (11:44): (5834) My question is for the Minister for Education and concerns the new school tutors funded by the state government. Minister, how is this investment in new tutors benefiting my electorate of Narre Warren South? I was thrilled to see $250 million announced for tutors in 2021 to support students and bring them up to speed after last year’s challenges. Based on the best health advice, schools moved to online learning at various times to keep our communities safe during the pandemic. We must, however, support our students who need extra help to get back on track and ensure they stay engaged with their education. I would appreciate any further information that the minister can provide regarding the tutor learning initiative and hope it will help students in my electorate of Narre Warren South. I look forward to sharing the minister’s response with my community. BRIGHTON ELECTORATE Mr NEWBURY (Brighton) (11:45): (5835) My constituency question is to the Minister for Public Transport, and I ask: can the minister release all advice on the safety of the Dendy Street pedestrian rail crossing in Brighton? The Dendy Street pedestrian rail crossing at the New Street roundabout in Brighton lacks any safety features, yet it is a major crossing that services two primary schools, St Joan of Arc and Brighton Beach primary schools. St Joan of Arc principal Tony McMahon recently reported that he had received at least 10 reports of children almost being hit at the crossing and said:

The fact that there hasn’t been a terrible accident is purely through luck. The department recently hired crossing counters, who have advised me personally that hundreds of residents are using the crossing each day and are often groups of young children. We also know the department has commissioned a secret assessment of the safety of the crossing, which I am advised has found the crossing is not compliant and is dangerously unsafe. Labor needs to act now before the luck runs out for crossing users in Brighton.

CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1403

BURWOOD ELECTORATE Mr FOWLES (Burwood) (11:46): (5836) My constituency question is directed to the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, and my question is: how will the proposed container deposit scheme benefit local community groups in Burwood? The Andrews Labor government has an immensely strong track record of delivering for our environment. Here are some highlights. We have set ambitious targets to reduce emissions by up to 50 per cent by 2030 compared to 2005 levels; strengthened the Environment Protection Authority Victoria; protected old-growth forests; reformed the recycling industry; invested $1.6 billion in clean energy, more than any other state ever; created a new authority to protect the Great Ocean Road; helped over 100 000 Victorians households install solar panels; increased Victoria’s renewable energy target to 50 per cent by 2030; created or upgraded 6 500 hectares of parks and open space through the suburban parks program; created partnerships with traditional owners to manage national parks, reserves and natural resources; invested $23 million to protect Wilsons Promontory; funded upgrades to old gas, electric and wood-fired heaters for low- income Victorians; upgraded the energy efficiency of social housing; improved public transport by removing level crossings and increasing service capacities; invested $3.3 million in community power hubs; unlocked Victoria’s six renewable energy zones with a $540 million investment; constitutionally banned fracking; banned e-waste from going to landfill; invested $2.6 million to turn recycled waste into infrastructure— (Time expired) MILDURA ELECTORATE Ms CUPPER (Mildura) (11:47): (5837) I cannot follow that. My constituency question is for the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Could the minister outline what measures and support the Victorian government will take to assist the return of the Sea Lake Mallee Rally? The event was postponed in 2019 because of concerns about Aboriginal heritage around the 88-kilometre track. Since that time I have attempted to assist negotiations for a compromise between the traditional owners and the Sea Lake Off Road Club. As part of negotiations traditional owners have detailed a number of conditions they would like to be met. These conditions would require support and investment from the government, but the benefits to all parties would be significant. It would give our Aboriginal community more meaningful social and economic opportunities on Direl country, which has been their traditional homeland for tens of thousands of years, and in addition it would help ensure the future of the Sea Lake Mallee Rally, which is the oldest off-road event in Australia and has significant economic and social value for Sea Lake. I am hopeful that a compromise can be met, and I hope the Victorian government can assist this. HAWTHORN ELECTORATE Mr KENNEDY (Hawthorn) (11:48): (5838) My question is to the Minister for Education. How will the Respectful Relationships initiative, a key recommendation of the Royal Commission into Family Violence, support schools in my electorate of Hawthorn? Respectful Relationships is a whole-school approach supporting government and non-government schools to embed respect and gender equality in all aspects of their culture—in the classroom, the playground, the staffroom and the broader school community. Every government school in my electorate as well as seven non-government schools— namely, St Cecilia’s, Siena College, Bialik College, SEDA College, Strathcona Baptist girls grammar, Scotch College and Alia College—are part of this important program, and I look forward to hearing from the minister about the difference it will make to all those schools in the electorate of Hawthorn. GEMBROOK ELECTORATE Mr BATTIN (Gembrook) (11:49): (5839) My question is to the Minister for Roads and Road Safety. In relation to Koo Wee Rup Road, today the minister has bragged again about the work they are going to do down on Koo Wee Rup Road, after three deaths that have occurred on that road. I ask for information on why the Victorian Labor government cancelled the original contracts, where works would have been completed on that road by today—or actually by a few years ago—and would have ensured that those three lives were not lost in tragic circumstances because of the poor conditions of

BILLS 1404 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021 those roads. The member for Narre Warren North was more than happy to go out and play politics with a front-page article to talk about the works they were going to do in the south-east, including the upgrades of Koo Wee Rup Road, but they cancelled the contract. I look forward to the information from the minister to provide to the families and my electorate on why they cancelled those contracts that have effectively killed three people in the Gembrook electorate. FRANKSTON ELECTORATE Mr EDBROOKE (Frankston) (11:50): (5840) My question is for the Minister for Public Transport, and I ask: what are the next steps in the process to build the new Frankston train station commuter car park, when the federal government appear to have left us high and dry? At the last federal election we heard with much fanfare that the Morrison government—from the visiting PM himself—had committed funding to the 500-space car park at Frankston station being built by the Andrews state government. Unfortunately that federal funding has not been allocated to Frankston, nor to 27 other car park commitments made across Victoria. And there is a pattern emerging in our area. We had the Prime Minister’s 2018 promise televised live, telling us they would single-handedly build the Baxter electrification and duplication project, which was meant to start in 2019. It is now 2021, and they have delivered nothing but excuses. That is a 100 per cent failure rate for the PM’s promises to my community. You can only say this is a scam. I ask the minister to inform my community of the next steps in the process for us to get on and build the Frankston station commuter car park despite the federal government clearly leaving us high and dry once again. Bills TRANSPORT LEGISLATION MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS BILL 2021 Second reading Debate resumed. Ms RYAN (Euroa) (11:51): As I was saying before question time, I have spoken to the bus association and they have made the point—which I know that they have also stressed to the minister— that they have been advocating without success for over a decade in order to try to obtain some reciprocal arrangements in other jurisdictions around unaccredited operators and the rights that they are already afforded under the act. I think it is safe to assume that if they cannot make headway on that, then it is preposterous to assume that they will be able to do so when the government is just opening the field a lot more widely to other operators in other jurisdictions. To that end, I would strongly urge the government to consider our amendments favourably, in terms of being able to give some protection to those Victorian operators by in fact ensuring that interstate operators can only operate in Victoria if indeed they have reciprocal rights in other states. As I said, we are by no means averse to competition—of course we are not. Competition can drive a more effective system, but I think the government is creating an incredibly uneven playing field that does run the very real risk of undermining Victorian businesses and Victorian jobs by opening up, without those reciprocal arrangements, to interstate bus operators. The bill also seeks to introduce a fit and proper person test for bus operators. I am not entirely certain as to the government’s logic on this—and perhaps government members in debate might wish to explain it in more detail—because I do understand that all bus operators, whether they are delivering government-contracted services or are registered bus operators, such as philanthropic organisations which might have a bus, have already been through a fit and proper person test or the equivalent thereof in order to operate. Whilst of course we want to make sure that those who are driving our buses and operating bus companies in Victoria are fit and proper people, it would appear that that test already exists in order for them to be able to undertake those activities. I would invite those opposite to actually explain where the failures have been in the current system that would warrant the introduction of this additional test, because on my read it seems to simply be adding a further layer of red tape to operators.

BILLS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1405

The commencement date of this legislation is also of significant concern. The government intends to have these changes enacted by 1 March 2022, despite significant changes to the accreditation scheme. And again, bus operators, I know, have taken their concerns to the government and the Minister for Public Transport, but they do feel that that has fallen on deaf ears with this legislation. The view from the industry is that it will take at least a year to design changes to the accreditation regime and a further two years to implement. And that is consistent with the time frames for similar changes that have already occurred within the industry and the time that those other changes have taken. The industry is deeply concerned that the government is seeking to rush this through and that it will be, quite frankly, not possible to meet the date of enactment, 1 March 2022. The bill also makes a number of amendments to the Road Safety Act 1986, which we see no major problem with. They are primarily aimed I think at clarifying some of the grey areas around how interstate drivers are treated. These include clarification that a person does not need to comply with an alcohol interlock condition if a person is undergoing a driving assessment or is driving under supervision; removing any doubt that where a speeding offence is dealt with in court and the offender does not have a Victorian licence, the court will be required to disqualify the person for the same period as would apply if the person had a Victorian licence; confirming that an interstate driver who breaches a condition is required to be treated in the same way as if they had breached a Victorian alcohol interlock condition; clarifying that for offences attracting immediate suspension by police where a person does not have a Victorian drivers licence, they will be subject to an immediate disqualification from driving in Victoria for the same period as if the person had held a Victorian drivers licence; providing for approval of an alcohol interlock supplier or other road safety service provider to be transferred from one entity to another in certain circumstances—for example, when a trading name is changed; providing that interstate offenders who hold an interstate licence subject to interstate alcohol interlock conditions will be subject to the zero blood alcohol content requirement in Victoria; aligning the time periods that apply to drink-driving offenders in relation to the mandatory carriage of drivers licences; and removing overlapping requirements to stop and remain stopped. I guess the final thing that I really wanted to touch on in this bill—I know, as I said at the outset, there are changes that it makes to transferral of powers to the Victorian Fisheries Authority, which I think other speakers who may be more affected by those may go into in more detail—is the facilitation within this bill of 99-year leases with VicTrack. I have found over my time in this place that VicTrack is an incredibly difficult organisation to deal with. They do not see it as part of their remit to help community groups. In many cases they are sitting on tracts of land where in no-one’s mind and in no- one’s strategy and in no-one’s vision is there ever going to be a railway built in particular areas. I have many of those communities where VicTrack sits on the land. They do nothing with it, it is often overgrown and it becomes a fire risk, and the community in many cases has some great plans for how they might utilise that land, but VicTrack just will not enter into a long-term lease arrangement that would facilitate community groups to actually deliver on some of these great projects. I can point to places all around my electorate where that has occurred. I currently have a petition sitting on the notice paper from the community of Stanhope, where there is a parcel of land that, again, is overgrown and has become a fire risk within the town. The community has built a walking track from Girgarre, and they just need this last section. They need VicTrack to give a lease over this last section of land to complete a walking track between their two communities, and VicTrack just will not do it. They have previously also approached VicTrack to strike a long-term lease in order to create an RV dump, which we know actually facilitates grey nomads coming through. For a tiny community like Stanhope that can be a game changer for the local community and the local traders in that community—the local cafe. Again, VicTrack just point-blank refuses to do it. There is part of that stretch of land where— Ms Ward: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I have just come back in and have only been here a couple of minutes and I am wondering whether we are still actually talking about this bill, because I am not sure what the connection is to walking tracks and VicTrack land with this bill.

BILLS 1406 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

Ms RYAN: On the point of order, Speaker, clearly the member for Eltham is not familiar with the bill. It is somewhat embarrassing, but this bill does go to VicTrack leasing agreements and the fact that VicTrack is able to facilitate 99-year leases of Crown land. This is an omnibus bill dealing with transport legislation. Perhaps she should actually read the bill before she takes such a frivolous point of order, which is clearly, Acting Speaker, out of order. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Richardson): Omnibus is a difficult word to say. The bill is a wideranging debate, and as the lead speaker, the member for Euroa can continue on the bill. Ms RYAN: As I was saying, the community of Stanhope has been desperate to work with VicTrack to actually facilitate some great community ideas. There is actually a parcel of land in the centre of town where they would in fact love the government to put that land to market, so the community is actually coming to the government and saying, ‘There is an opportunity here for you to sell some land, make some money for the state, but more importantly have something done with that rather than it just being vacant land in the centre of town that is overgrown, full of weeds, quite frankly has become an eyesore and is of no strategic benefit to the town’. I have had similar issues around Colbinabbin, around Violet Town and Benalla—lots of places across my electorate and I am sure other people’s electorates in country Victoria—where we just want VicTrack to show some common sense. We understand that there are places where one day railways may be built as the state’s population intensifies, but I can assure you that that is not Stanhope. It is not Colbinabbin. Those parcels of land should be examined by the state, and I do hope that the facilitation of longer term leases with VicTrack is something that the government closely examines for the benefit of communities and where communities are actually coming to government and saying, ‘We would like to do something with this land. We can see an opportunity here for our community’. I would hope that the government would actually proactively seek to work with communities under those circumstances. So in conclusion, I reiterate the concerns of the opposition with respect to the impact of this bill, particularly on the Victorian bus industry. I would urge the government to support our very sensible amendments, which are, at their very heart, aimed at protecting Victorian jobs and protecting Victorian businesses. Ms WARD (Eltham) (12:02): I am very pleased to be speaking on this bill and very pleased to be speaking about the importance of transport in this state and the amazing amount of work that this government is doing. This bill provides for various amendments to transport legislation to improve its operation. Now, the previous speaker raised the breadth and depth of our Big Build agenda, and I am glad that she does really want to keep talking about this and in fact that she needs to fill her speech with actually talking about our projects. There is a lot to talk about. Approximately $7 billion is being invested in over 100 road and rail projects. And this is about more than just putting down train lines. It is about more than putting bitumen down. It is about more than creating walking and shared user paths. It is about creating jobs, and we are creating 18 000 jobs just through this work alone. Mr Carbines: How many? Ms WARD: 18 000, member for Ivanhoe—18 000—and I know some of them will be people living in your electorate, some of them will be living in my electorate and I know that some of them are living in the member for Euroa’s electorate. Ms Green interjected. Ms WARD: Yes, 300 people at work, including work on precast for the West Gate Tunnel. There are 300 jobs just in that area alone. Investment in infrastructure is a key part of our recovery from the economic damage of COVID. These projects have never been more important. This Big Build agenda has never mattered more. This bill helps us create jobs and deliver on this unprecedented transport investment. Construction has continued, with increased safety protocols in place last year during the

BILLS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1407 pandemic. So despite the fact that we were hit with a pandemic, with something we had never experienced before, we were able to keep our projects continuing. We have removed 43 dangerous and congested level crossings. We have gone beyond the halfway mark of the overall target of 75 level crossings by 2025, with 20 currently underway, and we have also reached the halfway point on the Metro Tunnel project. I think just earlier we saw some photos of one of the stations being tweeted around by journalists—the amazing work that is continuing to go on there and how quickly this project is actually being delivered. Work has continued on the North East Link as well as the Monash Freeway upgrade, and the North East Link is going to be a complete game changer in my community, as it will also be for the member for Ivanhoe. We have got the Shadow Treasurer quoted in an article:

… while some infrastructure projects were necessary, ‘there comes a point where you do have to make some choices’, and state governments should not be about spending money on ‘flashy’ projects at the expense of providing key services, including education and health. Now, we are the party of education and we are the party of health. We are also the party of infrastructure and jobs. I would be interested to know, with the previous speaker talking about all of the terrible Big Build projects that we are doing and how they are costing too much money, what are the flashy projects that she would actually like to cancel? What does she want to cancel? Is it the Shepparton line upgrade, which is delivering 29 additional coach services a week between Seymour and Shepparton, that is giving 10 extra weekly services on the Shepparton line and that was fast-tracked by nearly 12 months? This is all completed. Stage 2, which is currently underway, provides the infrastructure required for VLocity trains to run to Shepparton for the first time, improving service reliability and providing passengers with more comfortable journeys. This includes a new stabling facility to house the trains as well as level crossing upgrades between Donnybrook and Shepparton to ensure they are compatible with VLocity trains and to boost safety for road users and train passengers. The crossing loop extension will improve service reliability by giving trains more opportunities to pass each other. This does not quite sound flashy to me; it just sounds like vital and important infrastructure that is well needed—and there is stage 3 to go. Is that something that the opposition would like to cancel? Of course there is also the north-east line upgrade. Is that a flashy project that they would like to cancel? Is that a project that is costing too much money and that they do not want the government to invest in? The north-east line upgrade will enable improved train services for passengers and allow VLocity trains to run to Albury-Wodonga for the first time. I would have thought this is incredibly important and vital infrastructure. I would not think it is a flashy project. And there is the West Gate Tunnel, which they may want to get rid of—who knows? Is that another flashy project? As I said before, in Benalla there are 300 people who are employed in the factory that is helping to build precast for that project. These are important jobs and communities. The member also raised so-called ‘cost blowouts’ on the North East Link, an incredibly important project, a vital project and one that has been talked about for decades in this state but which only this government has gone about actually implementing and getting on with. We have not put pretend flags at Spencer Street station telling people that we are going to build airport link; we have actually gone and done projects, which includes airport link. But on North East Link the member is comparing the costs of a project to those that were estimated in 2008. Now, that is dodgy accounting by anyone’s book, and even the honourable member opposite, who I know had a couple of challenges with some education costings, surely could see that you cannot compare costs now with what was projected in 2008. That was 13 or more years ago. This bill does amend the Bus Safety Act 2009 to require all operators of bus services to be accredited, and it makes miscellaneous amendments to the Road Safety Act 1986 to improve the operation of that act, including providing for the immediate disqualification of non-Victorian licence or permit holders and unlicensed drivers from obtaining a drivers licence or learner permit for a specified period after the commission of certain offences. It also amends the Victorian Fisheries Authority Act 2016 to

BILLS 1408 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021 expand the Victorian Fisheries Authority’s functions in relation to recreational boating. It does support our delivery of these important infrastructure investments. It does help implement our very important election commitments—those commitments that the people of this state voted for—and other policy commitments made by our government. It refines transport regulatory schemes to impose safety, efficiency and effectiveness and implements technical changes that are needed to improve the operation of transport laws—for example, bus operators are currently required to obtain a bus operator accreditation or registration depending on the type of bus service provided or the type of buses needed. This will consolidate the bus operator accreditation and registration schemes so that all new bus operators are required to demonstrate competence and capacity before being permitted to operate. This is an important safety reform. Now, along with the member for Yan Yean I thank the Minister for Public Transport, who is here with us, for coming out to Diamond Creek recently and meeting with a bunch of us at Diamond Creek station, where we spoke about some of the infrastructure needs that we have got. But we also met with a terrific person in our community, John Griffiths, who is the general manager of Panorama Coaches— a fantastic bus line and one of the biggest employers in our community across Nillumbik, so both the member for Yan Yean’s part of Nillumbik as well as my own. He is supportive of this legislation. He is supportive of anything that is geared towards improving safety and removing red tape. Now, that is direct quote from John. John wants to create opportunity for buses, and he worked incredibly well with us, didn’t he, member for Yan Yean, when were trying to get the 343 bus up? I thank the government for their support in that important bus service, which has transformed the way that people move around that part of outer Melbourne. So I also thank the minister here for his interest and for his support for transport in our community. Small and minibus operators are not being subjected to the same level of scrutiny as larger bus operators, yet most of the growth in the industry is happening in the minibus area. So as we transition to a demand for more responsive bus and commercial passenger services we need more assurance of safety, and I know the member for Yan Yean and have I spoken for some time around how we can transform at-call transport services and how we can open up the outer suburbs that have important demand but do not have big demand. How do we cater services to help people in those communities get around through shared riding, whatever that might look like? And it is great to see that we are continuing to evolve our legislation, continuing to make changes, that help to respond to those changes in our community and those changes in our economy as well as those changes in passenger transport and passenger demand. This is good, important legislation. It is an omnibus bill that covers many aspects, and I have only covered a small part of that, but I am glad to see the government is continuing to move forward. It is terrific to see the amount of work that we are doing on our Big Build projects. So many of them are happening quickly. So many of them happening early, like the Metro Tunnel. It is happening at lightning speed. We will be out there. We will be in trains sooner than you know it. This is a fantastic Big Build agenda and this is good legislation, which I commend to the house. Ms McLEISH (Eildon) (12:12): I rise to make a contribution to the Transport Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2021. As has been said by both speakers prior to me, this is an omnibus bill. It covers quite a number of areas. However, there are three bits of legislation that are focused on: the Bus Safety Act 2009, the Road Safety Act 1986 and the Victorian Fisheries Authority Act 2016. I will certainly be talking about the fisheries act, but I want to start by commenting on the Bus Safety Act. The member for Euroa, as our lead speaker in this place, did move amendments with regard to reciprocal arrangements, and I endorse the comments and the amendments that she has put forward. The intent behind this legislation is to improve its operation. I guess it probably is still to be seen how that is going to turn out. At the moment we are looking at amending the act to require all officers of bus services to be accredited. Now, that sounds okay on the surface, but I will make some comments about that. Looking at miscellaneous amendments to the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry

BILLS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1409

Act 2017, things in the area have altered over the time. I had a look at even when were in government and some of things that were being talked about at that time. Compulsory acquisition of land for the Alphington link project—the member for Euroa outlined that from what she understood that is a very small strip of land and pretty well was all related to the Big Build. We have a number of areas of concern, and I want to get on to those fairly quickly so that I do not run out of time, with part 2 of the Bus Safety Act. The bus operators are currently required to obtain a bus operator accreditation or registration, depending on the type of bus service provided and the type of buses used. Now, this bill consolidates the bus operator accreditation and registration scheme so that all new bus operators are required to demonstrate competence and capacity before being permitted to operate. Now, if we think about that, what does that mean? We have bus operators in varying capacities, and we have large operators that may service the public system as well as run coaches for varying contracts that they may have. We have schools that run bus services—they might be their own contracted bus services. The shires often have community buses. And varying support groups—whether it is aged care, whether it is hospital groups—also very often have community bus groups. It is concerning that these groups have all been lumped in together with the large-scale bus operators. And I look at the moment and think about a couple of bus operators within my electorate who fit in that—the small community groups. We have disability support groups and aged care. In Mansfield we have the Friday Foundation community bus. The Friday Foundation, Harry and Clare Friday—I went to the launch of this community bus a few years ago—gifted the bus to the Mansfield District Hospital. It can take 15 passengers, a driver and four wheelchairs and has an electronic hoist. It services the hospital in Mansfield, plus Buckland House, which is an aged-care facility attached, and Bindaree across the road. It says that bus users must comply with all terms and conditions, but I look at how this gift to the community is now being treated the same as those big bus operators. In Healesville, Healesville Inter-Church Community Care Inc. is a wonderful community services organisation coordinated through seven Christian churches, and it offers transport assistance. It is volunteer driven. HICCI itself is a volunteer-based organisation. They rely on donations, and they do get grants for various things. There is a quote on the HICCI website which I really quite like. I am a regular visitor at HICCI, having been there I think just in the last couple of weeks.

HICCI has been my lifeline as I can no longer drive. Again, this provides services for medical and health appointments, shopping trips—not just to downtown Healesville but further down the line to Chirnside Park, to Lilydale, to Eastland—and social transport. Alison Gommers there is doing a great job, Evelyn Dennis coordinates the transport—and I know Evelyn and Margaret Jones as well—and they are supported by Sheree Laumen and Ann Grieve as well to bring about a community facility, a community service, to really help people. It disturbs me to think that they will be in the same bucket as the large bus operators. The shires of course, Murrindindi and Mansfield, have community buses, as you would expect. The community down at St Andrews started their own Saturday morning bus service, and now that is linked in with the Nillumbik shire as well. But we have all of these small community groups that have their own buses and operate them and may be subjected to additional red tape and bureaucracy. We have talked about the amendments that are being put forward, and clauses 42 and 44 extend the scope and rights that interstate bus operators currently have. We would like to think—and this is the purpose of our amendments—that Victorian operators have the same opportunities as they go into other states, hence the need for reciprocal rights. And the government proposes to implement all of these changes actually by March next year—so less than 12 months, about 10 months now. The bus industry itself actually has indicated to us that these things are likely to be two or three years down the track. Now, clauses 42 to 44, which I have just mentioned, are what Bus Association Victoria is strongly opposed to. They have sought amendments to that through the government.

BILLS 1410 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

I want to touch briefly on the changes to the fisheries—the amendments to the Victorian Fisheries Authority Act 2016. If we have a look, that is in the small section at the back of the bill. Clause 74 significantly extends the functions of the authority—okay, you could expect that—but clause 74(b) creates a few queries for us. The monitoring and enforcement of compliance with the Marine Safety Act 2010 as it relates to recreational boating—we are very unclear what this means. Are fisheries inspectors, who are already in short supply and under the pump, now going to be enforcing life jackets on recreational craft? Now, we know that life jackets are particularly important on recreational craft, and we have seen too many instances where people have not worn their life jackets and have drowned. We have had some very disturbing events because people have not worn their life jackets. On the operation of personal or recreational watercraft, are the fisheries inspectors the ones who are going to be monitoring the compliance here? In the same clause the administration of grants for recreational boating relates to the passage of the marine safety amendment. This is unclear as to whether funds can be diverted from boating purposes to fishing purposes or vice versa. Finally, I want to touch on the government’s treatment of bus companies and bus contracts. In 2017 the Minister for Public Transport, the member for Bendigo East at the time, announced that they were negotiating new contracts with 12 metropolitan bus operators. She said that the arrangements were old and inflexible and that contractors would be able to choose between short- and long-term agreements to best suit their needs. Well, what a debacle that was. When bus operators embarked on the negotiations for the metro contracts, it became very clear that the longer the contract they sought, the more assets that they had built up in their businesses over the years, the more had to be handed to the state. That is absolutely outrageous. They were vehemently opposed to handing any of their assets to the government and fought that at all costs. There are 400-plus members of the bus association. To think that the government was insisting that they were obliged to hand over parts of their family-owned businesses. The longer the contract that you sought, the more you had to hand over. This was not just your buses and coaches; for the longer contracts they wanted your depots and your machinery sheds. I find it absolutely outrageous that the government was sneaky in how they tried to take over the assets that people had built up in their own businesses and companies over the years, to have government control. I was absolutely appalled. It started in the metro area, but those in the country areas were equally appalled at the mistreatment by the government of their businesses. Ms THEOPHANOUS (Northcote) (12:22): I am very pleased to be speaking in support of this bill, the Transport Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2021. There are many varied and worthwhile aspects to this bill, which makes substantive improvements to the safety and operation of our state’s transport networks, but there is one particular part of this bill which has great significance to my own community, and this is the section of the bill that I would like to focus on as it might not be covered in depth by others. I am speaking of course about the Alphington link to the Darebin Yarra Trail and the part of this bill which brings us another step closer to delivering on that vital local link. It may seem a small feature of a bill which covers so many other reforms to our road safety, bus safety and other transport acts, but it is a small feature which will have a big impact on people living in my electorate of Northcote and in particular the southern part of the electorate covering Alphington and Fairfield. I note that the member for Euroa took some issue with us speaking about the government’s Big Build as part of this legislation, so perhaps for her benefit I will spend some time explicating exactly why this seemingly small amendment will have a big impact for the electorate of Northcote and how it relates to some of our other big infrastructure projects. In April 2018 the spectacular Darebin Yarra Trail link was opened to the public thanks to an $18 million investment by the Andrews Labor government. This spectacular 3-metre-wide trail traverses Darebin Creek from Ivanhoe through Alphington and Kew and connects up to the Main Yarra Trail. It is an impressive piece of engineering, with three bridges across Darebin Creek and another across the Yarra. It is truly a big build, as it were. It is a beautifully executed project in a complex and environmentally sensitive location, but somehow this immense structure blends seamlessly into the riverside landscape and is truly something to behold. For those of you who have

BILLS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1411 not walked or cycled the trail, I highly recommend it. I know my friend the member for Ivanhoe is a regular cyclist along there. It is important to note that the opening of this trail was the culmination of years of dedicated work across the cycling community and residents as well as within government. It came up against significant resistance at a local council level, but there were champions along the way who fought hard to make it a reality. In particular I want to thank the former Minister for Roads and Road Safety, the member for Narre Warren North, for his role in seeing the link finished and for championing its next phase, because Alphington residents have long pushed for there to be another chapter in this extraordinary story, and that is the Alphington link or the Farm Road link to the Darebin Yarra Trail. The situation is this: although the residents of Alphington can admire the trail, which winds through their suburb, they have no safe and direct way to access the trail. Residents must either travel north to enter through Sparks Reserve in Ivanhoe or south via Willsmere Park in Kew East. For many this means travelling along the busy Heidelberg Road, an option that is neither convenient nor particularly safe, especially for the many schoolchildren who make this journey. Having grown up in Alphington, I know this stretch of road and this area very well and I know how busy the roads can get at peak times. On a bike this stretch can be difficult to manage and to navigate, especially as you cross the much narrower and more exposed Darebin Creek Bridge along Heidelberg Road to enter Ivanhoe. This is not even to mention the extra travel time and the distance for residents wanting to get onto that trail. The countless conversations that I have had with locals over the past two years since the completion of the Darebin Yarra Trail have only reinforced for me the necessity of a safer, more direct route for local cyclists and pedestrians. In recognition of the value of building a new local link, in 2017 the Andrews Labor government committed to making it happen, and since being elected I have been working with the community and within government to deliver on that promise. It has not been a straightforward matter by any stretch, and the community of Alphington have been incredibly patient as we worked through some of the complications and the limitations of building a connection. In 2018 we undertook a range of community engagements to inform technical development of plans, designs and options, and we set up a stakeholder reference group. Ultimately the most direct route for the Alphington link goes through a parcel of land privately owned by the Latrobe Golf Club. This will make for the safest, most accessible and most functional connection for pedestrians and cyclists and greatly enhance the cycling corridor in Melbourne’s inner north. Various topography and engineering issues have been canvassed by the Department of Transport, as well as discussions around the availability and the ownership of the land. We can now move this project forward, and this bill is a critical part of that. The land where the Alphington link is due to be built is subject to the Cultural and Recreational Lands Act 1963, which provides that the land be acquired by agreement or by an act that authorises compulsory acquisition for specified purposes. The bill before us authorises compulsory acquisition of the land for the Alphington link project by amendment to the Road Management Act 2004. This milestone is vital in streamlining the process to deliver this project and ensuring that works get underway as soon as possible. Our government has already invested $9.1 million to plan and develop the link. That design work is well underway and will be able to be advanced once we have certainty around the provisions contained in this bill. It includes the construction of a 4-metre-wide bridge that will take pedestrians and cyclists safely over part of the golf course onto the Darebin Yarra Trail. Community feedback will play an important role in the development of the Alphington link, and I look forward to sharing designs and hearing directly from my community later this year about how we can get the very best outcomes out of this remarkable project. I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has been involved in advocating for the Darebin Yarra Trail and the Alphington link over the years, as well as everyone who has worked together and alongside me to progress it. This includes the Bicycle Network as well as the community coalition incorporating Alphington Primary School; Friends of Darebin Creek; the South Alphington & Fairfield Civic Association; the Darebin Bicycle User Group, Yarra Bicycle Users Group and Boroondara

BILLS 1412 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

Bicycle Users Group; the Darebin Creek Management Committee; the Darebin Parklands Association; Kew High School; and the Boroondara Bushwalkers. A big shout-out as well goes to local Alphington resident James Thyer, who has been a strong and determined voice for his community. James and I have had many conversations over the past couple of years in our joint efforts to make sure this project gets the attention it deserves, and I know it has been a long time coming. The proactive and positive engagement and passion shown by residents and community groups has been instrumental, so to them I say thank you. I would also like to acknowledge the Latrobe Golf Club for their ongoing engagement on this issue as we work through a complex set of circumstances. And finally I want to share my thanks with the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, his office and his department, who have worked with me to support the delivery of this important project as well as with his predecessor, the former Minister for Roads in the other place, who progressed it prior, and the member for Ivanhoe, who has stood side by side with me on keeping this at the front of the agenda. I cannot overstate how important this link will be to the everyday lives of so many in my community. This new link will provide Alphington residents with access to more than 600 kilometres of off-road trails and provide a safer option for people commuting and recreationally cycling as well as schoolchildren travelling across our suburbs to the city and other centres. It is a key part of our broader work to improve active transport networks and give more people the opportunity to cycle to where they need to go. In the same vein the Andrews Labor government has also begun rolling out 100 kilometres of new and improved cycling routes across key inner-city suburbs to make it easier for people to cycle to the CBD. In the Northcote electorate this has included pop-up bike lanes along Heidelberg Road, and two more road treatments are set to roll out soon, the Darebin and Yarra connectors and the St Georges Road off-road routes. These are really important improvements to our networks, and we know that cycling is a way of life for so many in my community. Having worked closely with our community and businesses around the Heidelberg Road pop-up designated bike lane, I am very mindful of both the opportunities and the impacts this infrastructure presents to our community. Feedback and input from our residents, road users, cyclists and pedestrians is critical, and I know there will be some adjustments to make these routes even better. In my final moments, as I said, this may be a small amendment among a number, but it is a project that is incredible. Mr ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (12:32): I am delighted to rise and make a contribution on the Transport Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2021, and I would like to do so in a number of parts. In the first part of my contribution today I would like to draw the house’s attention to a part of the second-reading speech that the minister made and address items in relation or in response to that second-reading contrition. In the second part I would like to focus on some matters which the bill addresses in regard to a portfolio responsibility of mine in a shadow capacity—the area of fishing and boating. In the minister’s second-reading speech, the minister stated that:

… the Parliament needs to get on with the job of implementing reforms to improve our regulatory systems to reduce red tape, improve safety outcomes and make sure our transport networks are as effective and efficient as possible. In my view that is an interesting conclusion to reach. It is an interesting conclusion to reach through the following lens: I look to where government is at in terms of its desire to implement reform, to improve regulatory systems and to reduce red tape, and to do that I draw upon the government’s history in relation to these matters and to its intent. The Labor government’s refusal to answer simple transport-related questions within the public accounts and estimates hearing is just one example, in my view, of the government’s lack of desire and lack of interest in seeking to genuinely implement reforms and improve regulatory systems. In fact earlier this year the Labor chair of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee sought to block the release of basic budget outcome figures in relation to the transport portfolio which related to the state budget of 2019–20.

BILLS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1413

The opposition simply sought information on the change in total expected investment on each major infrastructure project as at 30 June 2020 due to decisions or changes made to projects and project scope in the 2019–20 financial year, the actual expenditure of each project in the 2019–20 financial year and the new estimated completion dates for each listed project as at June 2020. But the opposition was not able to actually entice that information from the government, and this goes to the government’s genuine desire for regulatory reform to cut red tape and to be transparent in their actions specifically in the transport space. The obvious question is: what does the government have to hide in this regard? Why are they withholding this information? Similarly, IBAC hearings were held earlier this year into Victoria’s public transport sector. The first round of those hearings arguably shocked Victorians with allegations, testimony—evidence—of serious misconduct and long-term ongoing corrupt behaviour that resulted in the sacking of V/Line’s former CEO, James Pinder. The second round of hearings during the course of March focused on particular areas: the transparency and integrity of major service procurements and tendering processes within the public transport sector in Victoria; whether public officers involved in major contract tender and procurement processes have been improperly influenced through monetary incentives, donations, gifts or other hospitality; and the systems and controls in place within the public transport sector concerning procurements and tendering for major contracts. IBAC also investigated the above matters, which identified serious corrupt conduct on the part of one or more current or former public officers and the extent to which any suspected corrupt conduct identified above has infiltrated the public transport sector’s tendering and procurement processes. So when we look to recent history there is an obvious desire for this government to in fact get on with the job, as the minister raised in her second-reading contribution on this bill, of implementing reforms to improve our regulatory systems. One further example is the Suburban Rail Loop. It is a project without a business case. It seems that no-one actually knows how much this project will cost or what benefit it will have in our community, if any at all. When projects are more than $2.7 billion over budget, nobody appears to be accountable, and in referring to that $2.7 billion figure I refer to the Metro Tunnel. When a project almost trebles costs, like the North East Link, who is accountable? When a project is years behind time and has no solution for toxic tunnel spoil, who is responsible? We look to some of the above-standard remuneration in the transport infrastructure sector that the government has recently approved. The Suburban Rail Loop Authority CEO has been awarded above- standard remuneration of $680 000 to $700 000; the West Gate Tunnel chief operating officer, $450 000; the West Gate Tunnel general manager of strategy, $430 000; and so the list goes on. When we think about the government’s genuine desire—and again I quote from the minister’s second- reading contribution—‘to get on with the job of implementing reforms to improve our regulatory systems to reduce red tape, improve safety outcomes’, it comes to mind that Minister Pulford made an undertaking in a Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearing way back when considering the 2019–20 budget that the Labor government would release the boating participation study, which commenced in June 2019 and would be delivered by October 2019, but that study itself has not been released to date. I do have some questions in relation to this bill through the guise of the fishing and boating portfolio. Will this bill deliver an evidence-based improvement to the rate of boating safety incidents in Victoria, because just thumbing through some of the recent reports in relation to maritime safety in Victoria, the story is that maritime safety incidents are in fact declining. Boating fatalities, as an example, have increased by 31.58 per cent when compared to the average of the three preceding years. In 2018–19 there were 1398 reported marine incidents involving recreational vessels, an 8 per cent increase when compared with the average of the three preceding years. A further question that I think needs to be answered by the government, as this is their legislation which they are proposing to the Parliament of the Victorian people, is about the transfer of powers to the Victorian Fisheries Authority. Is this truly about achieving efficiency dividends, and if it is, has the government completed a business case to demonstrate that? Because in my reading of the material there is no reference to a business case in the minister’s second-reading speech. Further questions:

BILLS 1414 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021 what is the precise monetary saving that these changes will deliver insofar as administration of boating safety is concerned? In the second-reading speech the minister noted it is estimated that 70 per cent of recreational boating activity is fishing related. Well, firstly, on what figure is that based? The government is yet to release the results of the boating participation survey, which were due in October 2019. Is the fisheries authority not placed in an invidious position by enforcing boating regulation laws against the very fishers it has legislative responsibility to support and engage with for the purpose of fish stocking? The final point I will make in this contribution is simply this: in speaking with a number of fishing and boating stakeholders through the course of the consultation I was severely disappointed that the government did not consult with those stakeholders in formulating this bill. Ms SULEYMAN (St Albans) (12:42): I rise today to also make a contribution on the Transport Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2021. This bill fulfils election commitments made by the Andrews Labor government, implementing key changes to transport laws. Most importantly, it improves safety, efficiency and effectiveness for users and operators across Victoria. We all know the importance of arriving at your destination safely and effectively, whether it is by driving, by bus or car or by other means. Tragically we have already seen 80 lives lost on our roads this year. It is 80 lives too many, 80 families that will be affected forever. I recall the time that my cousin died tragically on the roads through no fault of his own but unfortunately through another vehicle. So it is absolutely important for me that this government is committed to making sure that we are working towards zero road-related fatalities, because all Victorians should be safe on our roads whether travelling home from work or whether it is for leisure or for other reasons. You should always be able to return home. In my electorate we are really passionate about buses and our bus network. Our bus routes play a key role not only in connecting public transport to major stations in St Albans, Albion and Sunshine but also they are part of our every day, whether we work or connect to school and other key services. So our bus routes in the electorate of St Albans are absolutely integral. We are seeing a substantial investment in the Victorian bus network. We have already invested an additional $200 million since we have come to government, and that is a far cry from the previous Liberal government, which actually ripped the bus routes from St Albans while they were in government. Last year’s budget saw $25.4 million to improve bus services across the state, including school bus services as well. It was great to see new bus and train timetables earlier this year, which are improving the bus and train network, creating more services, more often. Of course over the next 18 months we will see much more investment and, more importantly, we will see—as we would say—the Big Build that will come through the western region and the big investment to build the super-hub station in Sunshine, which will connect Victoria to the powerhouse of the west. As we know, there continues to be more and more users when it comes to public transport, and it is absolutely important that safety is front and centre for not only users but also Victorian bus drivers, who do an outstanding job each and every day to connect users, whether it is going to a station or getting back home safely. This bill also delivers on changes to improve road safety, as I outlined at the beginning. I am proud to acknowledge Victoria’s longstanding commitment to road safety—particularly the important work of the TAC to prevent tragic fatalities and injuries and in particular their really important promotions and advertisements—in relation to projects from the introduction of seatbelt laws in the 1970s to the bicycle helmet laws and TAC ads in the 1990s. These advertisements do really resonate across communities, as of course do random drug testing and reducing speed limits. I know in my electorate of St Albans, and in particular in Brimbank, hoon drivers continue to play up. But we are really watching that carefully, and I know that our local police are also monitoring those sorts of activities. We have seen a number of initiatives take place to make sure that police do have the powers to immediately remove more dangerous drivers from our roads. That is really integral, and it is also due to take effect this November. We all know that we have seen some pretty integral investment in this

BILLS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1415 space and some great achievements. Most importantly, it is about ensuring the safety of our road users, and importantly, it protects and save lives. Our government has also invested $1.7 billion in road safety infrastructure. I only need to look at, again, my electorate of St Albans. Since we have been in government we have removed one of the state’s most dangerous level crossings, being the Main Road level crossing in St Albans, which saw so many fatalities over many, many years. It was our government that removed the Main Road level crossing and also the Furlong Road level crossing, which again was one of the worst level crossings in the state. Every death or serious injury on our roads has a terrible impact on so many lives. It changes the direction for many families, and some never recover. So we must continue to invest but more importantly continue to provide all forms of positive messages when it comes to road safety. This bill improves consistency and clarity. It also makes sure that, with the amendments to road safety legislation, it eliminates penalty-related loopholes for people that do not hold a Victorian drivers licence and it holds them to account the same way that any other driver would be—for instance, interstate or overseas drivers. It also creates a maximum penalty for those who are driving unsupervised if they are a learner driver; it sends a pretty strong message with over $9000 as a penalty. We see that this bill streamlines the transfer of approvals for alcoholic interlock and behaviour change program providers. We know that these programs support and provide change. In conclusion, the bill will introduce important road safety changes and also investment in this space, which we have not stopped since being elected. I want to absolutely acknowledge the hard work of the Minister for Public Transport in delivering these reforms and really transforming public transport in Victoria. This builds on a strong history of achievement when it comes to road safety and supports Victoria’s commitment to lowering the numbers of lives lost on our roads. We will always prioritise measures that keep Victorians and our communities safe, in particular on our roads. Most importantly we are also addressing and investing in our bus routes and making sure that other road safety measures are implemented through the changes of this legislation. I commend the bill to the house. Mr HIBBINS (Prahran) (12:51): I rise to speak on behalf of the Greens to the Transport Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2021. It is always good to be up and speaking on transport bills and bills that relate to my portfolio area of transport. Now, this is an omnibus bill that makes a number of technical changes to a wide range of transport acts—and some not insignificant changes, I might add, as well. It replaces the existing bus accreditation scheme with one that covers all bus types and is now a standardised accreditation process. It outlines new penalties in relation to commercial vehicles. There is a number of increases in penalties for driving offences, allowing for non-Victorian licence-holders who have committed offences to be disqualified from driving, as well as increasing penalties for unlicensed drivers and for learner drivers who are driving without being supervised. There are also some changes to the fisheries authority; I believe it is now being moved. The recreational boating duties which were under the Department of Transport are now being headed off to the Victorian Fisheries Authority. Then there is the amendment to the Road Management Act 2004 to allow for the Alphington link project, which connects to the Darebin Creek Trail, for that land to be acquired there. I think this is a really important amendment, with the Darebin trail upgrade being largely complete. I believe cyclists in the north for many, many years have been wanting that link to the Darebin Creek Trail. This will now provide for land to be acquired off the Latrobe golf course of around 600 metres and will allow the community in Alphington to be able to access the improvements to the Darebin Creek Trail and to access that pathway. I always welcome initiatives to really improve cycling across Victoria and in Melbourne. Following the pandemic, we are at a time when I think there are a number of challenges and a number of really big opportunities for transport and to actually reshape transport. And we have seen the challenges, being that public transport patronage is low; it is going to take some time before that brings itself back up to full capacity. We have got a real risk of our cities and our streets becoming congested

BILLS 1416 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021 with cars as people return to work, but we have also got a fantastic opportunity. Throughout the pandemic people’s travel habits changed. More and more people are walking, more and more people are riding their bike, and we saw governments around the world take advantage of those changes— you know, cities installing hundreds of kilometres of bike lanes and new pedestrian facilities to really seize the moment when it comes to people now changing their travel behaviours and shifting towards more sustainable forms of transport and riding a bike. I was glad to see after some time the government announced its initiative of pop-up paths in Melbourne. It was a bit late to the party—but better late than never, I believe. It is really time to make sure that cycling infrastructure is fast-tracked. I think some councils are doing some fantastic work. If you look at the City of Melbourne, they are rolling out new bike infrastructure at a very rapid rate, and that is going to have a really positive impact on getting more people cycling, lessening congestion and making sure that we are not faced with a congestion crisis once more when people return to work. This is an approach that really needs to be taken statewide. Certainly on behalf of the Greens we are strongly pushing for cycling projects in our community to be fast-tracked. In Prahran I would like to see the St Kilda Road bike lanes being fast-tracked. We cannot wait until 2025 for that—for one of our busiest and most dangerous cycling routes to be upgraded and made safe. We cannot wait another four or five years for that to occur. I know the member for Brunswick is a very strong advocate for separated bike lanes along Sydney Road, again one of our busiest and most dangerous cycling routes, as the member for Melbourne is with Flemington and Royal Parade. Again there have been plans and advocacy for those routes to be upgraded for a very long time. I think the opportunity there for those to be upgraded and be really safe, well-used cycling routes through our communities and into the CBD will have massive benefits for many people. I also want to recognise the government for introducing A Metre Matters, the 1-metre passing distance laws which came into effect the other week, and really acknowledge the hard work as well of the Amy Gillett Foundation and other cycling groups who have been advocating very strongly for those laws. So Victoria is now coming into line with just about every other state and territory in the country for a mandatory 1-metre passing distance for cyclists, which will go a long way to making cycling safe for everyone. In terms of more sustainable transport investment, one of the things that I did notice during the lockdown on the odd occasion when I did do the travel from my home to my office was people were actually using the streets—kids and families. Everyone was actually using our streets as public spaces, as they should, whether it was playing games or rollerblading or skating or what have you. Again I think this is something that we need to take advantage of—make sure that we are taking advantage as people are changing their habits about how they use our communities. Our streets are valuable places. They should not just be for cars. They are actually valuable public spaces. I think it is very interesting that when you listen to a lot of the constituency questions or adjournments from members in this place, a lot of them are about pedestrian issues. It is about that pedestrian crossing; it is about that unsafe street near a school or what have you. There is a really big opportunity now for big investment in pedestrian projects, whether that is crossings, shared zones or what have you. I think there is some really innovative work that has been happening in a lot of communities in terms of the treatments that they are putting on their roads to slow down traffic, and I think this is now an opportunity that the government can take up. They have got their big infrastructure projects. What I would put to them is: where is the Suburban Rail Loop for pedestrians? Where is the Level Crossing Removal Project for pedestrians? Where is the North East Link for pedestrians? Where is the big dollar figure that can be put towards projects that will actually help people walk around and make their communities safer? This legislation also, as I said, changes the Bus Safety Act 2009 to require that all operators of bus services be accredited rather than just those operating commercial and local services. I think when it comes to buses, again we have a great opportunity in Melbourne and across regional cities and across

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1417

Victoria to improve bus services. A lot of our buses are infrequent and unreliable and have meandering routes. I think when you have seen success stories when it comes to buses, whether it is the SmartBus routes or other— The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Taylor): Order! The time has come to break for 1 hour for lunch. The member will have the call if debate resumes on this bill. Sitting suspended 1.00 pm until 2.01 pm. Business interrupted under sessional orders. Matters of public importance ENERGY POLICY The SPEAKER (14:01): I have accepted a statement from the member for Mill Park proposing the following matter of public importance for discussion:

That this house notes Victoria’s nation-leading climate change strategy that will reduce emissions, create jobs, cut energy costs, and protect our environment, noting specifically that: (1) taking action on climate change will create tens of thousands of jobs, while seeing Victoria play our part in cutting carbon emissions; (2) Victoria’s targets give businesses the certainty they need for future investment decisions that will create new jobs, while reducing the impact on our environment; (3) Victoria’s six ‘sector pledges’ will deliver targeted reform and investment to help our industries transition to a cleaner future; and (4) the Victorian government is leading by example, transitioning all government operations to 100 per cent renewable energy by 2025. Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes) (14:02): I am absolutely proud to speak on the Andrews Labor government’s nation- leading climate change strategy and the way that it will create jobs, drive economic opportunity and ensure a sustainable future for our children and their children. The actions we take today on climate change are more important than ever. We know that climate change is already impacting Victoria. We have already seen Victoria’s climate warm by 1.2 degrees since 1910. This means we have less rain and snow and more fire danger days, and the impacts on communities are profound. The bushfires that we saw rip across Victoria in recent years have underscored how much is at risk from climate change. If we do nothing, these impacts will only get worse. We know that there is simply no choice but to take action, and that is exactly what we have been doing. Since the day we were elected our government has consistently led on climate change. We passed a new Climate Change Act in 2017, a landmark piece of legislation that set a target of net zero emissions by 2050 and allowed us to set five-yearly interim targets to keep us on track. This is the gold standard of climate policy—net zero emissions by 2050, interim targets and strong policy support to drive down emissions. We oversaw growth climb by more than 43 per cent while emissions went down by 24 per cent, proving that we can decouple economic growth from emissions growth. And to make sure we keep leading the country on climate change, we have now set targets to cut Victoria’s emissions by 28 to 33 per cent by 2025, below 2005 levels, and 45 to 50 per cent by 2030. This strategy represents a fork in the road for our state, putting forward real ambition, respecting the goals of the Paris agreement and embracing the opportunities of a low-carbon future. These targets reinforce Victoria’s position as a climate leader and provide a strong contribution to the global action required to avoid dangerous climate change. They are well ahead of the targets set by New South Wales and Queensland and will see Victoria deliver the most rapid reduction in emissions of any major state. Internationally these targets are also significant, standing shoulder to shoulder with the ambition of President Biden and putting us ahead of international climate leaders such as Germany and California. And of course our 2030 target is almost double the woefully inadequate Australian

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 1418 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021 target. We will be delivering the largest cut in absolute emissions of any jurisdiction in the country, and that is something that every Victorian can be proud of. The climate change strategy is being delivered through a set of pledges to cut emissions across the Victorian economy. Energy is Victoria’s biggest source of emissions. We have invested $1.6 billion in clean energy in the last state budget, the largest investment of any state government ever. We have also set ambitious renewable energy targets, which means we will source 50 per cent of our electricity from renewable sources by 2030. To achieve these goals we are investing $540 million to unlock all of the six renewable energy zones across the state. This investment is double the funds committed by Queensland and New South Wales combined and will help deliver a much-needed 21st-century grid for Victoria. Our Victorian renewable energy targets alone will attract billions of dollars of investment and create 24 400 jobs, and we are already seeing major progress. Between June 2019 and the end of 2020 we connected 1.6 gigawatts of large-scale renewables, more than any other state in Australia, and we have hit nearly 30 per cent renewables over the past three months. This increase in renewable energy capacity has resulted in a 30 per cent reduction in emissions from the electricity sector, but it is also driving wholesale prices lower. It has also driven major reductions in power bills. In the first three months of this year Victoria set a record low wholesale price. In fact in the first quarter of this calendar year wholesale prices were the lowest in Victoria in the entire history of the national energy market. This is a remarkable shift and shows the way low-cost renewable energy can drive down the cost of providing energy for Victoria. What does this mean for retail bills? New renewable capacity combined with our energy fairness plan is a win for energy users. The latest CPI data shows that retail electricity prices have fallen by 10 per cent over the past year. This is the largest fall in the national electricity market. Retail prices are now at their lowest level since the September quarter of 2017. We are also helping drive investment in the next generation of energy innovation. Through the $108 million Energy Innovation Fund we will be providing vital support for the next wave of new energy technology, such as renewable hydrogen and offshore wind. This support, combined with our ambitious climate targets, sends a clear message to every single investor around the globe that Victoria is Australia’s home of climate-smart investment. Transport is Victoria’s second-biggest source of emissions. To set a clear pathway to reduce transport emissions, we have set an ambitious target that 50 per cent of all new car sales be zero emissions by 2030. To get started we are investing $100 million to accelerate the switch to ZEVs. The $100 million investment includes $46 million to provide more than 20 000 subsidies to help Victorians buy zero- emissions vehicles, an Australian first; $5 million for the ZEV Innovation Fund to support greater uptake of ZEV commercial vehicles; and $19 million to accelerate the rollout of electric vehicle charging infrastructure. By 2025 all new public buses will be zero emissions. To guide this process we have just released a comprehensive ZEV road map, and we are appointing an expert panel to look at policy options to meet our goals over the next 10 years. We are also embracing the opportunity to reduce emissions in ways that protect our state’s precious biodiversity and natural environment. To do this we are spending $77 million to help land managers restore and protect natural landscapes and vegetation through nature restoration for carbon storage. This is an incredibly exciting program, helping landowners improve their land while creating new habitats and creating jobs through landscape restoration. It is a perfect example of the multiple goals we can meet through action on climate change. It is also vital that we help farmers reduce their emissions, and that is exactly what our package does. Farmers are amongst the first to see the impacts of climate change on their land, through reduced rainfall and hotter days, but they also have an incredible opportunity to reduce their emissions. Our measures lay the foundations to drive big reductions in this sector while increasing farm productivity.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1419

The government is providing almost $20 million to support Victorian farmers to help them make action plans that will reduce their carbon emissions, increase awareness of on-farm emissions and support cutting-edge research, innovation and technologies for the agricultural sector. The $15.3 million Victorian carbon farming program will help farmers to plant trees to protect crops and livestock and improve land productivity. We are also taking ambitious steps to reform our waste sector and deliver significant emissions reductions, investing $515 million in our recycling system. Never before has the state of Victoria seen such an investment figure. This will support the creation of more than 3900 new local jobs and boost our economy by up to $6.7 billion. We have set ambitious targets for the next 10 years to drive our recycling transition, and what we aim to do is a number of things. We aim to cut waste generation by 15 per cent, divert 80 per cent of waste from landfill and halve the amount of organic material going to landfill. By 2030 every Victorian council will provide a standardised four-bin household waste and recycling service with separated glass and organics. This is absolutely fundamentally important, to have a coordinated statewide approach to managing the way that our waste is sorted, collected and then of course repurposed, and our government will for the first time set the standards for waste collection at the kerbside. By 2023 we will introduce a container deposit scheme and ban problematic single-use plastics. We have heard very loud and clear that Victorians want us to take more action, strong action, to reduce the impacts of single-use plastics on our environment. We know what it does to our waterways, we know what it does to the general amenity of the environment and we know what it does to marine and aquatic species. We will support also new end markets for recycled materials, industry innovation and infrastructure investment. By 2040, Recycling Victoria will have reduced our greenhouse gas emissions by up to 19.4 million tonnes. It will change how we perceive what we currently call waste, turn it into a valuable resource, and importantly reduce the creation of waste in the first place. New local industries will develop with world-class infrastructure and technology built here in Victoria. Of course the climate change strategy also shows that the government will lead by example, and we have been doing that in spades since the day we were elected. We have pledged that Victorian government operations, all of those, will be powered by 100 per cent renewable electricity by 2025. This is the first state in Australia to do this, and I certainly would hope that other states take the lead and get the confidence to actually make these decisions and lead by example as we are doing here in Victoria. That means that every public school, police station, hospital, metro train, tram and fire station will be powered with renewable electricity, and we will achieve this through the next round of our Victorian renewable energy target auctions, which will bring online at least 600 megawatts of new capacity. So being smart about this is not just about cleaning up the electricity sector, leading by example, but actually creating that new energy technology in our state, creating those construction jobs and creating those opportunities, and it is absolutely the case that regional Victorians are the direct beneficiaries of significant investment in their local communities and the jobs too. As we have always done, these will be delivered with strong local content requirements to ensure the benefits stay in Victorian communities, creating new jobs and new investment. We are the only state to have the auction system as we have designed it, which gives us the best value for money but importantly has those local content requirements as part of our contracts. This will make sure that Victoria will continue to be the leader, in creating not just new energy but the local supply chain that drives the creation of so many more other jobs. We are also adding 400 zero-emissions vehicles to our government fleet in the next two years. Of course this will reduce the government’s impact on the environment, but it will also make more cars available through the second-hand market, which is vital to increasing our access to zero-emissions vehicles. Victoria’s climate change strategy shows the world and the nation, most importantly Victorians, that climate action is more than a leadership opportunity. It is a chance to create new jobs. It is a chance to grow new industries and leave a safer, healthier environment for our children.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 1420 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

We do not shirk from this moment one bit. We will embrace these opportunities with both hands. We have already demonstrated what new opportunities in jobs and skills this can present for Victoria as the economy transitions. And we know that the climate change strategy that we announced on Sunday has been welcomed not only by Victorians as householders and families but by industry. Industry know that not only is it a reputational matter for them to work through decarbonising their own systems and operations but it also provides a very important competitive advantage on the world stage to reduce their carbon emissions. Together our strategy is all encompassing. It is the most detailed and comprehensive plan for reducing our emissions right across our economy, backed by strong investment and backed by serious measures that identify the programs that will help drive us there. Every Victorian can be proud of this climate change strategy. Every Victorian can be proud of the fact that our ambition will be met by 2030— reducing our emissions by half. That is up there with global leaders. We say that unapologetically because we know that the future of our way of life, of what we want our children to inherit, is dependent absolutely—100 per cent—on the actions and decisions that we take today. This matter of public importance is absolutely fundamental. The fork in the road that this government has chosen to take will lead to the ongoing prosperity of our state and every Victorian who lives in it. Together we will get there. We will be able to stand proudly for future generations. Ms VALLENCE (Evelyn) (14:17): Reducing Victoria’s greenhouse gas emissions and tackling climate change is a matter of public importance (MPI). As the Shadow Minister for Environment and Climate Change, I, and the Victorian Liberal-Nationals, take this matter very seriously, so seriously in fact that unlike the Labor government, which is obsessed with their headlines and glossy brochures, we care about the how—how we can together best achieve the net zero by 2050 goal but also make sure that our great state of Victoria uses this time as a springboard for people and businesses, not a stranglehold where we tax people that want to buy electric vehicles and contribute to reducing their carbon footprint or rip out gas heaters from people’s homes, as Labor wants to do. They want to tax people who buy electric vehicles and they want to rip out gas heaters from people’s homes. Now, we can and must follow best practices, take advantage of technological advancements and create meaningful new jobs, but importantly we must make sure no person and no business is left behind, that no person and no business is worse off and that government policies do not leave anyone behind as we reduce our emissions and decarbonise our economy. Our job is to conserve our environment for future generations and take advantage of these technological advancements that create green industries and green jobs, and it is our job to hold this Labor government to account for the ambitious targets they have set at this crucial time. It is also important that there is adequate support and, as I said, that no individual and no sector is worse off as we transition. Let us not forget that Labor’s 2030 target is now well over 12 months overdue; it is late, and it has caused uncertainty for people and businesses. We heard the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change in her contribution talk about the Climate Change Act 2017, but let us remind Victorians that it is this Labor government that failed to comply with its own law, failed to comply with the Climate Change Act, and only now can we get some understanding—not all understanding but some understanding—of what these climate change targets are for the Victorian population. Now, when you read this MPI today—the Labor Party’s propaganda machine has been back into full action. You are getting its glossy headlines, but very, very little substance. It really is hard to get over the rank hypocrisy of the Labor government lauding itself for making announcements that are more than a year late and in contravention of its own Climate Change Act. I asked the minister, who has just left the chamber, late last year—last December in fact, in 2020—when the announcement would be made about emissions reduction targets, which at that stage were already nine months overdue, and the minister told me in the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearings that they would be made in just a few weeks. Well, that was five months ago, so really I think the Labor government had no path and no plan and was very nervous, but when they copped so much heat over putting a tax on electric vehicles, they rushed this announcement through just on the weekend. So we have got a Labor

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1421 government congratulating itself on doing something that it was legally obliged to do more than 12 months ago. Now to the six sector pledges, and again there is still confusion and very little detail on how this Labor government plans to achieve these targets and what it will cost Victorian households and Victorian businesses. That is despite the Andrews Labor government spending $688 000 of taxpayers money on corporate consultants for advice on climate change last year. Nearly $700 000 of Victorian taxpayers money was spent on corporate consultants for advice on climate change last year, yet the government had already had the so-called independent Greg Combet report sitting on its desk gathering dust for over 18 months at that stage. For nearly two years now that report has been sitting, gathering dust. What the MPI here today fails to talk to is the ‘how’ and the cost. The government needs to guarantee Victorian people and businesses that energy prices will not go up and that the lights will not go out. But we see in a leaked article today that it is proposed that there will be a moratorium on new gas connections to homes in order to meet the government’s emissions reduction target. Now, talk about confusion—Labor has only just lifted its moratorium on conventional onshore gas exploration. A massive 65 per cent of Victorian households rely on gas to keep them warm in the winter and to feed their families. Why would this Labor government suddenly declare a war on gas, which can be a very efficient energy source and which has much lower emissions intensity than many other fossil fuels that Victoria currently relies on? Are Victorian families now going to be forced to switch these appliances off, to purchase brand new appliances, which might be very hard for many families to afford, particularly after the financial burdens of the COVID pandemic, and to use more electricity to power them? Now, we need a transition plan—not a plan that leaves people in the cold and in the dark. We saw only this week that the New South Wales government and the commonwealth government have partnered to build Australia’s first net-zero hybrid power station. This plant will use both hydrogen and natural gas to provide a reliable source of baseload power for years to come. If the New South Wales government can use gas to achieve its net zero emissions plan, why on earth can’t this Victorian Labor government? Ripping natural gas out of the energy supply system will only result in higher energy costs and a reduction in the reliability of our baseload energy supply, which of course impacts people and jobs. It reeks of a policy thought bubble made on the run. Let me be clear that the Liberal-Nationals are 100 per cent committed to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions in order to protect our environment and bringing on new sources of energy to keep our state running. During our last period of government, between 2010 and 2014, the Liberal-Nationals proudly reduced Victoria’s net greenhouse gas emissions from 140 metric tonnes to 113 metric tonnes. Currently Victoria is sitting just above 90 metric tonnes. What that means, for those who are doing the maths, is that this Labor government’s policy for the last six years so far has failed to achieve the level of decreases that was able to be achieved under the previous coalition government. And it should not be forgotten that those decreases under the previous coalition government occurred not because of reductions in coal-fired power from Hazelwood, for example, but as a result of increased absorption of emissions in the land sector through better farm management and forestry practices. It goes to show that emissions can be reduced when a government is committed to it. And as we can see just from the math, the last coalition government achieved greater advances than this Labor government has in its time in office. The Labor government need to come clean on just how they will support industries to transition. There is simply just not enough detail in the sector pledges, and those sector pledges that have been announced really only scrape the surface of the industries. Take the transport industry, for example. Transport comprises just over 20 per cent of Victoria’s total emissions, and in their climate change strategy Labor talks about targeted reform. There is absolutely no doubt about it that they only have some targeted reform for the transport sector because, really, they are only targeting electric passenger vehicles, and that is not what the Victorian car park is—the car park, as we say, is all vehicles across

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 1422 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021 the transport sector. That is really only scraping the surface. What about all of the businesses that have fleets, have trucks and have taxis? The government must ensure that there is sufficient support to transition these businesses and not leave them behind. There is nothing in the climate change strategy and their transport sector pledge that does not show that they will be leaving this sector behind, and this is one of the sectors that needs a lot of support to transition. But the Labor government was quite clear only just yesterday in the debate on introducing the tax on electric vehicles that that policy was really about taxing rich Victorians who can own $100 000 Tesla vehicles. I mean, what a twisted message it sends to Victorian people that want to play a part to contribute to reducing our carbon footprint—that they, in their debate yesterday, talked about, ‘We must tax these rich people that can afford $100 000 Tesla vehicles’. It is just so confused. There has been so much confusion that Labor is subsidising people to buy an electric vehicle at the same time as it is introducing a tax on them to drive it. It is just crazy. I mean, how serious can this Labor government be about tackling climate change if they want to pay money to people to buy these cars but then tax them if they dare to drive them? It must be one of the craziest policy announcements. And clearly, as I have said before in this chamber, it is this government’s left hand not talking to its far-left hand. It is ridiculous. Our challenge is to transition to a high-tech, low-carbon economy—one that creates jobs by taking full advantage of renewable resources and existing emerging technologies, such as energy from waste. After all, why waste our waste? It is why we wasted no time in getting out of the gate early to announce our zero-to-landfill policy to resolve the waste crisis that this Labor government has allowed to unfold in Victoria. We announced this a long, long time ago, and it is astounding now that the Labor government has finally stood up and listened and copied our policy. Our plan was to transform waste management into Victoria committing to a 100 per cent—100 per cent—reduction in household waste going to landfill by 2035 and supporting the development of the waste industry, incentivising industry and seeing energy being produced from our waste, using that waste as a valuable resource to produce low-emissions energy and have innovative recycling. Now, activities that are commercially successful and environmentally beneficial will create jobs for our state. Under the watch of this Labor government, more than 1.7 million tonnes of household recycling has gone to landfill—under the watch of this Labor government. And look, this amount of recycling waste really presents an opportunity, as Victoria currently only converts around 4 per cent of waste to energy through methane capture. So when Labor talks today, when the minister talks today, about investment in this area, really this announcement is well overdue, and it shows again that Labor cares more about the glossy headlines but has failed on the detail and is only coming to the party very late. Now, with Labor’s waste sector pledges, again there is only confusion, and if you actually read past the glossy headline and read into the detail, most of the waste initiatives in this announcement over the weekend have actually already been announced. Most of these waste initiatives have already been announced—talk about recycling. There is nothing new in this waste sector pledge. And when it comes to waste, really what this Labor government needs to be telling Victorians is what it is going to be doing about the problems for the environment and the problems in relation to waste from its two biggest infrastructure projects and all of the toxic waste it wants to dump on inner-city suburbs in the west and the north from the trouble-plagued—and billions and billions of dollars over cost—Melbourne Metro Tunnel and West Gate Tunnel. Now, these projects are going to be generating thousands of tonnes of toxic waste, and this Labor government wants to take the lazy option and dump that in Bulla, Sunbury and Bacchus Marsh, on the doorsteps of schools and homes. It is shameful. These projects are costing Victorian taxpayers over $20 billion combined, yet both are plagued by delays and budget blowouts. You know, they have got the industrial disputation on these projects’ material and costs—you know, getting steel from China, not supporting Victorian businesses and jobs—and, on top of all that, they want to dump their toxic waste on Victorian communities.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1423

Mr DIMOPOULOS (Oakleigh) (14:32): It is a pleasure to speak on this matter of public importance. It is an extraordinarily important matter, but I think the shadow minister’s contribution deserves the exact response it got from the member for Yan Yean from the entire Parliament. It was just an absolute dissertation on an alternative reality, a reality I do not recognise. It reminded me of— what was it?—platform 9¾ in Harry Potter. I have looked for platform 9¾ at Flinders Street station, and it does not exist, and neither does the reality that the member for Evelyn has described in her ridiculous contribution to this MPI. This is a debate, right? This is a debate, so I can absolutely refer to the contributions by other members. So the member for Evelyn said, ‘We’re not interested in glossy brochures, we’re interested in the how’. Well, didn’t we go from 12 per cent of the entire state’s energy being supplied by renewable energy in 2014 to 25 per cent today? Didn’t we double it? If that is not an expression of the how, I do not know what is—that is the how. So you are 6½ years too late, member for Evelyn. Then she says, ‘You need to guarantee that the lights won’t go out or the prices won’t go up’. Well, I can tell you something: what will guarantee that is expanding the supply of energy; what would guarantee we get to higher prices and lack of supply is doing nothing. This contribution by the member for Evelyn was as if this government did not exist for six years. Ms Britnell: Speaker, can I bring your attention to the state of the house. Quorum formed. Mr DIMOPOULOS: The honourable member who pulled that house stunt has just given me the perfect segue to my substantive contribution—and that is, that there are at least two things happening right now in Victoria on renewable energy. One is that our government is leading Australia, and as the minister just described before, leading many other countries in the world, including countries we normally look up to in relation to renewable energy, like Germany. So up to a 50 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030, almost double what the national target is right now, and there is the extraordinary work we have already done, as the minister described, to get to the point where we can make bold targets because we have done the work to deepen the supply and to extract some contributions from the private sector and from households. The second thing that is happening in Victoria right now, and this is where it links to the political stunt that the member just pulled, is the absence of leadership by the Liberal Party on renewable energy. It is absolutely so evident nationally. This is not a state-based system. Energy is not a state-based system— Ms Britnell: Speaker, I drew your attention to the state of the house. I did it because you have a responsibility to be in the chamber. You walked in and you walked out—that is just insulting to the community who expect you to be governing. The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Clerk to establish if there is a quorum present. There is no quorum present. I ask the Clerk to ring the bells. Quorum formed. Mr DIMOPOULOS: It is an absolute failure of leadership by the Liberal Party, both in Canberra and also in Victoria. It is extraordinary that in a world where every nation accepts the climate science, this national government and this party, the Liberal Party, still quibbles about it. You have got to ask yourself: why do they do that? They are either playing to their constituency—big business and big corporations—or they are playing culture wars. They love culture wars. But do you know what? Not on clean energy, not on renewable energy, not on the future of our children and grandchildren—that is not where you play politics or culture wars. That is what is happening here in Victoria and nationally, and it is not only absolutely disgraceful, but it is really disheartening—the fact that a state government has to take national leadership on this really critical issue.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 1424 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

I think the other reason they disown this is because they do not see the opportunities that we see. Economic activity, innovation and jobs: this is a growth sector of the future. In fact it is not even of the future—it is the growth sector of now. The managers of the economy on the other side should recognise what opportunities exist for job creation, innovation and economic activity through being a leader in this area. Do you know, Speaker, there is a company called Fronius. Fronius is an Austrian company, and they do inverters. So you have the inverters at the side of the house that assist, effectively, the collection of solar power from the panels on the roofs. Fronius has been in Australia for years. Do you know where Fronius comes from? It comes from Austria. It is a little-known fact that Austria has half the sunlight of Australia. Why is it that a country that has half the sunlight of Australia developed technology for solar panels? You know, there is this kind of theory of economics that the countries that do things well are the ones that prevail in that particular area of the economy. No, not in this case. This shows that the Austrian government years ago partnered with industry, set a plan, set bold targets and therefore Fronius now supplies in many countries around the world—over 100 countries in the world—and it comes from a country where there is 50 per cent of the sunlight that Australia has. This is exactly the model we are following in Victoria, where we are saying to industry, ‘We are being bold about our targets, but we are setting a benchmark’. We are saying, ‘Have the confidence to invest. Invest because we are going to underpin your investment through policymaking, through our Climate Change Act and through an enormous contribution, both financially and from a regulatory regime point of view’. But we are also saying it to the household sector and businesses. Businesses know renewable energy is cheaper. You know, you do not get that kind of collection of investment and this kind of symbiotic relationship with business and government if you just sit on your hands and say, ‘Oh, it’s costly to business’. No, business knows it is costly. They pay the bill. But they know it is cheaper to do renewable energy. This free market economics does not work in your favour in this context. It does not work. The government needs to play a role, and that is where this minister has been extraordinary. She has been the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change for about five years. Under her watch and this government’s watch we have doubled for the Victorian community—with the assistance of business and households—the supply of clean energy in Victorian society. We started at 12 per cent; we are now at 25. We are going to go to 50 per cent and then net zero by 2050. I believe that. I believe it because we have got the runs on the board with this very capable, excellent minister. Our record speaks for itself. This investment we are making through the announcements of the interim targets, the investments associated with that and the investments in the last budget are examples of that. For the member for Evelyn to stand up here and not deviate from this divorced-from- reality view about what is going on—it does not actually matter in the end. Do you know why? You know the people who have influence in this area are the people who show up. The people that walk into the room, the people that show up—they are the ones that make the difference in business, in households in Victoria and in political parties. The Labor Party—the Andrews government—has shown up when it comes to renewable energy, and that is why we have achieved a doubling of the rate of renewable energy in the time we have been in office, and we will do more in the future. It is a pleasure to speak on the matter of public importance, and I commend it to the house. Mr D O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (14:42): Thank you, Speaker. It is good to have you back in the chair for these things and to have us sitting in our own chairs, and it is always a pleasure to follow the member for Oakleigh on these sorts of debates, because I love how he contradicts himself and how he contradicts his Premier. The Premier is always telling us how irrelevant the opposition is: ‘You’re just irrelevant. You’re totally irrelevant. Oh, but we’re going to talk for 8 minutes out of 10 minutes about you’—not about what the government is doing but how bad the Liberal Party is. I always find this a contradiction: ‘The opposition is so irrelevant and they’ve got no policies, but I’m going to talk about them for as long as I possibly can’. Well, it speaks volumes about the member for Oakleigh and some on the other side.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1425

I rise and support some of the comments that the member for Evelyn made. This is a matter of public importance. Too often I think in these debates they are not particularly important, but the issue of climate change and addressing emissions clearly is a matter of public importance. It is a matter of importance to every member in this chamber, whether you support strong action, whether you are cautious or whether you think climate change is a crock, and I certainly do not. I accept the science of climate change, but I know there are varying views on it right throughout the community. What I want to talk a bit about today is ensuring that, as the member for Evelyn says, no-one is left behind—and not only that—but that in the headlong rush that this government is in to out-green the Greens on climate change and many other environmental issues, it completely forgets many people, including people in my electorate of Gippsland South and, indeed I am sure, in many rural electorates, because what is rarely acknowledged by this government is that while the benefits politically are accrued by the Labor Party, the costs of many of its climate change policies are in fact borne by people in rural and regional areas and often in the most rural areas. While, yes, there are benefits from renewable energy—and I am going to speak predominantly about the energy sector, where a lot of the government’s focus is—very, very rarely does this government ever acknowledge the cost. And I will talk particularly about wind farms. We have had significant development of wind farms, particularly in the west but also in my electorate of Gippsland South. We have got an issue with the Bald Hills wind farm, which was approved under the previous Labor government, where it has been found to be creating a nuisance in terms of noise for the residents in the Bald Hills area—indeed to the extent that this government felt compelled to actually legislate to change the rules around nuisance provisions with wind farms. We have had that debate separately. But it is very rarely acknowledged by this government that there are concerns in those communities. There are the noise concerns, there are the visual amenity concerns, particularly in high-value aesthetic areas of rural Victoria, and there are issues. In my particular case, the most recent one that we actually had a win on is at Alberton, which is a relatively closely settled area. To have thirty-two 250-metre wind turbines in that area was never going to fly with the local community, and to its great credit it fought hard. It took the Minister for Planning and the proponent to VCAT and it won—and congratulations to that community for doing so. As I have said many times in this place before: to those of us on both sides of this chamber who say, ‘Wind farms are fantastic’, I say, ‘Well, let’s share the load. Let’s propose a wind farm for Royal Park. Let’s have one in Albert Park. Let’s put an offshore one in Port Phillip Bay, and we’ll see how well that’s responded to’, because this government has actually introduced guidelines that specifically prohibit wind farms in some of those high-amenity tourist areas. The Mornington Peninsula, the Yarra Valley, the Great Ocean Road, anywhere in the metropolitan area, the Bellarine Peninsula—all of these areas— Mr Fowles interjected. Mr D O’BRIEN: Have you ever been on the Mornington Peninsula? It is pretty windy down there, member for Burwood. Great Ocean Road? So in all of these areas the government has specifically precluded wind farms. I say to this government: by all means have your climate change targets in terms of energy, but have a thought and have some planning for those people who are going to be affected by it. The other thing with wind, and I am now starting to see it with solar as well, is the division that these projects cause in the community—particularly wind, because you tend to have a small number of farmers who have the turbines on their land for which they are recompensed and many others who do not, who literally can be just across the fence and get no benefit. I am starting to see it with solar. In principle I support solar farms and the large developments that are proposed in my electorate. Solis RE is proposing farms at Perry Bridge, at Fulham and at Giffard, and in principle I support those. They

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 1426 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021 should be able to bring big jobs to our area, but there are certainly concerns in the local community about the lack of consultation that has occurred so far. I think most people would support one solar farm. The Gippsland Renewable Energy Park proposed for Giffard is 10 000 acres, and that has caused considerable alarm, particularly now that the government has established or planned a renewable energy zone in that area so there are a number of wind farm companies and a number of solar farm companies also sniffing around. The question I have for the minister is: okay, 10 000 acres of solar farms, that might get through; what happens if it is 15, if it is 20, if it is 30? Where do we stop, and what is the impact going to be on the community if it is that significant? I do not think we have got the planning right in that respect. I do not think we have got the issues settled in terms of remediation, particularly for wind farms at the end of their life. What actually happens to them, and how is the land that they are on remediated? These questions need to be addressed. I think we also need to see far better care for people in the Latrobe Valley as our power stations close. We have had the announcement about Yallourn power station. I know that Yallourn workers are saying, ‘Well, I hope they do a hell of a lot better job than they did with Hazelwood’, because while there was a lot of money thrown around in the Latrobe Valley through the Latrobe Valley Authority, there was not a hell of a lot in terms of jobs actually delivered for the long term, so this government does need to do better on that. I want to talk briefly in the time left to me about some practical action that the government really has failed on in these areas. Like I said, many of the announcements that come in this portfolio of the minister who moved this debate today are very much good headlines. They play well in the urban areas. They help the Labor Party to fend off the Greens in Northcote and Richmond and other seats coming up at the next election, but actual practical action on the ground is sadly missing. A very, very small example but a really important one is with Landcare facilitators. Landcare is about volunteers regreening our community, and that has significant carbon benefits as well, but this government has put Landcare facilitators through the wringer for three years now. Their funding expired; the government extended it for 12 months; it expired again; it extended it for another six months and now it has opened it up to a much wider cohort and it looks like there will be some facilitators that will miss out. These are actually the facilitators who do the work with communities, with farming communities in particular, helping them to plant more trees and deliver better for our environment, and the government fails on that. Likewise with bushfires, and I want to talk a little bit about that because planned burning is another big area of failure for this government. The federal department of industry and science estimated that the 2019–20 bushfires across the country may have resulted in 830 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent being released into the atmosphere—830 million tonnes. Now, that is a lot of emissions. The department suggests that that is over time effectively recouped as the forest regrows, but what this government does not do is actually plan and manage our forests properly—and our public land more broadly. We know that the Auditor-General’s office found only last year that of the government’s drastically reduced targets for planned burning and remediation of areas, they only met 43 per cent their targets. So that was already reduced, and the government still only met 43 per cent. We should be doing more in the Indigenous burning space. We had the great pleasure of meeting last week Victor Steffensen, who is probably the pre-eminent expert in this area, and seeing him do a little demonstration burn, if you like, up at Shepparton. He is the author of a book called Fire Country and has massive amounts of experience and understanding of how we should be better controlling our land through the use of fire—probably very different to the planned burning that we do in our Western ways. The Premier likes to say that the window keeps closing because of climate change. You put that to Victor, and he says what a crock it is, because if you burn properly in harmony with the environment you can almost burn all year. So I heartily recommend the government looks at some of the work that Victor has done. Address these climate change issues by all means, but do not forget those who are most affected, and get some real, practical action on the ground.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1427

Ms WARD (Eltham) (14:52): I rise with pleasure to speak on today’s matter of public importance, and I thank the member for what he just said around the session that upper house members had last week in Bright where they met with Indigenous people and went through the mechanics of burning. I am glad to know that there were a number of Victorian state government ministers who would also have been present at that demonstration and would have also learnt quite a lot. Now, Speaker, I know you agree with me that climate change is important and it should not be subject to cheap policies or culture wars, and I find it interesting that those opposite continue to throw at those of us on this side that we are here trying to out-green the Greens. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we are doing is actually transforming our economy so that we can continue to have the jobs created for the people that we care about, who are the people of this state. If nothing else, this government is absolutely about jobs. It drives everything that we do. We know that climate change is real. We know that we have to transform our economy, and the only way we can transform our economy to adjust to the realities of climate change is through creating policies like the ones we are discussing now. We have to acknowledge that climate change is real, and we have to create an economic environment where a transition can happen where we rely less on fossil fuels and look more to renewables so that those sustainable jobs—and I mean that in the sense of economically sustainable—can actually grow and thrive so that the people in your electorate, Speaker, the people in my electorate and the people in the electorates of those opposite can have jobs in the future and their jobs do not become redundant and disappear. I also noted the previous speaker talking about the importance of Gippsland, and it is an important place. It is a beautiful part of this state—in fact it is a beautiful part of this country—but to suggest that we are not engaged with Gippsland or that we do not care about Gippsland is erroneous and wrong. I know that there are plenty of members on this side of the house who spend time in Gippsland, including those in the upper house who represent that area and who care very passionately about it. Now, we want to help regional communities adjust to the effects of climate change, and we are supporting our regions through a $9.3 million program funded through the Sustainability Fund. Each Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning region is now developing a community-led climate adaptation strategy, and I would suggest to the members opposite that they might want to engage with their communities and be a part of this process. We are also helping farmers tackle climate change through investing $20 million in cutting-edge research and development to help farmers reduce emissions on the land. Agriculture is the fourth- largest source of emissions in Victoria, and we know that farmers keep telling us that they are seeing the lived realities of climate change. We know that grapes and crops are getting picked earlier or later, that weather seasons are different, that dry seasons are different and that there is a change throughout the agricultural industry that farmers have to adjust to—and this government is here to help them do exactly that. The $15 million Victorian carbon farming program will help farmers plant trees, working towards our target of up to 30 million new trees. We have also invested $92.3 million to restore land and plant trees to store carbon in our landscape. In addition to this, for regional Victoria we have also committed to developing six renewable energy zones—regions identified as having the highest potential for renewable energy— and of course Gippsland is one of those regions. Now, it is also interesting that those opposite have raised the spectre of wind farms. I think that a number of us can remember back to 2011, when the former Liberal-Nationals coalition government decided that we did not need a lot of wind farms across this state and that we would actually make it harder for businesses and investors to have wind farms helping to power energy across the state. I will read a quote from the Age back then:

The clean energy industry has warned it will invest away from Victoria, potentially costing the state $3 billion, after the Baillieu government announced Australia’s most restrictive planning laws for wind farms. We have to look at industry, and we have to look at how we can help industries thrive in our regional communities. We have to have a pragmatic and sensible relationship with industry, with agriculture

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 1428 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021 and with residents across our regional communities that helps create the jobs, that helps create the vital infrastructure that we need in renewable energy and that helps create sustainable towns— environmentally, economically as well as culturally. It needs to be across the board. It is foolhardy to engage in culture wars on something as important as this. We are transforming our economy in this state, and unfortunately it is a slow transition at a national government level. But around the world communities and economies are transforming as they adapt and recognise and change and rise to the challenges that are before them. We need to do this too in this state, and it is fantastic that we are actually leading the nation in how we are adapting to this. This is not about out-greening the Greens. This is not about ignoring regional communities. This is about confronting and recognising the economic realities that confront us—with an investment in dying industries on one hand and the opportunities to come with new industry in the other. The manufacturing opportunities that come out of this new economy are tremendous, and this is a manufacturing powerhouse in this state. It needs to continue to be a manufacturing powerhouse, and it will only be with the investment and support of government—where industry knows that government can be relied on, that government cares about this industry and that government is interested and will invest and support—that we will have industry come in and spend their money here. And this is what we are seeing. We really need to move on from these culture wars. We need to move on from where the federal government is at. I will quote the Prime Minister, who said ‘the cafes, dinner parties and wine bars of our inner cities’ are the only ones focused on net zero emissions, the only ones who really care about addressing climate change. So I will quote David Chadwick, who is a beef farmer. He labelled Mr Morrison’s speech ‘a joke’:

I think it is deplorable he pits regional Australia and the cities against each other … Rural Australians understand climate change and I think the last drought highlighted the inner cities’ compassion for rural Australia, in the way people responded. Mr Chadwick said it was interesting that many of the towns the PM mentioned are reliant on mining. He accused Mr Morrison of being dictated to by the fossil fuel sector. He continued:

Rural Australia, which is on the front line of climate change, is experiencing more and more extreme weather events … he said.

We’ve had a drought, we’ve seen floods, fires, increases in temperatures—and a government completely obsessed with fossil fuels. This government, its masters are the fossil fuels sector and the gas sector. The government’s gas-fired recovery is putting farms such as his in jeopardy, he said. This is the reality of the environment that we are in, and this is the reality that this government will address. I would encourage those opposite, rather than engaging in a culture war slam-fest, to actually debate policy and to actually talk about what their ideas are and what they would like to see and how they will invest in renewables and how they will create industry and how they will create jobs and how they will actually support the regional communities who, as Mr Chadwick said, are on the front line of climate change. So we have a lot planned in this government, and this latest announcement is yet another pillar in this huge response that we are creating to climate change—the huge amount of work that we are putting in to create jobs and to create a flourishing economic response to the challenges of climate change. We are creating a 50 per cent renewable target by 2030. This will support 24 400 jobs. So for every policy that we create—everything that we do—there is a jobs component to it, because we know that that is the key. We know that we need to create these new jobs. We know that these new industries need to be supported. They need our investment. We have $1.6 billion for a clean energy package, which includes $1.3 billion for the Solar Homes program for 778 500 households. We know that Victorian households are eager to take up solar panels. We know that they embrace this new technology. We also know that we need to do work on our grid, which is exactly what this government

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1429 is doing and why we have our Big Battery being built near Geelong. I know that the member for Lara is absolutely thrilled to bits about this. He is absolutely thrilled to bits about the Big Battery and what it will mean for his community and what it will mean for jobs in his community, as well as for power reliability across his community and our state. We will be innovating for the future. We have $108 million for the energy innovation initiative and $10 million for the local hydrogen industry. The local hydrogen industry is incredibly important. The possibilities and the prospects that hydrogen offers for this state—the technology that it brings and the opportunities—are tremendous, and it is great that we are investing seriously in squeezing out from this how we can support that industry and how we can create more opportunity. There is $100 million for zero-emission vehicles. Fifty per cent of Victoria’s light vehicle sales will be ZEVs by 2030. We are putting our money where our hearts are. Our hearts are with jobs for this state, and this is exactly what this work creates. Ms BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (15:02): I rise to speak on the matter of public importance submitted by the member for Mill Park. I want to begin by talking about how important it is as a matter of public importance. Of course, climate change, the environment and managing the future for our children and our grandchildren have always been I think the responsible way to look at managing the environment. As a farmer for over 20 years, every morning when I woke up the environment was the first thing on my mind—trying to figure out how to work within the constraints of the day ahead and what the environment would throw up for us to manage. So it actually makes me quite concerned to hear and see the Labor Party be not as genuine as I would have hoped, because I think this is an area we can work very, very closely together on to achieve really good outcomes. But I look at this matter of public importance, and I heard the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change start by saying that this will create thousands of jobs, which is what is written here in the matter of public importance. I could show you a front page of the Portland Observer. The minister, who was here at the table saying those words, came down to Portland and talked about Keppel Prince, the business that makes wind towers for our region. After the Victorian renewable energy target had been announced she was there with the glossy brochures and the photos saying, ‘Aren’t we wonderful? This means long-term security for all the employees here. Our VRET scheme has been proven to support local jobs and local businesses across the region. The result is more jobs for people in Portland’.

I’m very confident that Steve and the Keppel Prince workforce will have more to come as a result of the VRET scheme. Well, let me show you a front page from March, just a couple of months ago. ‘Jobs go at Keppel Prince’. Why? Because this government is 18 months late with the second VRET. So that business has no job security. Workers have been put off—40 put off, says that article. When I met with the managing director of Keppel Prince with the Leader of the Opposition last week, they told us there are 80 more to go. So I am sorry, but there is no truth in your comment, Minister, that this will create jobs. What it did was get Keppel Prince able to train up more people, invest in more equipment and have confidence, they were told, to be able to continue with their progress—only to be left high and dry. Of course Keppel Prince are not going to speak out because they have been donating beautifully to the Labor Party, but what about the workers of Portland, who were told they could have faith in this government, who would give them that security? Well, ‘Thanks very much’ from the workers of Portland. Then I will go to the fact that this government talks always about what they are going to do for the environment. Well, it is unlike us. Our first announcement when the member for Malvern became the opposition leader was to announce a zero-waste-to-landfill policy. That is the sort of thing that we are seeing all around the world. In the Scandinavian countries and in the heart of Paris you see facilities that are burning waste so that it has a better impact and does not go into landfill. As I talked about in my adjournment last night, you have got people from the all-abilities community, for example, taking the recyclables, and we heard the minister talk about the importance of using components again, but instead of assisting the communities that are doing that great work for us this government are actually

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 1430 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021 charging them more to get rid of waste through the waste levies. The lack of genuineness of this government in talking about policies that will help the environment—if you just scratch the surface, what you see is absolutely disingenuous behaviour. I will go then onto the fact that their own act, that the minister proudly talked about and that they passed, the Climate Change Act 2017, says that they had to have the interim emission reduction targets determined on or before 31 March 2020. Now, the member for Ivanhoe said yesterday, ‘Oh, well, it’s because of the pandemic’. Rubbish! The pandemic in Australia in March last year was at its height, but it had only just started. We did not lose time because of the pandemic. This is purely because this government sets targets that it then does not deliver on under its own act of Parliament. As a result of the pressure the government put on itself by announcing an electric car tax just a few weeks ago, which was written up in every paper as an absolute debacle—there was a united call for the Treasurer to pull the plug on electric car fees. It was just in every paper, ‘Vic electric charge absurd’. I mean, honestly! Anyway, the pressure was on. So what did they do? They released their pledges. They had made a commitment and they had to release their pledges. But what have they done? They have put more glossy brochures out with an emissions reduction pledge. I have got heaps of them here. But the reality is these were due 13 months ago. They came out and they were meant to have the six sectors, which include energy, industrial processes and product use, agriculture, waste and land use. They are supposed to be able to help the six industries affected work out how they are going to reduce their emissions, sector by sector, by identifying the sector pledges. But no, there is no substance again. There is no information about how agriculture or transport are effectively going to reach any targets, because the targets simply are not there. Look at how much stuff I have been going through. I cannot find any evidence of what those pledges are, because they have not put them there. Now, look at agriculture. The Minister for Agriculture got up in question time yesterday raving on about what a great job they are doing for farmers. Well, let me tell you, there is $20 million that they have announced to reduce emissions, and she went on to say there will be another $30 million. This is for on-farm energy assessments. I did one of those. My farms did those assessments. They do not help you to capture carbon or reduce emissions. I travelled in Europe doing research on a project some years ago. I visited Reading University, just west of London. Reading University had been studying the emissions released by monogastrics and ruminants for 25 years. Now, I think that research trip I did was 10 years ago, so for 35 years agriculturalists right around the world have been giving animals better feed quality to reduce emissions, so agriculturalists have been doing this a long time. I was listening to the minister talk about Mark Wootton the other day. Mark is a farmer from up my way, and I was listening to Mark at a function I was at just last week. Mark has been working for 25 years, but he said himself he is not sure how we are going to get there because there is not a clear pathway and we cannot measure it properly yet. This propaganda that the government is putting out does not give a farmer a clear idea of what they have got to do to reach a target, because they have not set them, they are not saying how to do it and they are saying that $20 million will help reduce emissions. Well, like I said—research. I was chair of a research organisation for agriculture for six years, and we were already doing the research and investing in this. It is not because you as a Labor government are saying all of a sudden that we have got to do it. Agriculturalists have been doing it for ages. You know, give farmers the guidelines that you want them to achieve and tell them how they are going to do it—not this glossy stuff that actually just makes them nervous, because obviously the environment is the first priority for farmers. It has to be, because you cannot fight nature; you work with nature. They are not fools; they actually know it far better than you do. So be clearer and do not give us false promises—especially saying another $30 million investment in programs is being rolled out now. And talking about farm energy assessments, I reckon I did that assessment about four—no, actually, more than five years ago, because I have been here for five years, clearly. My shadow portfolio is transport, and this just floors me. We have got the six sectors, but no-one knows which sector is going to take what aspect and how much they are going to reduce it by. We have got all this glossy stuff about, ‘All transport bus purchases to be ZEVs from 2025’. It does not

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1431 actually give you any substance. It does not tell you how much you have got to reduce. It is all about the headlines—scratch the surface, yes, but spend a lot of money putting out glossy promises. Gosh, some of the things that have been said already today sound good, but people have brains. Agriculturalists certainly deal with science every single day. They have to be able to manage the world that they are working in. It is not hard, but you are relying on just false words that do not have any substance once you scratch the surface. I have only got 38 seconds left, but I could talk about the lies that we have seen in the way Minister D’Ambrosio has spruiked plans for renewable energy projects that she alleges will help drive Victoria’s economic recovery from coronavirus. Honestly, they are just not even going to meet any targets. Only 13 of the 82 announced Victorian large-scale solar projects are actually operational, providing a tiny 8.4 per cent of the total energy produced. Of the 55 announced wind projects, only 28 are operational—honestly. Come out to western Victoria and just talk to the people first. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could I remind members to call other members by their correct titles, please. Mr MAAS (Narre Warren South) (15:12): It is a great pleasure to rise and to speak on this matter of public importance (MPI) submitted by the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change—and what a fabulous job she is doing. I look at the matter of public importance that she has put forward:

That this house notes Victoria’s nation-leading climate change strategy that will reduce emissions, create jobs, cut energy costs, and protect our environment … I look at that, and I note in particular how it says ‘nation-leading’. When you talk about nation-leading, you do not only look at yourself. You do not only look to see what you are doing; you look around you and see what others are doing. And it is with great interest that I note that in the Guardian not so long ago there was a headline which said, ‘Scott Morrison brings coal to question time: what fresh idiocy is this?’. It goes on to say, ‘What a bunch of clowns, hamming it up—while out in the real world an ominous and oppressive heat just won’t let up’. I look at New South Wales, just four weeks ago, where a former prime minister was put on a New South Wales government advisory board on climate change and just a week after his appointment he was dumped. And why was he dumped? Because he had the sheer audacity to back a moratorium on coalmines in New South Wales. It is these sorts of actions which mean that the state of Victoria has to step up—and step up it has. When you look at our renewable energy targets, Victoria is delivering. It is delivering on a low-carbon future, and it is reducing energy bills at the same time. This is important to my electorate of Narre Warren South. Our Victorian renewable energy targets are groundbreaking and are a shift in Victorian environmental policy after the lost years with those opposite. The Victorian renewable energy target will reduce emissions by 40 per cent and help to create almost 11 000 jobs in the clean energy sector. Despite each and every Liberal-National member in the other place and this place, we have got on with the job and provided a clean energy pathway for Victoria. And we are doing it with the support of various groups around us too. Environmental groups such as the Wilderness Society have said that the Liberal government has the worst record on the environment since the 1960s and that there was a myriad of diabolical decisions made for our environment, including scrapping an emissions reduction target, abandoning solar targets and slashing jobs at Parks Victoria. And so history shows that when it comes to environmental management and climate change, the Liberals and Nationals cannot be trusted. Just this week—yesterday in fact—this government and the opposition debated the distance levy on zero- and low-emission vehicles. We had the Victorian Automotive Chamber of Commerce coming out with its support for that legislation, saying that:

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 1432 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

This move by the Andrews Government goes further than anything offered at a Federal level and shows good leadership … … … the Chamber contends that it is the fairest way to improve and maintain the state’s road network. If a motorist uses the roads, they should help pay for the build and upkeep … And fairness is what this government is all about. In introducing all of these plans and targets under this strategy the government is moving ahead with a clean energy economy. As I said, we are leading the way in creating jobs in renewable energy in Australia. We are making unprecedented investments in our clean energy future, sourcing 50 per cent of our electricity from renewables by 2030. We are investing $1.6 billion in our clean energy future, and by 2030, 50 per cent of our electricity will be completely sourced from renewables as well. There is also the research and development that we are investing in. Victorian industries will benefit from future low-emissions technologies and practices as they emerge, paving the way for a sustainable future and secure jobs. Fifty per cent of new light vehicle sales are to be zero-emission vehicles by 2030. There is $100 million to supercharge Victoria’s electric vehicle future, including $46 million for an electric vehicle purchase incentives program, $19 million to accelerate the rollout of charging infrastructure; and $15 million for green government and commercial vehicle fleets. But that is not the only way that we seek to move to a low- and zero-emissions economy. We are also decarbonising at the sharpest rate of any major jurisdiction in Australia. So those comparisons that I made before with the commonwealth and with the state—we are not holding ourselves to that standard. We are holding ourselves to a much better and stronger global standard. Victoria’s 2030 target confirms our position among leading jurisdictions around the world, such as the United States and the European Union. We are in fact aiming for a 45 per cent to 50 per cent reduction below 2005 levels by 2030, and that is in comparison to the United States, with 50 per cent to 52 per cent, and the European Union, with 51 per cent. Other jurisdictions that we often hold ourselves accountable against, such as Canada, Japan and Germany, are indeed lower at 40 per cent to 45 per cent, 44 per cent and 44 per cent respectively. The simple truth is that if the opposition had its way, we would not have any new solar farms or wind farms in Victoria, and we would be missing out on all the incredible benefits that are delivered by renewables. When those opposite— Mr Rowswell: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member currently on his feet is reflecting poorly upon the opposition, and I think it is within standing orders that he is not permitted to do so. I seek your consideration of the matter. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is not a point of order. Mr MAAS: I do remind the member this is in fact a debate—an MPI debate. As I was saying, when those opposite where last in, they made it effectively impossible to build wind farms. Let us not forget companies like Keppel Prince, the wind farm tower manufacturer that came grinding to a halt, cutting jobs, because there was simply no demand for wind towers. The situation is certainly no better at the federal level. As I have taken you through, there has been a total lack of interest—a disinterest—in long-term integrated energy and climate change policy. It destroys investor confidence going forward and puts a halt to creating clean energy jobs and investment. It also means, of course, that we are missing out on new sources of reliable, affordable supply that can help to reduce emissions. So, yes, Victoria’s climate change strategy is an ambitious but achievable path to net zero emissions, and I am very proud to be a part of a government that sets ambitious targets and actively works towards achieving them. We have been on this path since the government came to power in 2014, and there is a great deal of work ahead to be done. We will set emissions reduction targets for 2035 in the next two

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1433 years based on independent expert advice and will issue climate science reports every five years, ensuring our decisions are based on the best science. We have taken strong action so far on climate change, and that cannot be denied. We have shown the nation and the world that we can lead in this space, and Victoria’s climate change strategy now shows the world, the nation and most importantly Victorians that climate action is more than a leadership opportunity. It is an economic, environmental and social opportunity, and the future of all generations relies upon the current work that is being undertaken. I commend the work that the minister is doing in this area, and I commend the MPI. Mr GUY (Bulleen) (15:22): I rise to speak on the government’s matter of public importance and note the many concerns I have with it—particularly around the strategy, which seems to be very different from the government’s actions to date or indeed their messages to communities across our state to date. Because all the government speakers today so far have been talking heavily around how they have been leading by example. This government says it leads by example. They like to cite themselves against other progressive governments in the world—you know, Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova and all these other well-known places. They like to say what they are doing well and what they could do to usurp every other government and drag Victoria into a renewables future, but this is interesting because it is in contrast to what is actually occurring in this state as opposed to the word ‘strategy’, which is what this motion is about. It is about a strategy. Well, that is very nice. I am sure they have paid a couple of Labor-friendly marketing firms to come up with a strategy and come up with a glossy document on this strategy and set some targets in the Parliament which, you know, match a strategy, and it all looks very nice. I mean, it sells very nice and they have got this strategy and it presents very nice. But what are we actually doing? What is the government actually doing? A member: It is all froth and no beer. Mr GUY: It might be all froth and no beer. It might be the gin and tonic without the gin. Mr Pakula: Or the lemons. Mr GUY: Lime. But let us have a look at what the government is actually doing. I notice one very interesting thing about this strategy: it seems that apparently everyone has to abide by it except the government, which is interesting. So it is a strategy for everyone else but not the government. The perfect example being that under this government you can avoid this strategy if you are involved in the Belt and Road Initiative, which I note has now been torn up, thank God. But Chunxing Corporation Pty Ltd could avoid being held to Victoria’s carbon targets. They are the firm under the Belt and Road Initiative who are going to build a massive lead acid battery plant near a primary school in Morwell. So it is okay that businesses in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne are either going to be whacked with a new tax or told how they have to live under this strategy, but if you sign up to the Chinese Communist Party’s Belt and Road Initiative in Victoria and if you are somehow related to that, you can avoid this supposed climate strategy. I did not hear the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change talking about that. Funny that she did not say that you can actually avoid it if you are involved in the Belt and Road. You can usurp it if you are building an acid battery plant in the Latrobe Valley. How will battery acid go for the soil quality? How will battery acid go in Latrobe River? But that is okay if you are involved in the Belt and Road Initiative, because Chunxing Pty Ltd can build a lead and battery acid plant in Hazelwood North and avoid having anything to do with this strategy because that is not around the spin in relation to this strategy. The government says they are going to lead by example. They are ordering VLocity trains. I like VLocity trains; I reckon I travel on them more than most people in this chamber. But they are diesel powered. The opposition went to the last election talking about electrifying our interurban network, like the Wran government did in New South Wales in 1976 and like Queensland did under the Borbidge and then Beattie governments in the 1990s. Their interurban networks were electrified. Well, you know, you can run your electric trains off renewable power, a whole range of things, but we are still ordering diesel-haul trains as opposed to having a strategy—this government likes strategies— around the electrification of our interurban network. You know, we have got Geelong at now 300 000

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 1434 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021 and Latrobe Valley at over 100 000. You have got Ballarat, which is Australia’s latest city of over 100 000 people. You have got the City of Bendigo, which is growing inexorably, and the north-east, which is massively forgotten about. We have the ability to have a long-term plan to electrify our interurban network, but the government is buying diesel-haul VLocity trains. It is removing 25 000 trees for the North East Link but then replacing them with nothing—nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing. There is a climate change strategy, but this would be the government that has also purchased a timber mill in East Gippsland. Now, I agree with saving it, but you cannot walk into advisory groups for the great forest national park and say, ‘We’re going to give you a national park’ and then go out to Ron Goldschlager and say, ‘We’re going to pay you $30 million and buy your timber mill’. Like, one does not beget the other. So what is the strategy? Are we going to build a great forest national park or is the government going to buy Ron Goldschlager’s timber mill for $30 million when it is worth $12 million? I am sorry, but— Mr Pakula: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, it is not within the standing orders or appropriate for a member to use the MPI just to amuse his friends. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Minister, that is not a point of order. There can be no response to a non point of order. Mr GUY: Deputy Speaker, I really apologise. I was doing my best to help Marty out and give him a laugh after his day yesterday, but it has not seemed to work. Next time I will leak to the Age before I try and bring it into the Parliament. But what does it mean? I mean, what is this whole strategy mean for agriculture? There are five points mentioned: energy, waste, industry, forestry, agriculture. There was nothing put in there about agriculture. So what are we going to do? Impose a fart tax on cows, like the New Zealand Labour Party did? Is it a methane tax? Is that what you are going to do? A member interjected. Mr GUY: Well, that is what they did. That is what Jacinda Ardern did when they were last in government. Now they are back in government again. What are we going to do about forestry, as I said before? I mean, you have released these climate change emissions reduction pledges. There are pledges, and this is it. A member: Is that it? Mr GUY: It is an A4 bit of paper; that is it. We are going to solve Victoria’s emissions crisis on an A4 piece of paper. It has got a lovely heading on it, Minister. It looks lovely. It was well designed. I am sure you paid a lot of money for it. It is lovely. But what does it mean for agriculture? What does it mean for forestry? You are buying a timber mill and you are telling the great forest national park that you want to save it? What does it mean for energy? These are the people—this government—who have launched a war on gas today. I kid you not. The state of Victoria—60 per cent of the gas market—has launched a war on gas. All the jobs in East Gippsland, in the Shire of Wellington, that are dependent on gas—and we are pandering to the fools in the City of Yarra and a war on gas. That is where we are going. Think of all the jobs in East Gippsland in gas. I mean, I cannot imagine—now that this government has happily wiped out Hazelwood, it has wiped out Yallourn W and now it is probably looking at the Loy Yang stations with glee in the long term—what that means for people in the Latrobe Valley. The Latrobe Valley Authority, which we on this side of the house said would produce not much more than these lovely pieces of paper with letterhead on them, has not produced much at all. I mean, my family is in the valley. I will tell you: it has produced absolutely nothing. Of course unemployment is a real problem in the valley, as it has been. What does it mean for waste? What does this strategy mean for the waste sector? We have on this lovely document of the government’s, again, that they want to tackle waste. How wonderful. They could tackle themselves and that might actually add to part of Victoria’s waste, but they are late to the

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1435 party because the Liberals and Nationals have been talking about waste to energy for some time, and why wouldn’t we? I mean, New South Wales has a waste-to-energy strategy, a very good one. Queensland has waste-to-energy strategies under the Labor government—I think it was Anna Bligh who actually came up with a very good waste-to-energy strategy. So other states have been doing this for years. These guys over here have been in office for 17 years of 21. You would think in that time you would come up with a reasonable waste-to-energy strategy, particularly when you have had other states with Labor administrations doing that—and, I might add, doing it very successfully. And, of course, what does this mean for industry? Well, does it mean we are going to throw taxes on corporates? Are we going to ask them to come up with a faux target on emissions and then tax them? Are we going to do this to drycleaners? They use a huge amount of energy. Are we going to do it to restaurants? Are we going to do it to people in factories in the east producing food? What does this mean every time government releases documents like this with vague pledge? We had sector pledges and then they throw in things like land use, energy, industry. Well, you spook sectors at a time we need to give confidence. The only way to bring confidence is to have certainty of policy, not to start throwing out sector pledges that could see them taxed into oblivion and actually removing themselves from Victoria to go to South Australia—which I note that a lot of Victorians are now doing. The whole point of these strategies should be to give certainty. If you want to bring these strategies in, actually have a strategy that is in partnership with industry so that we do not spook jobs out of our state and so that there is a future for Victoria in a low-carbon environment but one that does not spook industry to leave, as strategies like this will do, because they have no clear objectives beyond a headline. That is one of the problems and the legacy of this government and indeed this matter of public importance, because it will spook people into leaving our state when it should be in fact one of the ways to keep jobs here. Ms GREEN (Yan Yean) (15:32): Well, I take great pleasure in following someone who actually thought he might be the member for Yan Yean once, but he failed miserably at that too, just as he failed miserably in supporting renewable energy when he was the planning minister. His mates might have sat there and had a good joke and a good laugh when he came in, but let me tell you the renewable energy industry was not laughing when the member for Bulleen was the Minister for Planning. No, it was not. He just talked about jobs leaving this state. Well, whole industries were shut down on his watch. The temerity of that man to come in here and make a little joke, part of his audition, part of his creeping, creeping, creeping up after the current Leader of the Opposition. Well, I suppose they did come in and have a laugh because their lead speaker—goodness me—the member for Evelyn, could bore for Australia, and if there was another platitude in that speech that she could have found, she would have used it. ‘And the left hand didn’t know what the far-left hand was doing’—that was the funniest she got, and it is actually not a joke. They come in here and make fun of a government that has actually nailed its colours to the mast. And they try and run this argument that our work is all about spin and about glossy pamphlets. Well, let me tell you: the renewable energy industries know darn well that their industries have flourished under our watch. When those just around from me on this side of the house but a little bit further on, in the cheap seats, were in—under them, renewables only made up barely 10 per cent of generation. There was not a single wind farm developed under the coalition government, and they actively went against it. The member for South-West Coast probably has made the best attempt on their side of speaking on this matter of public importance (MPI) of a very bad lot, but to say that she cares—actually, I do not doubt that she cares—and that her side of politics actually gave a toss about the workers in Portland at Keppel Prince during 2010 to 2014, do not make me laugh. They killed an industry—that was under the short Baillieu premiership—and then they brought in the then member for South West Coast, Denis Napthine. I do not know how he could have lain straight in bed, with the jobs that left his electorate on their watch.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 1436 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

Now, I am not going to keep referring to them. I am going to refer to the Age newspaper of yesterday and an article by Nick O’Malley, the environment and climate editor, ‘State action may enable nation to hit emissions goal’. The article starts by saying:

Australia could easily beat its national emissions commitments without further action by the federal government, after Victoria set a reduction target of 45–50 per cent by 2030. We have already had our runs on the board. Journalists like the environment and climate editor and other commentators have seen our record over the last five years—how we have grown the renewable sector, how we have grown alternative jobs—and there is confidence there that we can do it. Just imagine if the energy and the puff and wind that we heard from the member for Bulleen, if they actually used those talents for good instead of evil and spoke to their counterparts at a national level and we had national targets. The member for Bulleen and a number of other speakers talked about certainty. The only certainty about climate change with the coalition in Canberra is uncertainty, unlike every other part of the Western world. You look at their antecedents, those that they look to in old Blighty, in the UK. You know, with the Tories there, there is no contest. They believe in climate change. They understand that the record flood events and storm events that they keep having year in, year out are the result of climate change, unlike the Luddites in Canberra who just do not believe it. So if those a little bit further around from me in the cheap seats used their energies to have any influence on their mates in Canberra, they actually would be saying that they need to stop the phony war, stop the phony conversation about it being a debate. It is not a debate. I note the member for Box Hill, the member for Tarneit, the member for Burwood and I are on the Environment and Planning Committee of this chamber—and previously so was the Government Whip, the member for South Barwon. Last year we worked on the report into what communities are doing in tackling climate change. Across the state we heard and took very sobering evidence about what the obvious impacts are—I note the member for Eltham is in the chamber, and she and I both know how much the Shire of Nillumbik was impacted by the catastrophic fires of 2009. The members that I mentioned took evidence in the north-east, we took evidence in East Gippsland, in the south- west—all over the state we took evidence. And whether it is wildfires, whether it is drought, whether it is riverine flooding or whether it is storm surges, there is no doubt that climate change is occurring. I know that the deputy chair of the committee, the member for Mornington, gets it, and I think he is a good man. He has a coastal electorate, so he absolutely gets it. But the member for Kew has been a complete no-show. I think he should resign from the committee. I do not believe he has attended one— not one—of the committee’s deliberations. The member for Ovens Valley has been slightly better. And now the member for Kew has the emergency services portfolio. Well, I hope he has spent some time talking to the insurance industry about how much they are having to deal with climate change— whether it is through floods or fires—and those premiums, because he certainly has not been paying attention to it. There were some comments made by the only speaker from the National Party and by the member for South-West Coast, saying that there was uncertainty around our agriculture sector pledges. Well, we have strong action on climate change, and I am proud as the Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Victoria to work with such an effective and informed Minister for Agriculture as the member for Macedon. In the work that she has got out early in her tenure of being the minister, she has seen what action farmers are taking themselves and how they believe in climate change. So that is why it has been such an important part of our climate change strategy that we will support this industry and that we will help them transition and work with their understanding of what is occurring with climate change. We are investing $20 million to accelerate the actions needed to achieve our long-term vision for the sector’s role in a net zero emissions economy, and this includes delivering groundbreaking Victorian research into methane emissions reduction technologies and practices, supporting up to 250 farmers and growers to measure and reduce their on-farm emissions and providing new tools and services to support farmers to make informed decisions on emissions reduction and climate risk management,

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1437 and I am sure that the member for Buninyong, who will come after me, will make more remarks about this, with her understanding of farming and farming in her community. We have nailed our colours to the mast on climate change. It is a great strategy that has been released by the government and by a very, very hardworking minister, for the environment and for energy, and I commend this matter of public importance to the house. Mr ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (15:42): I rise to address the government’s matter of public importance (MPI), and in doing so I wish to start my contribution by recalling the contribution that I first made in this place as the newly minted member for Sandringham, in my maiden speech. I said:

Our community today are the custodians of our natural environment. We are charged with a significant responsibility to be thoughtful stewards of our natural resources. Custodianship, stewardship and conservation are at the heart of the Liberal Party. Since that time I have been appointed as the Shadow Minister for Energy and Renewables, and in the time that I have been appointed to that role I have given some thought to the matters considered in the matter of public importance more so than I previously had. It is clear to me that the end of coal-fired power in this state is not a question of if but when. The time, in my view, for esoteric debates about the relative merits of coal versus renewables or coal versus other energy sources is dead, and the time for pragmatic rather than ideological solutions has well and truly arrived. The invisible hand of the free market has in fact decided this, but moving forward does not mean leaving people behind, and this is where I come to the actions of the state Labor government. Item 2 of today’s matter of public importance refers to Victoria’s targets giving businesses the certainty they need for future investment decisions, but in my engagement with stakeholders to date ‘certainty’ is not what the stakeholders that I have spoken to would use to describe state Labor’s decisions. Skyrocketing baseload power prices—when Hazelwood power station closed in 2017 with only six months notice, wholesale prices in Victoria were up 85 per cent on 2016 figures, and for the first time in almost a decade the state relied on energy from interstate to meet its needs. Will this new target see the same mistakes repeated? There has been a more than 12-month delay in releasing renewable energy targets. There is a record number of energy disconnections. Alarmingly more than half a million—510 260— Victorian residential customers have fallen behind in paying their electricity and gas bills and have not as yet set up payment plans or deferrals to deal with that, so the recently released Essential Services Commission report tells us. A further 33 457 residential customers—our fellow Victorians—who are already on payment plans say they cannot pay for ongoing electricity or gas usage. And where is the state Labor government in this mix? Sure, they have announced a $250 power saving bonus. How many people are eligible for that bonus? I think the figure is about 950 000 people. How many people have applied for that bonus? We do not know. In fact beyond the announcement, Labor have done their darnedest not to actually advertise the fact that people on low incomes, people with healthcare cards and people who are at risk of disconnections in our community can apply for this. Well, I will be advising my community that they can apply for it, and I will be doing so vigorously. We then go to renewable energy zones. Yes, there are six of these things: six renewable energy zones in Victoria. But what is the point of having a renewable energy zone if the power generated from that renewable energy zone cannot be connected to the grid, cannot actually make a meaningful difference to Victoria’s energy grid? I quote now:

The fact is, you can keep building more and more large projects renewables, but if they actually have no way of being able to fit into the grid which wasn’t built for a different system, then it’s going to collapse, it’s not gonna work. Who do you reckon said that? Any guesses from the government side? Who do you reckon said that? Mr Pakula: Tell us.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 1438 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

Mr ROWSWELL: All right. Well, let me tell you. That was your energy minister admitting the Labor government’s failures on 21 April this year at the Geelong Energy Futures Forum. The energy minister herself acknowledged that the grid itself is not built to take the power from these renewable energy zones. It is one thing to cut a ribbon on a new renewable energy source. It is one thing to cut a ribbon on a solar plant or a wind plant. It is quite another thing for that renewable energy source to actually make a difference and be connected to the grid, and Labor have no plan to do just that. Then this morning of course in the Age newspaper Tim Forcey, a former oil and gas engineer and gas adviser to the Australian Energy Market Operator, was quoted as saying:

… if Victoria were to have any hope of meeting its net-zero target, it must remove 300 households from the gas network every working day between now and 2050. Transitioning 300 gas-using households per day to electricity would require the additional generation of around 4745 megawatts of electricity each year. That is almost 11 times as much power as what Victoria’s largest wind farm is currently capable of producing. This is the point: it is wonderful to have these targets, it is wonderful to have these broad numbers, but without a plan to actually implement it, you are actually leaving people out in the cold. You are leaving people without the certainty that they need. You are saying to Victorians that when they turn that power switch on in their homes, power may very well not come through that switch. You are saying to them that when their bill arrives in three months time it might be beyond their capacity to pay. Members interjecting. Mr ROWSWELL: Government members opposite think that this is funny. Let the record show that as I am articulating the fact that they have no plan beyond a headline that will put at-risk Victorians even further at risk of being disconnected from their power and that will deliver them higher electricity bills, government members in this chamber find that amusing—a very difficult conversation, I am sure, for them to have with their constituents. Not everyone agrees that the government’s plan from the weekend is the best way forward. Sarah McNamara, for example, of the Australian Energy Council, is quoted as saying there is the:

… risk of unintended consequences hitting customer bills. She states:

Go-it alone approaches are less efficient and less likely to achieve reductions at lowest cost to households and the economy, given we are part of an interconnected national energy market. What Labor need to do, in my very strong view, is take a darn good look at what they have proposed— to look at it through the lens of how it will affect the people that they say they represent. They say they have a plan, when in fact they do not have a plan. They say they have a plan, when all they have got is a headline. We are not waiting until the next election to enter this space, to offer alternatives; we have already announced a waste-to-energy facility. Instead of putting household rubbish in God’s green earth, by 2035 the Liberal-Nationals have committed to a waste-to-energy facility which will increase baseload power in this state and deal with our rubbish. And just imagine if this could be done to scale. If this could be done to scale in the Latrobe Valley, where the Latrobe Valley Authority at the moment— fantastic; it is great to see the lights that they are putting around football stadiums, but there is no meaningful future for the workers of the Latrobe Valley. There is no— A member interjected. Mr ROWSWELL: And the government members think that waste-to-energy facilities are a joke as well. Ms SETTLE (Buninyong) (15:52): Well, I am very happy to rise to speak on this matter of public importance, particularly after the wonderful contribution from the member for Sandringham. It is pretty extraordinary to have somebody quote themselves straightaway, but what I found most

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1439 extraordinary is there seems to be some confusion between the words: he told us that ‘conservation’ was at the heart of the Liberal Party. I think he is confusing it with ‘conservative’. But he then went on to say that since he has become the shadow minister, he has given a lot more thought to it. It is pretty extraordinary that he is thinking about it now, even though he is trying to tell us it lies at the heart of the Liberal Party. Mr Rowswell: Are you going to address the matter of public importance? Ms SETTLE: I am certainly going to address it. I guess what I am trying to outline here is it has been interesting listening to this debate, and those on the other side seem to have spent their whole time floundering around, trying to find a reason to object to it. We get lots of different sorts of, ‘On the one hand, there’s nothing behind the strategy; on the other hand, you know, it’s just glossy’, but it is really just floundering around. The member for Gippsland South, though, really intrigued me, because he kept imploring that we think about the people that this will affect and then at the same time saying to us that it is a policy that is really only good for the cities. Now, the greatest spin that gets perpetuated in this house is from those on the other side who like to pretend that in some way they represent regional Victoria. Deputy Speaker, I know that you represent regional Victoria, as indeed do I, as indeed do 18 members of government. Eighteen members of government represent regional Victoria. That is more than The Nationals altogether. Really the biggest spin in this debate has been some idea that this is a city- appeasing piece of legislation. Now, I am a farmer. I come from a generation of farmers. And really we are the people that are being impacted by climate change. Speak to any farmer and they are very aware of the dangers that are facing us through climate change. It is not an inner-city appeasement policy, as the member for South Gippsland would like to suggest. It is actually a piece of policy that is going to protect regional Victorians. That is why am incredibly pleased and proud to talk on this matter of public importance. Now, there can be no greater matter of public importance than climate and climate change. I am incredibly proud that my son Alex led the climate marches through Ballarat in the student strikes a couple of years ago when he was still a student, and I know from him and all of his friends that this is an incredibly important issue to them. I know that he and many of his generation will absolutely welcome the action that this government is taking. The science is absolutely clear: we need to do something. As I say, as a farmer myself I am well aware of the impacts that climate change has been having, and it is time to do something about it. Victoria’s climate change strategy sets out a very clear path to achieving net zero emissions for Victoria by 2050. It builds on the work that we have been doing since we were elected in 2014. In 2016 we announced a renewable energy target of 25 per cent by 2020 to howls of protest from those on the other side, and yet here we are with 26 per cent of energy coming from renewables in 2020. So this kind of idea that it is gloss and polish and there is nothing behind it—what I would say to you is that the figures and the facts bear out. This government is getting on and getting things done in this space. Those on the other side, or certainly their friends in Canberra, have a lot of trouble dealing with this issue and dealing with renewables. Let us never forget Prime Minister Scott Morrison and his lump of coal in Parliament, but I think what I found pretty extraordinary was the more recent comment he made that Australia will not achieve net zero emissions ‘in the cafes, dinner parties and wine bars of our inner cities’. They seem to be obsessed, those on the other side, with this notion of inner-city people and appeasing inner-city people. Can I just make it very clear again that people in the regions care passionately about climate change? It is not just people in the inner city. But what I would say to Mr Morrison on achieving net zero emissions is that where it will happen is here in Victoria, because we have a plan to do something about it. Like no other state in this country, Victoria is getting on and creating a pathway to get us there.

BILLS 1440 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

Under those on the other side, the industries, and particularly the wind industry, just absolutely ground to a halt. Now, the wind industry is something that is very important to me. In my electorate I have quite a few wind farms, and they are a really important part of our electorate. Not only are they supplying energy for the entire state but they provide jobs for us locally. Through their community benefit funds, they are also providing back to the local community. I was really pleased last week to see that Federation University is installing a wind turbine for training. Already Fed Uni has a course for wind farm maintenance, and now it is going to have a turbine so that people can have that practical, hands-on experience. For a major university in my electorate to be offering a wind farm maintenance course really just highlights how incredibly important the wind farm industry is to my electorate, and, as I say, not just in its ability to provide renewable energy but also for the jobs that it provides for our local people. We have the Lal Lal wind farm, which has 60 turbines generating up to 228 megawatts of renewable energy. The Moorabool wind farm has 104 turbines generating up to 312 megawatts, and we have 143 turbines at Stockyard Hill. We also have the Yaloak South and Mount Mercer wind farms, all generating renewable power for our community, and the future is looking very bright with the Golden Plains project, which is expected to host up to 228 turbines in development. These wind farms are very important to our electorate. Thirty per cent of jobs in renewables were here in Victoria—more than New South Wales or Queensland. We have really harnessed wind farms for this state, and that has meant more and more jobs. But the strategy that is outlined is not just about renewables, it is also about supporting our farmers. As I have mentioned quite a few times, I come from good farming stock. My parents were the very first carbon farmers in 2013. They took up on their farm outside of Ararat and were planting under the federal Labor government’s carbon program, so it has been a big part of our farm life for a long, long time. I noticed that the member for South-West Coast was complaining about the energy efficiency assessments, and I was a little concerned to hear that, because certainly the agriculture energy investment in my region has been a very, very successful program. I have had the delight of being able to speak to many farmers about replacing their diesel vehicles to make them more energy efficient. In the little time that I have left, I guess what I would really like to stress is—you know, those on the other side like to pretend this is a strategy, a glossy brochure, to appease the inner city—that it is really important that they, for their survival, begin to understand that regional Victoria wants climate change addressed. Regional Victoria wants to see more renewables. It is not the inner city. This is about all of Victoria. This policy will benefit everyone in my electorate and everyone across Victoria, so they really have to get over this idea. I think that their battle is with the Greens, who we will never forget voted down the ETS. But they are perhaps the people that they are talking about in inner-city coffee shops. (Time expired) Bills TRANSPORT LEGISLATION MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS BILL 2021 Second reading Debate resumed. Mr HIBBINS (Prahran) (16:02): I will just continue on talking about buses. There are some changes in this bill to the Bus Safety Act 2009, and I was talking about the success story with buses actually in Melbourne. It has been found if you put on buses frequently enough, sure enough, patronage grows and people catch them, and that has been a success story with the smart buses, which were introduced, I believe, around 10 to 15 years ago. But unfortunately we have not seen that level of investment or those new sorts of high-frequency services being invested in since, so there are a lot of opportunities for the expansion— Ms Green interjected.

BILLS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1441

Mr HIBBINS: Well, it is quite interesting that we have just had one member bagging these guys for creating an inner city-outer city divide, and now I am getting heckled by a Labor member telling me I would not know about buses because I am from the inner city. I invite you to jump on the 246 bus that goes along Punt Road— Ms Green: You wouldn’t know about high-frequency bus services that have been introduced under our government. Mr HIBBINS: Well, I would actually know because I have actually been advocating for a very long time for the Punt Road bus— Ms Green: In growing suburbs. Mr HIBBINS: to have increased services, and I really welcome the investment and the increased services along Punt Road for the growing population that we have in the seat of Prahran. But there are some really big opportunities I think for the government to have more high-frequency services and to get some more buses. I do not think we should be waiting until 2025 to be buying electric buses. We could be manufacturing the buses now. There are factories in Australia that are producing electric buses. Let us get those buses on the road, get those high-frequency services and not have these meandering routes that are turning up once an hour or so. They are not effective services. That does not serve the outer suburbs or other parts of Melbourne. In fact I know certainly in regional cities there are really some dire frequencies out there, so there are some big opportunities. I know the Bus Association Victoria and a number of transport lobby groups have really been pushing for far more of these high-frequency smart bus style services right across Melbourne. Even with the Suburban Rail Loop you could be having services along the Suburban Rail Loop corridor instead of waiting for the tunnelling. It will be decades before that is finished. You could put the buses on now. But to conclude just more broadly on transport, whilst I recognise the infrastructure that is being built at the moment, it is really important that you have got the services to go along with it and that you have got climate-friendly and people-friendly transport. That means having accessible trains and trams and buses. I note the Disability Resources Centre’s campaign, which has been going for decades now—decades—to have tram stops upgraded so people with a disability or mobility issues, the elderly or parents with prams can actually access our trams. The Auditor-General found that just 15 per cent of our tram services are actually accessible for people with a disability. That is supposed to be 100 per cent quite soon, so that is a real big shortfall. Not only that, I think we saw in the Herald Sun today some of the most dangerous tram stops. So many near misses are occurring—particularly, it was noted, at the one on the corner of Toorak Road and Chapel Street, which is an incredibly dangerous tram stop. We really need to get a much faster rollout of those safer level-access tram stops across the network so everyone can access our trams. I think we need to be putting more staff back on our trains and trams. Prior to the privatisation of the network there were people at train stations that would sell you a ticket and help you on your journey, and I think if we can get PSOs—someone who can arrest you—at every station, then I am sure we can employ someone to sell you a ticket at every station from first to last, someone who could help you on your journey, someone who could provide customer assistance. That would go a very long way to creating a much more people-friendly public transport system and of course reducing those waits between services. Even in my electorate and even in the outer suburbs you have got waits of 15 to 20 minutes to 30 minutes to 40 minutes for a train or a tram. For a bus it is even worse. That is not a people-friendly transport system. That is not going to get people back on our network. As I said before, as we come out of this pandemic we have got some big challenges with transport. We need to get people back on public transport. We cannot risk a congestion crisis in our city. If everyone is going to be driving, we will not get those patronage numbers back. But we have also got a fantastic opportunity as well as people are changing their travel habits, as more people are riding and walking and as more people are using our streets as public spaces. We have got a real opportunity, just as governments around the world are investing too in more sustainable transport and separated bike lanes and pedestrian

BILLS 1442 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021 infrastructure. There is a really big opportunity there, and I urge this government to seize the moment and to take up that opportunity. And with that I will conclude my remarks. Ms GREEN (Yan Yean) (16:08): It is with great delight that I join the debate on the Transport Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2021, and it is an omnibus bill, as other members have noted. There is quite a bit to it, but in my 10 minutes I will make some truncated remarks and mainly concentrate on the bus section. Firstly, I did want to mention fisheries. The bill provides for the consolidation of recreational boating and related fishing functions under the fabulous team at the Victorian Fisheries Authority, and there are strong synergies between recreational boating functions and fisheries functions aimed at supporting increased recreational activity in this area. The bill transfers the boating functions being performed by the Department of Transport to the VFA to deliver efficiencies and improve service delivery, and I was surprised that the member for Eildon was critical of this measure. Given the Snobs Creek hatchery is in her electorate, I would have thought she would have been more alive to that aspect. The Andrews Labor government knows what fishing means to Victorians, and that is why we have invested $81 million over eight years to improve fishing across Victoria. In our first four years we invested $46 million towards growing recreational fishing with the aim of increasing participation to 1 million anglers by 2020, and I think that is certainly something that has been surpassed. We established the Victorian Fisheries Authority, and we halted commercial netting in Port Phillip and Corio bays by removing 34 licensees since April 2016. In the current budget the Andrews Labor government contributed a further $23 million to extend the Target One Million program from stage 1 to stage 2. Recreational fishing is not only a great pastime for Victorian families, but if a kid has been fishing with their family, I reckon you would almost never find them in the criminal justice figures. Recreational fishing does contribute $2.3 billion to the Victorian economy every year and employs 16 000 people. I have been delighted to represent successive ministers either in my electorate or in other parts of the state, as the Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Victoria, in releasing many fish over the years that I have been in this place, and particularly the native fish that have been grown in our hatcheries—the existing one at Snobs Creek and the one now being established out from Shepparton. I will move more to the bus aspect of the bill. The member for Euroa was the lead speaker for the opposition. I think it is worth noting that despite circulating amendments to the bill and having quite a bit of commentary in, I think, her 30-minute contribution, the member for Euroa did not attend the briefing, so I am not certain why she is in any way informed to bring the amendments before the house. I think it is really interesting that the National Party in particular are very selective when they talk about competition or what aspects of competition they support, but also in the time that I have been in this place, in the 18 years I have been here, any time we talk about safety, we talk about safety for workers or safety for industry. Safety to us is red tape to the National Party. I will not be lectured by the National Party about cross-border issues. We as a government are the ones that listened to the community and established the cross-border commissioner. The cross-border commissioner, Luke Wilson, and his team are doing an outstanding job, particularly in the transport area, in working with a lot of inconsistencies, whether it is in road safety, in licensing or in all manner of work. He works closely with his New South Wales counterpart. I really want to commend him for the outstanding work that he has done, he and his team, particularly during the bushfires, because they obviously were on both sides of the border, in New South Wales and Victoria. He has also done an absolutely sterling job during COVID, raising issues and alerting the government to inconsistencies with border closures and difficulties for the communities. The National Party, for the whole 18 years I have been here, have banged on and on about cross-border issues, but have they ever done anything? Was it them that established a cross-border commissioner? No, it was not. So, member for Euroa, do not lecture us on those sorts of matters, especially when you do not even attend the briefing.

BILLS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1443

The member for Eildon—I do not know, where do I get these neighbours from? I do not know how she thinks she has got any credibility on the transport industry and on buses. I recall not long after she was elected her lecturing the fire-affected community of Kinglake because the Brumby Labor government and the Dysons bus company had provided a free bus service regularly up and down the mountain to assist that fire-affected community. It was not meant to replace the route bus that was there, and the community themselves did not want a free bus. They liked the free bus when they were in crisis mode, but they just wanted a decent service. But where was the member for Eildon, then the member for Seymour, when that bus service was completely cut? They did not just make people pay for it; it was cut. That community will never forget that they had to campaign with a huge petition— massive petition—that I was proud to table in this place. The community had been through so much, and she was in hiding. She even told a local radio station that the then transport minister’s office was not allowing her to speak, so how dare she say that she has got a voice now. I also recall 2010: I had the privilege up until that time to represent the rural communities of the Shire of Nillumbik. I secured funding to do a transport study, a bus study, so that those small communities could get a bus service. So what happened with that? Where was the member for Seymour, now the member for Eildon, on that? She was silent also, so the study was done and it fell to the back of the bookcase and no services were provided, and she has never stood up for them since. Not a word until today when she has found her voice. Well, give me a break. Those communities will not forget your silence, the member for Eildon, previously the member for Seymour. She talked about community bus services. Well, under her watch, you know, it was the same. For fire- affected communities, community transport that serviced the communities of Kinglake, Flowerdale, Yarra Junction, Healesville, Yarra Glen—all cut. All assisting communities to get their way out of fire-affected zones, whether it was for leisure or for shopping—all cut under her watch. So do not come in here, the member for Eildon, previously Seymour, and the deputy leader of your party and lecture us on buses. I will not have it. The transport operators in this state are outstanding. Dysons buses I think are almost the largest employer in the City of Whittlesea, and they have had mergers over the period of time that I have been in this place with a number of smaller companies. They are a great unionised workforce. They are a fantastic family-operated company that have been operating for I think it is over a century, and I had the privilege of attending a farewell retirement function for Les Dyson, for Margie Dyson and for Greg Deacon last week and I really want to thank them for their contribution to the community. The Dysons bus company now has a footprint not just in the northern suburbs of Melbourne, but six out of the nine regional partnerships in Victoria have a Dysons footprint, so they really understand service delivery across this state. I think that they will continue to be great partners with us in bus safety, in growing services and particularly in growing services in a changing market, whether it is combining demand—they run demand-responsive services—or running route buses. We thank them. The member for Eltham and I just absolutely love Panorama bus services. They are the largest employer in the Shire of Nillumbik, and they had a great message to the Minister for Public Transport last week when he met with us in Diamond Creek. I want to commend the Pope family in Timboon. I want to commend the Lucas family in Warrnambool. There are numerous family-run businesses across Victoria in transport, and I want to thank them for their work. I want to thank the Transport Workers Union for always standing up for their members and for offering a safe and healthy workforce and looking after their members. This is a great bill, an omnibus bill. I commend it to the house. Mr ANGUS (Forest Hill) (16:18): I am pleased to rise this afternoon to make a brief contribution in relation to the Transport Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2021, and I note as other speakers have—both on this side and on the government side—that this is indeed an omnibus bill and it amends seven acts, namely the Bus Safety Act 2009, the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017, the Road Management Act 2004, the Road Safety Act 1986, the Transport Integration Act

BILLS 1444 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

2010, the Victorian Fisheries Authority Act 2016, the Transport Legislation Amendment Act 2020 and other acts and miscellaneous amendments. The matter that I particularly want to speak about this afternoon is part 5 of the bill, found on page 63, and that is the amendments in relation to the Road Safety Act 1986. This particular component of the bill deals with a range of road safety matters which of course are very important matters for all of us here in Victoria. But I want to touch on a couple of the issues in relation to driving under the influence of alcohol. This bill goes directly to some of those issues, and I want to particularly look at an issue that we are facing here in Victoria at the moment—the fact that we have got no booze buses on the road here in Victoria. Members may recall that back in April 2017 the minister announced with great fanfare that the state had bought a fleet—10—of state-of-the-art booze buses at a cost of $15 million. That is going back obviously four years now, and we can think, okay, well, that was good. It sounds great, like most Labor promises do, but what has actually happened? I can read to you what has happened with these vehicles, and I will finish by looking at the most recent example. It has again rendered the whole fleet to be put off the road. But some of the issues that have plagued the vehicles, both in terms of safety and performance, and delays and repairs and cost blowouts left, right and centre in relation to them, are as follows. Six out of the 10 buses were taken off the road within six months of being initially launched, due to performance issues, including: engines which failed to turn off— that is a fairly critical failure, I would think; cruise control unresponsive to brakes at speed—again, a fairly significant issue; airbags turned off; doors becoming stuck; and mirrors in reverse camera not operating properly. So we have paid $15 million for these buses. They are obviously not fit for purpose. What is going on? Further, there are design faults that cause the buses to bottom out and reports also that the vehicles are challenging to control at high speed. So there are obviously some major engineering issues with that because I know they are very low riding, and obviously they are even lower so people can access them. I get that, but the fact that they are actually bottoming out and proving to be difficult to drive at high speeds is obviously a fundamental issue. We also note that Victoria Police have spent $320 000 for two independent engineering firms to diagnose issues with the fleet. Again, we have got the state-of-the-art product and within a very short time we are having to throw good money after bad to ensure that the problems are diagnosed and then addressed. So as a result of all that we have had years of problems affecting the booze buses and the fact that they are not out there on the streets. The latest issue was just recently, when we had one of the booze buses—most of us probably saw the footage of this, because it was quite dramatic—parked in Lilydale, doing a preliminary breath test arrangement out there, and it caught fire. We have seen the footage, as I have said, well reported, in relation to that bus just burning fiercely. My issue here is that again this shows a failure. What is the minister doing about this, because it is not new: it was four years ago that things were announced. It has been a problem-plagued part of the government’s arsenal for the last four years, and right now there are no booze buses on the roads in Victoria. So what is that doing for the road toll? What is that doing for the number of collisions that are out there? What is that doing in endangering the lives of Victorians as they go about their lawful business with people that are probably over the legal alcohol limit or indeed under the influence of illicit substances as they are driving? What does that do for the rest of us? What does that do for the children crossing the school crossings—the thousands and thousands of school crossings throughout the state at the start or the end of the school day? This is putting our community at great risk, and I think it is incumbent upon the acting minister and the government to get their act together. We have paid so much money—tens of millions of dollars—for these buses and we are not getting value for money. I suppose it is quite symptomatic of where the government is at, because we see even today—and it relates to this in fact—the Auditor-General’s report, which is most informative, in relation to Fines Victoria and the fact that that has proven to be a $126 million fiasco. I would recommend that the report be read by all members and indeed by members of the broader public because it is very informative indeed. But we had a project there that was badly scoped. No-one really knew what was going on. The

BILLS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1445 department did not have the resources. They did not have an understanding of the project. They outsourced it, because of course it was all prefaced by government saying, ‘We’re going to fix this problem and we’re going to have a big pot where fines would be managed rather than the different agencies dealing with their fines’. And what have we ended up with? We have ended up with just another shambles, an IT shambles. As I said, it has almost tripled the budget that was estimated. It is years overdue. When it was first implemented, it only had 5 per cent of the functionality that was promised, and it has just been plagued by problems. So that is what concerns me in relation to that matter, the Fines Victoria matter that was reported today, but also in relation to this matter of the booze buses. Even today in question time we heard it from the Minister for Health when he was asked about the complete and utter failure in Victoria’s ambulance system at the moment and the crises and the lives that are being lost as a result of that. When we asked the minister today in question time in relation to particular issues there, his response was how much money the government has spent. And that seems to be the mentality in relation to this government. I think for Victorians looking at that objectively it is a shocking situation because what we are seeing is the government linking the amount of money spent to success. There is no measure of outcomes, and that is what we need here in Victoria. We are not interested in how much money the government has spent—in many cases blown—on projects or on areas; we are interested in outcomes. We are interested in people being able to ring 000 for an ambulance and get an ambulance—not be referred to the nearest taxi company or Uber driver. That is just not satisfactory. For the minister to stand up in here today and say that the answer to everything is how much money he has spent—well that, Minister, is not the answer; that is just symptomatic of throwing money around carelessly and not looking at the outcomes that Victorians expect and indeed rely on, particularly in relation to ambulance services. For us to be in this situation where in Victoria there are no booze buses on the road and we have got the whole issue of drivers that perhaps have got a problem in that area, whether that be drugs or alcohol, being able to freely drive around, knowing that the chances of them getting stopped are extremely remote because of the stretch in police resources anyway and highway patrol being stretched so thin themselves, coupled with the fact that there are no booze buses on the road, is a great concern. It should be a great concern to all Victorians, and particularly it should be a great concern to this government. They should get their act together and get those booze buses fixed properly and back out on the road to protect all Victorians. Ms HUTCHINS (Sydenham—Minister for Crime Prevention, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice, Minister for Victim Support) (16:28): I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Transport Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2021 today, and ensuring Victorians have safe, efficient and effective transport options is an important focus for our government. This government has an excellent record in making transport in Victoria better and more accessible across the state. Our population has been growing, and electorates like mine have seen new communities needing to be connected more and for that growth to be kept up with. This government has invested in the roads and public transport that keep Victoria on the move, but there is always more to be done to make our roads safer and equip them to meet the current and future needs of our community. We have so far invested almost $20 billion in projects to improve transport in the west of the city. That ranges from level crossing removals, like the one at the Melton Highway in my electorate, through to the removal of the congested Taylors Road–Kings Road roundabout. After years of campaigning and working with the community the $7 million upgrade for that new intersection has saved lives and has made lives easier. With the congestion that used to exist there, particularly during after-school pick- ups in the late afternoons, between parents coming back from work and juggling their kids to and from sports training, that intersection would very, very quickly back up, and with the removal of that roundabout we are seeing that traffic flow so much better. We have also seen investments to convert two roundabouts at the Melton Highway–Sunshine Avenue–Old Calder Highway intersection around Taylors Lakes to change that junction from two very closely placed roundabouts that are very dangerous for pedestrians and are way over-represented

BILLS 1446 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021 in the number of accidents that happen at those roundabouts. We made it a commitment at the last election to invest $16.86 million—thanks to the Andrews government commitment—to actually get rid of those really congested roundabouts and put in traffic lights to improve the flow of the traffic but also to make it safer for pedestrians. We have a number of schools and there are schoolchildren that use that area, and this is going to make a huge difference. Two weeks ago I attended the launch of a campaign by Brimbank City Council around their call to upgrade the Calder Freeway, a road with statewide importance that runs through my electorate and serves many communities in the west. The council’s campaign is requesting an upgrade of the Calder Freeway, in conjunction with some of our local lobby groups, including changes such as more lanes to widen the road across the Maribyrnong River bridge in Keilor, add emergency lanes and a new treatment in the turnoff at Calder Park Drive off the Calder Freeway. As many members in this house would know if they have travelled up to Bendigo or in fact further on right up the Calder, that becomes a bottleneck late in the evenings in peak time. I have raised these matters in the house, and I thank the Minister for Roads and Road Safety for meeting with me on this issue just recently, and the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, who has had a very keen ear in talking to me about this particular need in not only my electorate but the surrounding electorates as well. I will continue to consider the issues that have been raised by the council and residents around this campaign and continue to lobby. Of course every death on our roads is a tragedy, and this bill has significant proposals to hold dangerous drivers to account. I know there have been families in my own electorate who have lost loved ones and that has had a very devastating effect on their families. The bill closes loopholes that can see interstate or overseas drivers not facing any accountability for dangerous driving. We allow those with interstate or international drivers licences to drive in Victoria when they are visiting our beautiful state. Driving is a great way to visit many of our amazing tourist attractions, but, for example, if a driver breaks the speed limit, that offence would require a Victorian’s licence to be suspended. This does not apply to someone whose licence comes from elsewhere—interstate or overseas. This is a big gap that we need to change, and this bill does that. It ensures that a court will now be required to disqualify the offender from driving in Victoria for the same period as a person who holds a Victorian drivers licence or permit. The bill also brings changes in the similar situation that if an offence would attract immediate suspension by police for someone who holds a Victorian licence, someone who commits the same offence but does not hold a Victorian licence will be immediately disqualified from driving. In Victoria our zero blood alcohol content requirements keep us safe on our roads. This has been a massive change that we have seen in the last 20 or 30 years. We now know as part of our psyche as drivers that drink driving is not on and that you will get caught. Having these requirements restated through this bill and having them applied to interstate offenders who hold interstate licences is a very important part of this. Another loophole addressed by the bill relates to the unsupervised learner drivers. I am proud to have taught my two stepdaughters to drive, huge milestones in their lives, after some laughter and even tears. But learning to drive comes with a significant responsibility and learner drivers must take their new freedom seriously. Particularly they must not drive without a licensed supervisor in the car with them. For learner drivers, driving unsupervised is as dangerous as driving without a licence. Currently learner drivers driving unsupervised attract a maximum court penalty of 20 points, whereas the maximum court penalty for unlicensed driving is 60 points. This is an anomaly that does not treat both offences equally. While the exact penalty should be decided by the courts, I am pleased to see that the bill addresses the inequality around these issues and puts both offences on an equal footing. Communities in the outer suburbs, like those in my electorate, use roads to stay connected, and I welcome the changes that this bill brings in order to make our roads safer. Ms CONNOLLY (Tarneit) (16:35): Well, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on the Transport Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2021 this afternoon, and this bill really does reflect our government’s continued commitment to improving our transport system right across Victoria and indeed my patch of the outer west, Tarneit. Now, Victorians know that this government,

BILLS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1447 the Andrews Labor government, is synonymous with the Big Build that is transforming our state. Earlier today I had a little bit of a chuckle back in my office down there, and I think it was the member for Evelyn who tried to liken the way in which my colleagues and I talk about the Big Build as being as if we were talking about a person, I think it was, and referring to this person on a very regular basis. Well, I say to the member for Evelyn and anyone else who thinks that on this side of the house we talk about the Big Build as a person: this would be a person that Victorians absolutely love. Let me tell you why they love any person associated with the Big Build. It is because this person is getting on right across our state with changing the lives of Victorian families, changing the lives of people in my community of Tarneit and making their lives a whole lot better by reducing congestion, building bigger, better roads, building more train stations and, most importantly, getting people to where they want to go sooner rather than later so they can spend more time with their loved ones and less time in places like the car. The last time we debated a bill like this I had the opportunity to talk about some of the really fantastic projects that our government is delivering for Tarneit families, and I am pretty pleased to stand here this afternoon and reflect truly on how these projects have progressed since, because they have really come a long way. The $1.8 billion western roads project has now been completed, and I cannot begin to tell you here today how much of a difference this has made to my community. I see this on a daily basis. I have people emailing me constantly on a daily basis about how fantastic the western roads project has been for them in getting in and around our local community. Now, when I am out in the electorate or I am even just back in my office and talking to staff, all I hear about is how much easier these upgraded roads have made it to travel around my electorate. Driving down Leakes Road—Leakes Road is the blood line of my community. It cuts across all the suburbs involved with the electorate of Tarneit, and for years and years—for far too long—it used to be a slog, with roadwork after roadwork and peak-hour traffic on some days bringing it to an absolute standstill. But today it is an absolute breeze, with duplicated and in some areas even triplicated roadways making the journey to and from, most importantly, the West Gate Freeway that much quicker. Forsyth Road has seen a refreshing upgrade, with a duplicated bridge across the freeway and a brand new intersection at Old Geelong Road replacing what was a really ill-equipped T-intersection and roundabout. It has never been easier for commuters in my community to get between Hoppers Crossing, Williams Landing and Point Cook with these works now complete, and these are just two of the eight roads, all in Wyndham, that have seen massive, massive upgrades. Derrimut Road in some areas is absolutely unrecognisable from what it was, as is Palmers Road. That we have delivered these life-changing road upgrades is something that as a government and most certainly as the member for Tarneit we can all be incredibly proud of. We are not just upgrading our roads. The Level Crossing Removal Project has been hard at work day and night in my community to fast-track the removal of the Old Geelong Road level crossing. Now, works are progressing very well on installing the new road bridge while the foundations of the new pedestrian overpass are currently being built. This level crossing removal is something that my community has wanted for a very, very long time, and I know just how glad they are to see that it is being removed for good within this term. By next year, not 2025—some locals tried to tell me it would be 2025—Wyndham will be level crossing free from Laverton to Werribee, just in time for the track upgrades as part of the Geelong fast rail. Now, when I think of these projects and of the benefits they have brought to our community, I am reminded that they have only been possible because of our government’s commitment to making Melbourne’s west and, really importantly, Melbourne’s outer west—the west is a very big place to live—a great place to live, because it is only Labor governments that deliver the vital infrastructure that we need in the west. We all know it, which is why I found it pretty interesting a couple of weeks ago hearing about those opposite and their plan for a surplus by 2026 if they are elected next year. I would absolutely love to hear from those opposite what that would mean for my community in Tarneit, for the families that live in Wyndham and for the western suburbs of Melbourne, who always seem to

BILLS 1448 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021 miss out when those opposite are in government—because we were absolutely set back the last time they were in power, in government. When I hear from my community about how glad they are that these works are now done, they often lament—I think that is a polite way of saying it—how these should have been done years ago. And I indeed agree with my community. The four-year period of the Baillieu and Napthine governments was a period of absolute paralysis in Melbourne’s west and something that our government has worked really hard—we have spent a lot of money—to make sure we have turned around. I would love to stand here in this place and would love to say that these works are the solution to all of our transport issues, but we know that is not the case. Tarneit and the outer west continue to experience unprecedented growth, and we will continue to need investment from our government— investment from our government into infrastructure, into the infrastructure right into our future. These are investments, I say to my local community, that only an Andrews Labor government will deliver for us. What I fear from the rhetoric of those opposite, when they talk about budget savings and cuts to spending, is that my community and Melbourne’s west will once again be left behind. When I think about how we have almost finished removing every level crossing in Wyndham, I am reminded that those opposite had wanted to stop every single one of them if they had got in at the last election. That is really important for my community to hear. If they had got in at the last election, Wyndham would not be looking at being level crossing free on the metro line, and that would be for the sake of budget savings. Now, when complications arose on the West Gate Tunnel Project they wanted to can it altogether. They even moved a motion in the Legislative Council to do so, with no regard for the commuters in my community for whom the project will in fact be life-changing. I have to laugh when instead I hear them trot out the old east–west link promise—a project that has been proven to be of low cost-benefit to the community, that has been voted down by the Victorian people time and time again and that has never really offered any real benefit to commuters in my community trying to get over the West Gate Bridge. I really hope that when the Leader of the Opposition somehow found his way to our local community recently in Wyndham, he took the opportunity— Ms Green: Was he lost? Ms CONNOLLY: Likely—to see what our government has been up to in Wyndham. I hope he got to drive around on the roads that we have just upgraded and he got to see the level crossings that we are removing and the state-of-the-art schools that we are building, that we are constructing, right across Wyndham. For a bloke who has probably acknowledged we need to do quite a bit more—there is still more work to do—you never hear him acknowledge that they failed to do anything out there in their term of government. Because if all those opposite could see the visionary work that our government has achieved in my local community, they might just be inspired with a vision of their own instead of trotting out old, worn policies like their ‘African gangs’ in my local community and their talk around crime. Again, it is very disappointing to see that rhetoric. Now, I could speak for hours about the benefits of this bill, the benefits of transport infrastructure for communities like mine. This bill is another step forward in our government’s commitment to a bold infrastructure program, and it needs to be bold because it is unprecedented growth. All of this infrastructure is life-changing for our community, and it is why I wholeheartedly commend this bill to the house. Ms SETTLE (Buninyong) (16:45): I rise to speak on the Transport Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2021. While the bill makes a number of amendments to the transport portfolio, my contribution will focus on road safety—I believe part 5. Victoria has been an absolute world leader in road safety if we look back across history, with the introduction of seatbelts and random breath testing in the 1970s. I will be showing my age to say that I can remember a time before we had seatbelts. My mother talks about having us when we were little in one of those bouncinette things and sticking that

BILLS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1449 into the gap in the chair. That was what was your baby seat in the late 1960s. I for one am very glad we now— A member interjected. Ms SETTLE: Yes, lucky I’m here! I am very glad that we saw seatbelts and random breath testing in the 1970s. We also saw bicycle helmets and the TAC ads in the 1990s, random drug testing and reduced speed limits in the 2000s, and mandatory disqualification, behaviour change programs and zero BAC for all drink and drug drivers in 2018. We really have been world leaders in road safety, and I am very glad for that. As everyone in this house knows, I am the very proud representative of a regional electorate, and very sadly the regional roads are a lot more dangerous than any of us would like. Last year 126 people lost their lives on rural and regional roads compared to 120 in Melbourne—so not a huge difference but too big a difference for me. More than half of all fatal crashes in 2019 occurred in regional Victoria even though just 24 per cent of the population live outside the metropolitan area. Country drivers are five times more likely to die in a car crash, and regional road users are more at risk because of long distances, higher speeds and the greater chance of a head-on crash. Road safety is of absolute importance to us in the region. It is literally life-changing, life saving. This government is investing $1.7 billion into road safety infrastructure to work towards a future where no-one is seriously injured or killed on our roads. We are investing in projects that matter. This includes upgrading hundreds of intersections and entries into regional townships, building new roundabouts, installing wide centre lanes and delivering safer pedestrian and cycling infrastructure. It also includes installing over 3000 kilometres of flexible barriers and 14 000 kilometres of rumble strips. The statistics show that upgrading road infrastructure is working, in particular the use of flexible safety barriers. The flexible safety barriers that we have built on the first 20 high-risk roads were hit more than 5400 times from 2016 to December 2019. Each time that is potentially saving a life or certainly preventing serious injury by stopping cars from crossing to the other side of the road or hitting objects like a tree. The total number of deaths and serious injuries caused by head-on and run-off-road crashes on these roads has dropped by 66 per cent—from 120 people in 2015 to 41 people in 2019. So these projects are absolutely life saving and vital. I know locally we have really, really welcomed the investment into road safety in my electorate. There has been an incredible amount of work done along the Midland Highway. That runs basically between Ballarat and Geelong, and over the course of this government and the previous 2014 Andrews Labor government there has been a lot of work done to that Midland Highway. I know that anyone who drives on it will recognise the passing lanes, but really also the life-saving barriers that are along there. The Scotsburn campus of Buninyong Primary School is along there, and I know for a long time they had great concerns about the right-hand turn into the school for their families and students. That was recently completed under this body of work—so incredibly important work. We have also seen works on the Colac-Ballarat Road. So if you are heading off to Colac from Ballarat, you come off before Buninyong and when you get to Enfield and Dereel, through the Enfield forest there, we are just doing at the moment an enormous amount of work around putting in safety barriers. It is a beautiful drive along there through the Enfield forest. You do have to watch out for roos, but anything we can do for safety there is very important. Mr McGhie interjected. Ms SETTLE: There is a very good little pub out there, member for Melton; indeed there is. We have also invested in school crossings. We made an announcement about this the other day. It was interesting that when I was talking to the media I said, ‘Look, we tend to think about cars when we talk about road safety, but in fact road safety has also got to be about our pedestrians’. We have just very recently announced some really good work to protect our pedestrians. At Buninyong Primary

BILLS 1450 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

School they are raising the footpaths as you go to cross the Midland Highway to make them more obvious. We are also making more substantial a crossing in the heart of Sebastopol, so that is crossing the Midland Highway from the library. But one that I know is really big for the people in my community is the Hertford Street roundabout. Sadly this was an election commitment, and it has taken a little bit of time to get done because we did get hit with a worldwide pandemic, but I am absolutely delighted to hear that this year we will be seeing the Hertford Street roundabout become the Hertford Street lights. It is interesting that that roundabout—and the member for Melton will know himself when he enters Ballarat from the township of Buninyong—is an absolutely fundamental thoroughfare for us. So seeing that improved is going to really, really improve a lot of people’s lives. It of course connects two major highways, and the wonderful Phoenix P–12 Community College is on Hertford Street. I would really like to work with council to get a bit more done around Hertford Street. We are onto the roundabout, but I would really like to see Hertford Street itself have a bit more work done on it. The intersection sees 2900 vehicles during peak times, and that is expected to increase, so it is incredibly important that we get that work done. Certainly one of the most important things, when I was out and about talking to people in my community, was what they wanted fixed, and that was really the one thing that they wanted fixed more than anything. But of course our roads are not just for cars. They are also for cyclists, and Ballarat is a very big cycling town. We have the major competition every January there, so to us it has been really important to see the legislation come in to protect cyclists. So this government is protecting road users, it is protecting pedestrians and it is protecting cyclists as well. This bill, the Transport Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2021, seeks to address a series of loopholes that exist for some people that do not have a Victorian drivers licence—typically people from interstate or overseas. For example, if a driver commits a speeding offence that would see a Victorian have their licence suspended, currently this would not apply to someone who does not hold a Victorian licence. It is interesting, because my ex-husband was an Englishman, and when we moved out here at that stage you could actually drive for as much as two years just on your UK licence. So there was a good two-year period that people would not have been asked to do as all other Victorians would. Learner drivers driving unsupervised is a behaviour that is as serious as unlicensed driving. My youngest now is on his learners, and it is incredibly important that they are supervised correctly. Some of these loopholes are very important to have closed. The bill extends the definition of ‘relevant traffic infringement notice’ to capture speeding offences that now attract mandatory licence suspension. This will ensure that high-level speed offenders will not be able to hide behind body corporates and avoid licensing sanctions. So while the amendments in this bill might seem fairly technical, they are very important in keeping everybody on our roads safe. As I said, regional Victoria suffers disproportionately in the area of loss of life on the roads, and anything that this government can do for regional road users to keep them safe—I commend the bill to the house. (Time expired) Mr HAMER (Box Hill) (16:55): It is a pleasure to rise tonight to speak on the Transport Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2021. It is always a pleasure to follow my colleagues the member for Tarneit and the member for Buninyong and to learn about what investments in transport are happening in their areas. I know certainly in the Box Hill area we have never seen anything like the amount of transport investments that are occurring in our area—the Suburban Rail Loop, North East Link and the removal of level crossings. As well, some key service improvements along the bus routes on Belmore Road—routes 302 and 304—are making a huge difference. The northern part of the electorate relies very heavily on our bus network, so it is great to see all of these service and infrastructure improvements moving ahead in my area. The legislation is quite broad and provides a number of amendments to a number of different acts. There are a couple that I do want to focus on, one in particular being the changes to the Bus Safety Act 2009.

BILLS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1451

These make up the bulk of the changes in this amendment bill. Under the current legislation bus operators are required to obtain a bus operator accreditation or registration, depending on the type of bus service provided or the type of bus used—so depending on how many passengers are actually using that bus and they are licensed to carry. This bill will consolidate the bus operator accreditation and registration scheme so that all new bus operators are required to demonstrate competence and capacity before being permitted to operate. You might say, ‘Well, why is this relevant and how does this actually translate into the real world?’. I have got, I guess, a couple of examples from my own working life, where the use of minibuses was—for want of a better word, maybe I would say—omnipresent. I worked at Melbourne Airport before coming into this place, and soon after I started the airport started work on the new terminal 4 building, including the new terminal 4 car park. In the terminal 4 car park, the bottom area of that car park was designed primarily for bus transport. Now, that was bus transport of all shapes and sizes, and indeed all shapes and sizes of buses did actually use that facility. The SmartBus route that goes through to Melbourne Airport stopped in the terminal 4 car park, but you also had all of the staff buses that would take the huge number of staff that were working at Melbourne Airport coming from the staff car park and bring them into the terminal. You would also have the minibuses that were shuffling from the off-airport car parks—so a huge number of operators, almost too many to count. They would bring in their passengers. If you sat there for half an hour, you would probably see 30 to 50 buses, depending on what time of the day it was, and many of them would be minibuses, because that was their business model. They were not operating on a specific timetable; they were on-demand service providers providing a connecting service for those passengers who were catching a flight and parking in their off-airport car parks by bringing them into the car park. In that context it does not really make sense to have different rules and different regulations and different registration systems for operators that are effectively providing the same service. They are a passenger service—a commercial passenger service. They are providing a service in carrying other people for a fee. In that context, whether they are moving staff or whether they are moving a passenger or whether they are moving someone who has a Myki ticket should not determine what level of registration they have in terms of being able to operate that service. I think it also opens the way for a bit more of a broader discussion. I know in many places in the world, particularly in the United States, the concept of what they call vanpool is quite significant. A lot of large businesses with large numbers of employees are not located in the centre of the cities. They are located out in suburban areas on very large areas of land, and part of their commuting offer is company- provided transport—sometimes it is contracted out but organised by the company—to allow their workforce to get to work. That way the workforce do not have to buy extra cars and sit in commuter traffic for half an hour or an hour in some very heavily congested cities in the US. The US federal tax system is actually set up so that there is a certain benefit that is afforded to employers who provide this benefit to their employees without it actually attracting a fringe benefit tax, something that perhaps the federal government could think about in trying to promote different forms of public transport. We see, particularly in Melbourne but in a lot of our cities, that large employment centres are located in our outer suburban areas which are relatively poorly serviced by public transport. But even if we are able to service those areas by providing better public transport and put on more routes and more services, it does not always suit the needs of the employees because of the time that they actually need to get to work. Again I would use Melbourne Airport as an example. So many of the flights from Melbourne Airport start at 6 o’clock. That means if you are working at the airport, even if you are working in the retail setting, you would need to usually be there at 5.30 in the morning. Now, if you are not running buses at that time, and sometimes it is not feasible to be running buses at that time or running buses every 10 minutes at that time, here is an option to look at: employee-based buses that can pick up people from their homes or near to their homes and bring them straight into their workplace. Lots of areas in Melbourne could benefit from these types of services, and it is important that we have a framework in place that allows a consistency across the industry. Whether you are providing a large bus on a route level that is carrying a large number of passengers through the busiest

BILLS 1452 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021 time of the day or you are targeting specific commuter markets between specific origins and specific destinations, they are still part of the commuter passenger mix. In the 90 seconds that I have remaining I want to just touch on the changes that are proposed to the Road Management Act 2004. Specifically they focus on the changes in relation to what is called the Alphington link. I know the member for Northcote has spoken about this. It is something that is also quite important to me because several years ago I lived very close to that particular link and it was always a frustration of mine. I could literally see the path from my house but I could not get onto the Yarra trail. I could not ride or walk to the Yarra trail without riding down Heidelberg Road and Grange Road, two extremely busy roads in the north-east in the member for Northcote’s electorate. I think this is a barrier to a lot of people. To a lot of people who want to get out and have more physical exercise, having these linkages is critical, and finally enabling this and finally making it happen will make a huge difference to the people of the north-east. So I commend the bill to the house. Mr KENNEDY (Hawthorn) (17:05): I am pleased to speak on the Transport Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2021, and I am very conscious of following the member for Box Hill who, as always, has enormous attention to professional detail. That attention reflects experience and qualifications in this whole area, and it is always interesting and engaging to listen to what he has to say on this topic. Unfortunately I cannot say the same for the member for Euroa, who opened the batting for the opposition. Unfortunately we were treated to a fairly general contribution: throwing around clichés like ‘a very sorry mess’, trying to be funny, talking about how the Big Build should be called the ‘big bust’—I mean, that was a killer—and then something about a strip of land that was 4 metres wide and something or other. It was nothing like the attention to detail that you would have from the member for Box Hill, for example. There were words like ‘shocking’ and then that very vague thing about what all the money could have done or what other things in life it could have done. So I am speaking generally because thankfully, I suppose, the member for Euroa has opened that idea that we can speak generally on this particular matter. Mind you, I am about to move into the specifics— not at the same level of detail as the member for Box Hill, but I particularly wanted to just say something about the member for Euroa, who was on this business about taxpayers money. Now, this is a very favourite theme of our current Prime Minister. He likes to keep saying, ‘It’s your money, it’s your money’, and that comes across to me as just so utterly selfish and without any regard to what your money is being used for—and that is called the public good. I think we have to stop using those clichés about tax. It is a winner because hip-pocket nerve is everything for some people, I am afraid to say—no-one in this house of course, but generally speaking it comes in. And it is a winner, the hip-pocket nerve, but we just have to say to ourselves, ‘Let’s not keep talking about taxpayers money without equal reference to the public good’—what good is being served with taxpayers money. I am delighted to start to tell you a little bit about that as we move into this bill. It makes a number of amendments to transport portfolio legislation. However, today I will be focusing on the proposed road safety reforms specified in the bill. Victoria has had a longstanding commitment to road safety and a strong history of road safety achievements, such as seatbelts and random breath testing in the 1970s; bicycle helmets and TAC ads in the 1990s; random drug testing, reduced speed limits and graduated P-plate licensing in the 2000s; mandatory disqualification, behaviour change programs and zero blood alcohol for all drink and drug drivers in 2018; through to police powers to immediately refuse more dangerous drivers—the anti-hoon powers, you might say—from our roads, which are due to come into effect in November this year. However, people continue to die on our roads due to the reckless conduct of some drivers. So this bill introduces a number of amendments to the Road Safety Act 1986. The changes specified in the bill largely consist of minor or technical amendments, but they improve consistency and clarity, and address anomalies in road safety legislation. So coming down to tintacks a bit more, what will this bill do? The bill addresses the longstanding problem of drivers who do not have a current Victorian drivers licence but who maintain an interstate or overseas licence. A number of loopholes and technicalities have been evident in relation to this group.

BILLS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1453

Some drivers would be well aware that by virtue of their time spent in Victoria they are obliged to obtain a Victorian licence. For many in country areas who frequently visit and drive in Victoria a similar difficulty exists for our police seeking to apply the road rules. Examples of the difficulties encountered include if a driver commits a speeding offence that would require a Victorian to have their licence suspended, this could not apply to someone who does not hold a Victorian licence. The bill ensures that a court will now be required to disqualify the offender from driving in Victoria for the same period as the person who held a Victorian licence or permit would be suspended for that offence. Similarly, if an offence would attract immediate suspension by police for someone who holds a Victorian licence, those who commit the same offence who do not hold a Victorian licence will be immediately disqualified from driving. Interstate offenders who hold an interstate licence subject to an interstate alcohol condition will be subject to the zero blood alcohol requirement in Victoria. Administrators of alcohol interlock conditions will be required to treat a visiting interstate driver who breaches a condition in the same way as they would treat a Victorian who breached an alcohol interlock condition. Moving further along in this exciting journey, the bill also addresses a problem regrettably occurring regularly relating to unsupervised learner drivers. For a learner driver—essentially an unlicensed driver—to drive unsupervised on public roads is as serious as unlicensed driving. However, the maximum court penalty for learner drivers driving unsupervised is 20 penalty points—approximately $3300—whereas unlicensed driving attracts a maximum court penalty of 60 penalty units, and that is approximately $9900. The bill addresses this anomaly and notes that this is a maximum penalty at the discretion of the court to give. There are currently a number of approved alcohol interlock suppliers, providers of behaviour change programs and safe driving programs in Victoria all contributing to safer Victorian roads. Commercial experience reflects the likelihood for the device suppliers and program providers to be subject to future mergers or name changes. Prior to the bill there was no way in which the originally approved enterprise could have had their approved status transferred to a new entity. In such a circumstance the bill ensures that providers will not need to reapply to maintain their approved provider status. As the bill’s wideranging scope covers a broad canvas, time today does not permit a detailed study of all its provisions. I will just turn now to touch upon a number of the more significant aspects within the bill dealing with vitally important bus services upon which so many Victorians daily rely, and which was obviously of great interest to the member for Box Hill. The bill makes several changes to the Bus Safety Act 2009. It will simplify the current bus accreditation and registration arrangements into a single-tier operating accreditation scheme, with all new bus operators required to obtain accreditation under the new scheme. In order to be eligible, applicants for bus operator accreditation will need to prove to Transport Safety Victoria (TSV) that they are able to provide services safely and satisfy a fit and proper person test. In short summary, the current requirement is that bus operators either obtain a bus operator accreditation or registration, depending on the type of bus service provided or the type of buses used. Fundamental to the provision of a bus service is the requirement that bus operators show competence and capacity to provide a safe service regardless of the service provided or the types of buses used. The bill does this by consolidating the previous bus operator accreditation schemes. You can see there is a wide variety of things being offered here, but they are all aimed at the one thing: improving our safety. It is also making public transport so much better and so much safer and so on, and as someone who does not drive a car himself I am all in favour of anything that improves public transport. These changes and others set out in this particularly comprehensive bill mean that TSV as the industry safety regulator will be a far more effective body. The commencement date for the new accreditation scheme provided for in the bill is 1 March unless an earlier date is proclaimed. The scheme is intended to commence on this date, which provides sufficient time for the implementation tests to be undertaken. I have great pleasure in commending the bill to the house. Mr RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (17:15): It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Transport Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2021 and to follow the great member for Hawthorn in his contribution. I will try to do it justice and give a bit of a slant from the Mordialloc electorate on

BILLS 1454 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021 some of these reforms that are really critical to building on our support for transport infrastructure, safety improvements, road safety and better support for our bus network as well. When we think about the current juncture that we are at as a state and as a community, we see the unprecedented levels of investment in the projects that matter to communities. The lead speaker—I was in the chair at the time listening intently to the lead speaker—the member for Euroa, really talked down the Big Build projects and the agenda that has been on display and that generational change that is coming. When we came to government there was over $100 billion in the backlog of infrastructure investment and transport outcomes. We have got a $100 billion plus transport infrastructure pipeline right now getting underway, and I am seeing that impact on behalf of my community and leading that call for more investment in our community. We are seeing that transform outcomes in our local area. When we came to government in 2014 a lot of people thought it was unconscionable to remove 50 level crossings by 2022. Now we are ahead of that schedule. We are delivering more level crossing removals—and in fact we went further at the 2018 election as part of our commitments to improve safety and to upgrade our train network, with 75 to be removed by 2025. Just now we are seeing the Chelsea, Edithvale and Bonbeach level crossing removals underway. We will see buses replace trains all across our network during that time. And it is really important as well that as we have a substantial increase in bus services, we make sure that the safety regulations are so very important. This is part of what this bill does. Obviously a number of our bus operators in our community do an incredible job, so to make sure that we streamline the regulatory processes and those training outcomes is really important. But we are going to see some really rapid transformation and improvement in our community with those level crossing removals. And then as we get underway with the completion of the Mordialloc freeway—that is 60 per cent plus completed now—it was great to hear some of the safety improvements that are going to be achieved in my community by taking some of those heavy vehicles off local roads and giving local roads back to local residents. But also along that journey we will be creating jobs and supporting employment as we come out the other side of the pandemic. That is all about all that visionary policy that you put together to deliver outcomes for our local community. So that will be done by the end of 2021. The level crossing removals, as part of the Big Build, will be done by the end of 2021, and the new stations will be opened in 2022.That is what it looks like to commit to improving our transport infrastructure network and to commit to improving safety in our local communities and delivering that for the future. I want to talk about one key element in streamlining the boating and fishing amendments in the bill and particularly bringing some of the boat regulations out of the Department of Transport and into the boating and fishing space. That is really important. It is really an exciting policy space for my local community; fishing and boating in Port Phillip Bay is our culture, it is what we connect with and it is our community. And the policy commitments that we have made and implemented in removing fees on ramps and on improving boat ramps, particularly around Mordialloc, have been gratefully received by our local community. Particularly during a time when a lot of that activity was restricted, during 2020 as we dealt with the health pandemic, we really appreciate that so much more—that recreation time with family and community—and our investment and our support has been substantial in that space to deliver those outcomes for the future as well. That is really important to streamline some of that regulatory space and bring it all under that portfolio area. I think that is a really important reform as well. Also critically important in the road safety space are the impacts recently to the commercial passenger vehicle industry. Obviously they have been heavily felt during the COVID-19 pandemic, some of the impacts we have seen across our area. It has been a substantial impact, the impact of COVID-19 and those safety improvements and upgrades, and so the support in this bill in that area is really critical. I wanted to make particular mention of some of the road safety law improvements. Obviously the work of the Minister for Roads and Road Safety and Minister for Public Transport is so critical in this

BILLS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1455 space. We cannot accept anyone being impacted at all in our communities as a result of road trauma. Everything we are doing in the campaign striving towards zero people lost on the road is so very critical. Behind every tragedy is a story of significant impact on families as well. I am really, really pleased with, proud of and reassured on behalf of my community by some of the reforms we have already done as a state and as a community. Whether it is wire rope barriers, whether it is improvements to roads, whether it is our infrastructure investment, it is all about making sure that people are safe on those roads. Some of the technical amendments that have been made that have been talked about and gone through—some of those are in the Road Safety Act 1986—are very important. Those around alcohol interlock conditions and some of the references to learner drivers are really important outcomes that a number of members have spoken about on this bill as well. Finally, in these few minutes I wanted to place on the record our appreciation for all of our bus operators and the bus drivers and the transport workers over the last 12 to 18 months. There has been such an impact on the community during the pandemic, and the work that they do is so very critical. I know that a number of advocacy groups, whether it is the Bus Association Victoria or the Transport Workers Union, have done an incredible amount of work in this space in supporting and representing their members or their union members in striving and improving safety outcomes and efficiencies in this space as well. When we think about some of the challenges during that time to making sure our transport network continued to function at the best possible level that it could in the face of all the unprecedented impacts on our transport network, as we come back to better usage and to better patronage as well it is really critical to look at the reforms and improvements that we can make. So finally, just to wrap up and to give other members an opportunity to speak as well, we have heard a lot of talk about the Big Build on this bill, particularly from some of those opposite, those on the other side. It is really interesting when they talk down some of the major infrastructure projects, whether they are saying they would not proceed with them or that they would not have taken those actions. On this occasion I had a look back to some of the coalition policy around level crossing removals previously. Some of those level crossing removals—Mentone and Cheltenham, for example—they had out to 2023–24, into the nether, over the forward estimates. They were never going to deliver on those outcomes for our community. We have delivered them. We have knocked them out now. They are built, and the brand new train stations are there now. They are opposing our Big Build agenda and that futureproofing of our communities. Whether it is the Suburban Rail Loop that starts from Cheltenham and goes all the way through to Box Hill in stage 1—22 kilometres of rail infrastructure, a visionary policy for the future—or whether it is the Metro Tunnel and where we have seen that get up to, it has been absolutely outstanding, and we are seeing just today further progression of the stations and upgrades. It has been an incredibly busy time in our state for our infrastructure. I wish this bill a speedy passage through the house, and I commend it to the house. Mr TAYLOR (Bayswater) (17:24): It is with great pleasure that I rise today to make a contribution on the Transport Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2021. It is fantastic to be in this place with so much enthusiasm and excitement for transport, as all members of the Andrews Labor government have. I was just talking to some colleagues to my right here—the member for Preston and the Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers—and hearing about some of the fantastic local projects that we are kicking on with locally in their patches. And honestly, the run-down, the very significant and full-throated support of local projects out in the member for Mordialloc’s patch—I tell you what, it is all happening. If your Facebook newsfeed is anything to go by, you are a busy man. I do not know how you get it all done, mate. Mr Richardson: Packed posts. Mr TAYLOR: Packed posts. Scheduling posts is a beautiful thing. It is fantastic to rise and speak on this bill and talk about the detail of this bill but also some of the fantastic things that the Andrews Labor government is kicking on with. It would be rude and remiss

BILLS 1456 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021 of me not to start this contribution by acknowledging not just some fantastic contributions from my colleagues in this house but the ministers who have worked on this bill, the omnibus bill—a lot of work has gone into it—and all the staff and departmental staff who have put their two cents in as well. We know that one of the objectives of this bill is to support the delivery of government commitments, and we know that this government, the Andrews Labor government, is absolutely committed to kicking on with the critical work of building the state and building for its future. As we come out of the pandemic and are still dealing with the effects of it, as we move into COVID normal and as we move into the recovery phase well and truly now, well supported by each and every Victorian and the sacrifices they have made, we know that our private sector is coming back online. We know that we have got significant confidence returning to the Victorian economy and returning to the Australian economy. We know that the Victorian government, the Andrews Labor government, has to play a significant role in supporting the recovery. Part of that is kicking on with the work that we are doing with our Big Build, and part of it is we are currently in that transport construction boom with 165 major road and rail projects being built. Of course it is not just about current works; we have plans underway for many projects that are set to transform the way that we get around in Victoria. The major transport projects are expected to support, in the immediate future, 18 000 direct and 38 000 indirect jobs for an unprecedented $80 billion program. One of the things that people often criticise governments for and criticise politicians for is, ‘What are you doing outside of your four years?’. We are very lucky to be in this place, and even though I am on this side I am obviously a very proud member of the Andrews Labor government—my geographical location in the house could confuse some. But people often say, ‘What are you doing beyond the four years that you have got?’, because obviously we live on the good grace of democracy and the people every four years at the ballot box. People want to know what you are doing into the future. Well, in terms of transport, I am very, very happy to advise people and to advise my community that we are kicking on with major game-changing, transformational projects. It makes me proud to be part of this government, and it excites me for the future of what transportation and travel will look like in this great state. The Metro Tunnel is something that we announced many, many moons ago now, and of course we have brought it forward a year. 2025 will be the big date that we get the opening, and I cannot wait to jump on. I do not know if I can swing myself onto the first train ride. I am hoping that if I am still here in 2022 that might give me a leg-up. But that is just an exciting piece of infrastructure, and that is going to change the way that we travel, particularly by linking up those growth corridors, untangling the city loop and creating thousands and thousands of jobs. Recently—well, it feels like recently, but we will not be there for a while—I was very lucky to travel to Japan. You go through Shibuya and you go through all the wonderful metro stations, and you think to yourself, ‘Jeez, we need some of this in Melbourne’. That is exactly what we are doing here. It is fair to say governments of all persuasions probably have dropped the ball to an extent when we talk about this game-changing infrastructure and these transformational infrastructure programs, but the Andrews government have kicked on with it with the Metro Tunnel. Ever since we have been elected we certainly have not wasted a moment. The Metro Tunnel opening in 2025 is going to unclog our city loop and get people moving again, and not just into 2025 but well into the 2020s. But also there is the Suburban Rail Loop. I mean, that just lit people’s imaginations. I remember when that dropped on the Premier’s—‘dropped’ is a word that the kids use in the 21st century—Facebook page. I remember that I was actually still a prosecutor at the time, and I saw the video turn up on my Facebook feed. I was still a local councillor working in the police force, and I saw that video and I literally sent it to—I kid you not; I am not just saying this for the effect in the chamber—I could not even tell you how many people, because I thought, ‘My God, we’re actually doing this’. I thought it was April fools. I thought it was a hoax. But I saw that, I got to campaign on it, and then in the last budget we announced significant funding. Early works are already starting. We know that boring machines have done kilometres of work. I know that the member for Mount Waverley is a huge

BILLS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1457 supporter of the SRL. If anything ever supersedes this in terms of transportation projects in Victoria, whether you are Labor or Liberal, I take my hat off to you—and given the hair that I am losing and the rate that I am losing it, I will not be far off wearing hats. That is transformational. I know that locals are extremely keen to see the SRL kick off well and truly in 2022, and that will be something that I will be out there talking to my community about. But something that really excites me in terms of the transportation projects we are doing is the North East Link. The North East Link is an absolute game changer. The way I put it, it is about getting into and across the city sooner. And of course we know that it is the state’s single biggest roads project in our history. Importantly, at a time when it is needed more than ever, it is creating good jobs— 10 000 jobs, and that is just direct jobs. But also I get people coming and talking to me about the transportation issues that they have, and when we talk about some of the benefits of the North East Link—which has started well and truly in earnest; it is early works—they come and talk to me about that Alexandra Parade and Hoddle Street equation. It was an absolute pain in the backside in fact coming in this morning, and this is going to take pressure off. It is going to take 11 minutes off your commute, on average, into the city, because we are going to completely overhaul the Eastern Freeway. You will not even know it. You will not recognise it, so take some photos for your before-and-afters, because it is all happening. It is all happening because we are going to overhaul the Eastern Freeway. We are going to build the tunnel, we are going to build Victoria’s first dedicated busway and of course we are going to add more lanes—and it is going to add over $5 billion to the outer eastern metro GDP. And what is better is the project stacks up—$1.30; $1.40 if you add in some of the other tidbits—so it returns money back to the economy, it gets people to where they want to go sooner and it closes the missing link. For years there has been this missing link in Victoria’s freeway systems, and now we are finally going to be closing the loop. I am excited; I am absolutely excited. Locally as well, Canterbury Road–Bedford Road in Heathmont was an absolute pain of an intersection—unsafe. We had some nasty prangs there over the course of the journey. That is now delivered. We have extended the right turning lane on Canterbury, and we have fixed up the left slip lane on Bedford coming out to Canterbury, and it is an absolute purler. It is good to see the Minister for Roads and Road Safety and Minister for Public Transport in here and the former minister, the member for Williamstown, who was a very strong supporter of some local roads and public transport projects out in my electorate. Of course we are all for kicking on with work at Alchester Village roundabout—$7.7 million. The Department of Transport are in earnest working on the final scope of those works to see how we can make it safer for locals to access, to get across—pedestrians and vehicles and people alike—and traverse that intersection, which is getting much, much busier in the current urban environment. I am looking forward to sharing more with locals. The Knox shared pathway is going to be an absolute ripsnorter. It is going to be closing this missing link from—I think it is—somewhere down in the south-east, down in the sand belt, all the way up to Chirnside Park or thereabouts. I could be wrong, but I feel like the distance is somewhat similar to what the actual missing link is between one location and the other. But this is a shared pathway across Burwood Highway. No more will people have to go across those nasty boardwalks going through the back of Wantirna at the back of Wantirna Reserve—very weird, very creepy, so no more. People will be able to go right across Burwood Highway and link up to the Dandenong and EastLink creek trails. It is going to be an absolute purler. We have had tons of maintenance. Safety barriers are going along Stud Road, which will make it safer for locals of course as well. We have got upgrades to Heathmont station which are now underway, with $1.7 million of works—platform canopies, resurfacing, new seating, new lighting, all that kind of stuff, new fencing. It is going to be absolutely fantastic and will give it a new lease on life. It has not been upgraded in years.

BILLS 1458 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

Something as well that is really close to my heart is the Basin. For Basin locals it is a fantastic local, connected community. I recently wrote to the minister in this house at the moment about the need to slow down traffic, to slow down the speed to make it safer for locals—safer for local school kids, pedestrians and commuters alike—and I was very glad to receive some correspondence back from the Department of Transport recommending that the speed be reduced to 40 kilometres an hour. We are working very closely with the minister and with the department to implement the electronic speed limit signs, to implement that policy, to make it a safe area for everyone to get across. I know that this will make a huge difference to safety for locals in my area, and this goes to the very heart of this bill about road safety. I am very glad to be part of a government that is committed to road safety, not just talking about it. We are reforming lots of things that absolutely frustrated me as a copper and as a prosecutor. We are getting it done now to make sure that when you do the crime you do the time, no matter what state it says on your licence. We are continuing our push to make transport much better in Victoria. I commend this bill to the house. Ms HORNE (Williamstown—Minister for Ports and Freight, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Fishing and Boating) (17:34): I rise to contribute in relation to the Transport Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2021. As the Minister for Fishing and Boating I would really like to speak to part 7 of the bill, which amends the Victorian Fisheries Authority Act 2016 to expand the functions of the Victorian Fisheries Authority (VFA) to include recreational boating. It also ensures that authorised fisheries officers are provided with legislative protection when enforcing numerous laws concurrently. With our coastline, bays, rivers and 13 000 natural wetlands, it is no wonder so many Victorians love to get out there and explore and cast a line. Boating and fishing play a really important role in our community but also for the Victorian economy, with a $4.5 billion contribution and employing 17 000 people. So we have brought together Victoria’s key recreational fishing and boating infrastructure agencies under that one roof to deliver an integrated approach. It is estimated that approximately 70 per cent of recreational boating activity is fishing related, which is a bit of a no-brainer, really, isn’t it? That means that there are so many synergies between recreational boating and fishing portfolios and that community needs in relation to boating and fishing are really closely aligned. This is one of the key reasons why this government combined the fishing and boating ministerial portfolios. So this bill consolidates recreational boating and fishing functions by transferring the operational boating functions performed by the Department of Transport to the Victorian Fisheries Authority. It is this consolidation that is already delivering efficiency gains in relation to infrastructure project delivery and service improvement. It also maximises alignment and coordination of the fish- stocking activities of the VFA with the development, upgrade and maintenance of facilities that are needed to access those really important recreational fishing opportunities. It is this operational alignment and increase in delivery capacity that are vital to delivering on this government’s extensive recreational boating agenda, because Victorian boaters have long lobbied for the establishment of a legislated fund to ensure that every single cent of licensing and registration fees is being spent back on boating safety and facilities, and that is precisely what we have done, with the Better Boating Fund coming into effect on 1 July this year. The Better Boating Fund delivers on our election commitments to allocate proceeds of collected boat licence and registration fees to improve facilities and safety and to establish the Better Boating Fund for urgent upgrades and for continual maintenance. It is a really significant step that will not only deliver on the election commitment but set up that process for future reforms needed to support and improve the boating sector. But there is a lot to go in this recreational boating space. Right now we have got upgrades happening to boat ramps and facilities at Hastings, at Rhyll, at Queenscliff, at Point Richards and at Mordialloc. We have completed repairs to Cowes Jetty and established eight casual berths at the St Kilda marina and also the Rye low landing. We reviewed boating infrastructure management in Port Phillip and

BILLS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1459

Western Port, and we have worked with the boating asset managers to remove all fees and make it cheaper and easier for Victorians to get out on the water. Our aim, though, is to build a pipeline—that is, over the next two years to establish a more mature and predictable project development and delivery pipeline for the development and management of boating facilities. We have already got designs and planning underway for Mahers boat ramp, for Lang Lang boat ramp and for Cowes boat ramp, all of which have been passionately advocated for by the member for Bass. We have got the Cape Conran boat ramp design underway, and there are new access ramps at Barkers Creek in Bendigo West and Upper Coliban Reservoir, which the member for Macedon has also been in my ear about. Ms Hennessy interjected. Ms HORNE: Passionate. We have got the Warneet car park and boating facilities design upgrade, and let us not forget, thanks to my friend here the member for Altona, that Altona car park upgrade, and I cannot wait to get down and have a look at that with you. At Clifton Springs there is a car park upgrade as well, and there is the new pontoon at Ocean Grove, because although the member for Bellarine may be recovering from that important surgery, it is really important to keep working and upgrading those facilities now. The other day I was down at Werribee South with the Treasurer, and can I say what a spectacular location that is. The water was as still as glass. There were pelicans there. The car park was full on a Friday, with people out there fishing. As tempting as it was to jump on a boat—because I met Phil, who was going out there to go whiting fishing—the Treasurer and I refrained. It is really good to see that design underway. Of course there is the Toora replacement pontoon going in in the member for Gippsland South’s electorate. There are 30 new seasonal moorings on the Mornington Peninsula being designed and jetty and wharf upgrades at Metung, Eagle Point, Flagstaff, Steamer Landing and Paynesville as well as those important repairs to Stony Point boat ramp, Corinella jetty and Limeburners jetty. Designing and planning works are also in the pipeline for boat ramps in the state’s south-west. A couple of weeks ago I met with members of the harbour reference group and Warrnambool City Council to really understand the work that has been done in design and planning to upgrade the boat ramp at Lady Bay. It is in a shocking condition. I know these works have been a long time in the planning, and the Warrnambool harbour reference group have committed enormous amounts of time and energy to get these plans finalised. On the same day I also travelled to Lake Bullen Merri, which is one of only two lakes in Australia where you can fish for chinook salmon. A member: Where is the other one? Ms HORNE: The other one is at Lake Purrumbete. Now, chinook salmon are a Canadian fish, and they are a trophy fish prized by anglers. Together with the South Beach Foreshore Committee of Management, the Camperdown Angling Club and the Corangamite Shire Council, I was able to inspect the ramp and really understand the need for repair and upgrade. What a power of work all those involved have done to get this project to a shovel-ready stage. This is a lake that is used in all seasons and can drive real economic benefit year-round. What we have got underway is a really ambitious and unprecedented program in recreational boating. It is supported by this government’s $47.2 million investment to improve recreational boating across all of Victoria. The organisational changes proposed in this bill are needed to support more efficient and effective project delivery. It is a really important step in getting the most out of the increased investment that this government is making in boating facilities, because—let us face it—boating and fishing are pastimes that large proportions of the community really love and enjoy. This change will

BILLS 1460 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021 ensure that we are working even closer together to make fishing and boating better and more affordable for all Victorians. I commend this bill to the house. Ms HENNESSY (Altona) (17:43): It is a delight to follow my friend the member for Williamstown, who also brings her ministerial expertise to this very important omnibus bill, the Transport Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2021. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge her incredibly important and hard work, particularly around the boat ways and waterways and piers and fishing facilities in Melbourne’s western suburbs. Particularly the good people of Altona but also those that more genuinely enjoy fishing and boating are incredibly excited and grateful for the commitment and investment that is being made. I am reliably informed that the whiting fishing is very, very good in the area at the moment, and as a keen cook I also know the member for Williamstown could have expanded upon her contribution and shared the way in which she cooks some of these delights from Port Phillip Bay. But with that kind of cheeky indulgence, this is of course an omnibus bill. It does have seven major parts that are important reforms—but reforms that perhaps did not necessitate an entire bill of their own. I would like to comment very briefly on a couple of those areas of reform. We have heard some really fantastic contributions around buses and the importance of buses today, with people talking about some of the reforms that are contained in the omnibus bill. I suppose the hook for people making those contributions was about the regulatory reform that is contained in the omnibus bill. There has indeed been a bit of a regulatory gap when it comes to smaller style bus services, from on-demand to commercial passenger vehicles, and we have got to make sure, whatever the regulatory model is, that it is fit for purpose and that it is changing and responding to the changing nature in which people are transported. We know that this is the largest growing section of transportation, and I am pleased to have the Minister for Public Transport and Minister for Roads and Road Safety in the chamber. He has been an absolute champion when it comes to leading reform and investment and supporting pilots for things like on-demand bus services. Things like on-demand bus services are really critical in growth areas. We heard the member for Tarneit, my neighbour out in the outer west, talk about just how critical that connectivity is when we are delivering and expanding and people are moving into new housing estates. Using things like on-demand bus services not only solves some of the immediate and short-term transportation connection problems but also, I think, potentially opens up and solves some of those issues around: how do you get better connectivity for people’s need to rely on a bus service to be able to get to a station? That is certainly a really significant issue out in the outer west, particularly where we have got two major radial lines, in the Sunbury line and the Werribee line, but a lot of space in between and a lot of housing development. I am wont to remind both the chamber and the government more generally that Melbourne’s western suburbs now constitute over a quarter of the Victorian population, and we have got to keep finding innovative transportation solutions to make sure that people are able to connect—to get to places like their workplace but also to be able to travel locally without getting in cars. It would also be remiss of me not to acknowledge the minister for roads and public transport’s incredibly important commitment and investment in last year’s budget around a particularly troublesome roads area in my electorate, and that is Point Cook Road. Investment around expansion and signalisation is going to be incredibly welcome. On some of those important radial roads we are looking at innovative bus-only lane solutions in order to try and get up to those stations from Williams Landing to Laverton to Aircraft. All of those are really critically important when you have got a population of over 50 000 people and you have got limited roads access in order to get to those major train lines as well. So I really welcome the investment and the sorts of reforms that are contained in this omnibus bill. One of my favourite topics is regulatory models. Often we hear particularly from those that occupy a more neo-conservative position on the ideological spectrum about: what is the role of government and regulation, and what is the role of the state? Those who are the most ardent supporters of deregulation

BILLS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1461 are in fact often arguing for some form of reregulation. I think the balance has been struck correctly in this bill. It seeks to not impose a huge administrative burden on those that might be providing smaller style transportation services. It is very cognisant of the impact of the regulatory touch in this new area that is now the subject of regulation under this omnibus bill. It takes what it calls a ‘risk-based’ approach. So it does not say that there is the one-size-fits-all approach for those larger commercial entities that are providing public transportation in the bus sector and those that are newly emergent entries into things like the on-demand transportation sector. It says, ‘Let’s analyse the risk and apply the right regulatory tool in response to that’, and I think that is a really sensible way to go. It is cognisant of what some of the market disadvantages are. It is cognisant of the fact that we as a state have a strong interest in incentivising people into improving access to transportation in all of its forms, but it is also saying that you should not be able to work and commercially operate without regulation and that you should not be given a competitive advantage that other sectors of the transportation industry do not have. And so again I think that has been a really sensible and important part of trying to strike the right balance, and it is not always an easy job. My neighbour the member for Tarneit touched on the western roads package as well. Again, I would like to double-down and commend the great enthusiasm that the member for Tarneit shared with the chamber as she expounded the very, very important benefits of that package. I was delighted to spend some time with the member for Tarneit and the member for Werribee, sometimes known as the Treasurer with tight pockets, last Friday as we were looking at what some of the road flow implications have been of that important investment. It cannot be understated. It is really critically important. We cannot put our heads under a bushel and pretend that everyone that deserves the opportunity to try and buy a house and live in a community should be totally reliant on public transport. It is just not reality. We need good, reliable, safe roads and we need good, reliable, connected public transport, and we as a government are committed to delivering and improving on both of those fronts. Particularly the Forsyth Road–Old Geelong Road intersection has been a source of incredible frustration for so many people in the western suburbs. To see that improve with the western roads package is a matter that is worthy of great celebration, and it is deeply welcomed by the community. The other angle to that package has been the incredible employment impacts that that package has had. So many people in our communities in the outer west work in things like the construction industry and the supply side of those industries. We should be in no doubt that when we invest in those sorts of transportation packages we are not just improving transportation and supporting things like the important freight and logistics industry—another important part of the economy in Melbourne’s west—we are giving local people jobs. We are supporting them in order to try and get a foothold into the housing market and get a roof over their head. They are spending money in our local supermarkets and at our local shops. They are investing money when they go away for the weekend to places like regional Victoria. The multiplier impact of doing the right thing by investing in good transport is actually something that is building new histories in people’s lives. It is letting them get access to quality housing on quality wages on quality projects. It is also enabling other parts of the broader economy to have reliable access to logistics. That of course then attracts and invites investment, and that of course generates employment. So these are all important and integrated and holistic in the benefits that they bring, and whilst all of those issues are important policy aims, the little things that are done in this omnibus bill enable those things and they keep them safe. I wish the bill a speedy passage through the house. Mr FOWLES (Burwood) (17:54): It is my pleasure this evening to make a contribution around this Transport Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2021. It is of course an omnibus bill. There are lots and lots of moving parts here, and that has facilitated some of my colleagues expanding on a whole range of matters—fishing matters, bussing matters, local projects, a whole range of things. I think it speaks to the broad, the considered, the progressive agenda that this government has in relation to roads and road safety and to fishing and boating. It is terrific to have heard so many of the contributions by my colleagues before I had the opportunity to get to my feet.

BILLS 1462 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

There are a couple of areas that I am going to endeavour to focus on in my remaining 9 minutes, and the first of those is around the Bus Safety Act 2009 changes, including a really important bit of simplification. The test for registration becomes one of whether the bus operator is a fit and proper person rather than whether they ought to be disqualified for a specified reason. Now, that sounds a bit esoteric and wordy, but what it does is bring the legislation more into line with a number of other licensing provisions in other domains that the state regulates and allows each person to be considered on their own merits, or lack thereof, rather than on whether they have taken a specific action or even a proscribed action. I think one of the key changes here is that currently there is a split system where registration and accreditation are two separate processes required in two different circumstances, and this bill will make it a single system where all bus operators are required to be accredited, and I think that is a very sensible measure. This is a bit unusual; this is almost the magic pudding of regulation, where you actually get to cut red tape but strengthen the regulatory framework at the same time. Cutting red tape, strengthening the quality of the regulation—it is a very, very good amendment. I am very pleased to see the minister at the table, who has been leading a terrific agenda—Labor’s terrific agenda—when it comes to improving roads and road safety and to taking a very sensible view, a balanced view, about the regulation required in this space. I was horrified in preparing for my contribution this evening to see the response around learner drivers driving unaccompanied—to see that 5000 L-platers are pulled over every year charged with driving by themselves. That to me is a gobsmacking number. The 16- and 17-year-olds in my personal orbit would no sooner consider taking the keys and taking themselves for a spin than fly to the moon, to be honest. I find it is just incredible that those sorts of numbers are involved in it. I think we all understand in this place that some regulation is anticipatory but much regulation is reactive. And the fact that we find ourselves in a position where we have to react to those circumstances is disappointing—it absolutely is. The fact that we find ourselves having to up penalties on people who are typically 16 or 17 years old and driving unaccompanied is incredible. Now, the Leader of the Opposition thinks that that is a bit of a stretch and we should not be coming down hard on kids making a silly mistake. What I would say to that is that once again the opposition seeks to run the headline ahead of the substance. The headline of course is around the maximum penalty, but there is of course judicial discretion. As a party Labor typically opts against mandatory sentencing. It is not really an approach we have been much inclined to in government, state or federal. And of course a maximum sentence is going to be reserved for only the most egregious of offences. I am sure the sentencing guidelines will support this in due course, but I very, very much doubt that a first offender would be looking at the prospect of incarceration, particularly if their little unaccompanied drive has not resulted in anyone being injured or, worse, killed. I think it is important to note that on the sliding scale of penalties for this sort of conduct we have moved out the upper end of that sliding scale and provided for some hefty penalties, because driving unaccompanied as a learner is dangerous. That is the reality: it is dangerous. It should not be happening, and if we need to have a stronger disincentive in place, well so be it. I note that the bill also inserts new section 76A into the Bus Safety Act 2009 to allow for regulations to be put in place for hazardous areas, such as alpine regions, which will restrict those who can operate there to ensure that the drivers are trained for the appropriate conditions, that buses operating in those areas are the appropriate vehicles with the appropriate drivers. And talking about alpine conditions gives me the opportunity to talk a bit about the annual trope around Melbourne supporters and the ski season. I want to place on the record that it is cheap, it is lame, it is base, it is unnecessary. A member interjected. Mr FOWLES: I am very pleased to say that the Labor caucus includes three Melbourne supporters these days. Times, they are a-changing. And it is not often I find common ground with members to my right, but it is entirely possible that there are more than three Melbourne supporters in their tiny caucus. What I will say is that the Melbourne Demons are off to a flyer: seven wins in a row—can you believe it?—for the first time since my father was 10 years old. That is how long it has been, and with

BILLS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1463 the news today that Christian Petracca has signed up for seven years, we have locked in Gawn, we have locked in Viney and we have locked in Clayton Oliver, well, it is good news for the mighty Melbourne Football Club. I for one am delighted that the season has gotten off to such a cracking start and am very much looking forward to joining the crowd at the MCG on Saturday night for Melbourne versus Sydney—or as we might say, Melbourne versus Souths, the Bloods. And I am looking forward very much to Melbourne once again acquitting themselves with aplomb in what will be a terrific contest. Can I say, I will not be skiing; none of my Melbourne-supporting comrades will be skiing. A member for Southern Metropolitan in the other place, Ms Taylor, is a Melbourne supporter; she will not be skiing. A member for Western Metropolitan in the other place, Ingrid Stitt—she will not be skiing. No, the Melbourne supporters will be here supporting our club, our team, doing a magnificent job out on that great arena, that absolute cathedral, the Melbourne Cricket Ground, to see the mighty Demons crack on. I find myself in some surprise that I have been able to push along with this topic for as long as I have, and I thank the member for Mornington for the indulgence. Members interjecting. Mr FOWLES: Well, it would be almost without precedent, wouldn’t it, if ever it was called for? Now, on a more serious matter, I can say that the changes we are making reduce the unfair regulatory burden that is there. It brings bus operators, including those in the alpine regions, all onto the same set of standards. It lowers costs; that money goes back into communities and increasing services rather than just being tied up in arbitrary bureaucratic processes. It will deliver, ultimately, the ability to have more success stories like that of the new bus stop we delivered in Burwood on Highbury Road. That was advocated for by the good folk at Abbeys Auctions, and I met with their director, Amanda Brook. She and her partner, Hugh Farrelly, run that business and they recently expanded it and ended up with two sites, one in Box Hill and one in Burwood—two great Labor-held seats, Box Hill and Burwood. One of their staff members, Lydia Lin, identified a gap in the public transport network between Box Hill and Burwood. There is a bus that services both areas, and at the end of its route it basically did a sort of long U-turn around the Burwood Cemetery and there was an opportunity to put an extra stop on the path it already travelled. So there was no route change per se, just an additional stop that dramatically increased the utility for all of those many businesses that occupy the western end of Highbury Road. All of a sudden a bus that was literally going past them anyway is stopping as a result of a bit of innovative thinking, clever thinking, from some of my constituents. And can I say to all of the many constituents following along at home this evening that I am keen to hear your ideas. We at least in the government—perhaps not in other places, but we in the government—do not think we have got a monopoly on all the good ideas. We actually listen to people from outside the chamber. We listen to the science, we respect those who are the experts in the field, and I would be more than happy—in fact I would be delighted—to hear your ideas. If there was just one thing you could change about Burwood, what would it be? So I look forward to my constituents getting in touch with me on that matter, and I commend this bill to the house. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr McGuire): That is likely to have been the first time an Acting Speaker was ever looking for someone to take a point of order. Thank you for the contribution. Ms COUZENS (Geelong) (18:04): I am pleased to rise to contribute to the Transport Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2021, and I will not say anything about the Cats, Acting Speaker. I will start by thanking the Minister for Public Transport for all the work that he has done. This bill makes a number of amendments to transport portfolio legislation, and my contribution will focus on the proposed bus safety reforms and road safety, given the time and the amount of information that we have got to put through today. This bill will amend the Bus Safety Act 2009 to implement changes to how bus operators are regulated in the future.

BILLS 1464 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

I think this also demonstrates the Andrews government’s commitment to community safety and how important that is, and I know my constituents in Geelong will be very pleased to hear about this legislation. Many of my constituents rely on public transport. They rely on the bus system in my community, and it tends to be a hot topic in my community, particularly at the moment around the bus hub in Moorabool Street, and I know that the minister is committed to ensuring that every one of my constituents who requires public transport and the use of the bus system will be able to do that. I am really pleased that we continue to move on with our commitments to public transport, to improving our bus network but also, as this legislation requires, to community safety and how important that is. Under the current Bus Safety Act bus operators are required to be accredited or registered, depending on the type of bus service they provide or the type of bus they use. The bill proposes to consolidate the bus operators accreditation and registration schemes so that only one scheme applies across the bus industry. This new approach of accreditation will ensure that all bus operators are subject to the same rigorous scrutiny before being permitted to operate in Victoria. And I do want to make a point of giving our bus drivers a shout-out for the work that they have done during the COVID pandemic but also for the work that they do every single day. I know on this side of the house we certainly support our bus drivers and the work that they do, but I think sometimes we tend to forget that they were actually on the front line too. They were dealing with the situations, making sure that people were safe on the bus, that the services continued to operate as best they could under extreme conditions, and many bus drivers in my community were very committed to continuing to provide a vital service to the community, and I know my constituents very much appreciated the work that they did. Under the new accreditation scheme all operators will need to demonstrate that they have the competence and capacity to provide bus services safely and will be subject to a fit and proper person test before being accredited. The changes will enable Transport Safety Victoria, who is the industry safety regulator, to be a more effective regulator and will support a more risk-based approach to regulations. The bill provides for a default commencement date of 1 March 2022 for the new accreditation scheme unless an earlier date is proclaimed. It is intended to commence the scheme on the default commencement date. This will provide the maximum amount of time to undertake any implementation tasks. There have already been discussions with the industry about the implementation of the new scheme. The first measures will be to update and make amendments to the bus safety regulations to clarify the obligations of bus operators, particularly in relation to key regulatory obligations such as preparing and complying with management information systems and maintenance management systems. I am really proud to acknowledge Victoria’s longstanding commitment to road safety and just how important that is. Every death or serious injury on our roads has a terrible impact on so many lives, not just the people involved in the crash but their loved ones, first responders and longer term carers. I know that there are many in my community who have, very sadly, had a loved one lost in a car accident and in all sorts of circumstances, and the tragedy for those families is almost unbearable for them to have to deal with. In Geelong last year or the year before—I cannot quite remember now, given we have lost a year—the TAC funded a road deaths memorial, which was attended by quite a number of people across Victoria who had lost family members in vehicle accidents. I heard their stories and listened to them talk about the impact that had had on their families. Some incidents were through drink driving, unlicensed driving or just an accident that had happened. There were a whole range of reasons why those deaths occurred, but to see those families come out and talk about their experiences and the impact for them I think was a really valuable lesson for my community and particularly for young people. We know that young people can be known to do silly things and not think before they act, but in terms of road users and protecting our community young people have to face the penalties when it comes to driving unlicensed and driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs, although it is not always young people that commit those offences. But whatever we can do to ensure that our community is safe is absolutely critical.

BILLS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1465

There have been a range of things introduced in Victoria since the 1970s—seatbelts, for example. Prior to 1970 you just jumped in the car and loaded up the kids. I know when I was a kid there were no seatbelts in our car, and there were eight of us in a vehicle when I was growing up. I would hate to think what would have happened if we had been involved in a road accident, but luckily we were not and I am able to stand here today. Things like seatbelts, random breath testing, bicycle helmets, random drug testing, reduced speed limits, mandatory disqualification, behaviour change programs—all these things are keeping our communities safe. There will continue to be incidents that occur, there will continue to be people that tend to do the wrong thing; that is human behaviour. We need to be changing that and changing it as best we can and responding appropriately when these issues arise. I think the police power to immediately remove dangerous drivers from our roads is another one. I remember the community campaigns around that—people who had committed offences were able to get back in their cars and continue to do what they were doing. That was a really important one, I know, for my community. I think due to the impact, as I have said, on families and loved ones who lose somebody in a car accident they often begin to campaign to make change to try and prevent those things from happening in the future. I am really proud to be part of a government that is taking the appropriate action. As I said, I commend the work of the minister and previous ministers before him who have focused on community safety, keeping us safe on the roads, making sure that wherever possible we are implementing change to continue to have community safety at the forefront of our minds. This is really important legislation. As I said, there are a whole range of areas that have been mentioned in this debate today, but for me the road safety and the bus issues have been ongoing things in my electorate, which is why I chose to speak on them. With that, I commend the bill to the house. Mr TAK (Clarinda) (18:13): I am delighted to rise today to speak on the Transport Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2021. This is a significant bill and an important bill. This legislation has several major objectives, which include supporting the delivery of infrastructure investment and implementation of an election commitment and other policy commitments made by the Andrews Labor government. I join previous speakers in supporting this bill. There is a lot happening in terms of infrastructure and transport projects in and around the Clarinda electorate. It really is an exciting time for transport in Clarinda and in the south-east. We have the Mordialloc Freeway, which is an amazing project to connect the Mornington Peninsula Freeway to the Dingley bypass. I was delighted to join the Minister for Transport Infrastructure and the member for Mordialloc at the site last Wednesday to announce the installation of the noise wall, made from 75 per cent recycled materials, and announce the contract awarded for the tranche 1B project and early completion of the tranche 1A project. It was an amazing announcement—world class—with the noise wall panel being made from 75 per cent recycled plastic. In practical terms this means 570 tonnes of plastic waste being converted into 32 000 square metres of noise wall. That is the equivalent of all the plastic waste collected from 25 000 Victorian households in a year. It is fantastic to see hard plastic from kerbside recycling as well as soft plastics, like those used in bread bags and food packaging, being repurposed and put to good use. There is a power of work going on with the Mordialloc Freeway. More than 2 million tonnes of material have been brought in for the building of the foundations of the freeway. There will be bridges over Springvale, Governor, Lower Dandenong and Centre Dandenong roads along with the new freeway entry and exit ramps and an intersection with traffic lights to connect the freeway with the Dingley bypass. There is also a new shared walking and cycling path along the entry of the freeway. So I would like to say thanks to all of the team that are involved. You are doing an amazing job, and I will be excited to see the completion of this project this year. As mentioned, this bill supports the delivery of infrastructure investment, and it will also refine transport schemes to improve safety, efficiency and effectiveness as well as implementing several technical changes that are needed to improve the operations of the transport laws. There are also some really important changes to the Bus Safety Act 2009, and I join the member for Geelong in

BILLS 1466 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021 congratulating the Minister for Public Transport and Minister for Roads and Road Safety on his hard work. Part 2 of the bill implements important bus safety reforms. Bus operators are currently required to obtain bus operator accreditation or registration, depending on the type of bus service provided or the type of bus used. The bill will consolidate the bus operator accreditation and registration schemes so that all new bus operators will be required to demonstrate competence and capacity before being permitted to operate. So this is an important safety reform. Bus safety has been an issue in my electorate of Clarinda for some time, and this was front and centre during the Clayton station rebuild. The team there did a brilliant job in ensuring the new station had safer access for passengers when changing from bus to train through the dedicated bus stop next to the train station and a dedicated bus link road as well as changes to commuter parking, including disability permit parking and a number of drop-off zones. Community feedback on improving bus safety really was a major factor during the consultations and ultimately drove many of the station changes. The dedicated bus link road between Haughton and Carinish roads has resulted in a real improvement in safety for commuters. Buses travelling to the station are now able to move freely to pick up and drop off passengers closer to the station, meaning that commuters no longer need to cross one of Clayton’s busiest roads. So these amendments here today are relevant to my community. It has been noted that smaller minibus operators are not subject to the same level of scrutiny as the larger bus operators, yet most of the growth in the industry is happening in the minibus area. As we transition to more demand in responsive bus and commercial passenger vehicle services, this is the area where we need more assurance of safety. This new consolidated scheme will be implemented by applying a risk-based approach to the assessment of competence and capacity that is less rigid and more effective than the current two-tier system of the regulations. In fact there are so many election commitments and transport infrastructure projects to get excited about at the moment. I am touched by the Mordialloc Freeway, and we also have the South Road upgrade happening, which many of my constituents are excited about, as is the member for Bentleigh, I am sure. We are upgrading the intersection along South Road between Nepean Highway and Warrigal Road to reduce congestion and improve travel times there. This is a joint project of the state and federal governments. We all are committed to upgrading South Road, a key east–west arterial road that links the Nepean Highway to the Dingley bypass. The upgrade will see improvements to five key intersections and improve safety. The project will also upgrade the existing bike path on the Nepean Highway, between South Road and Cummins Road, including upgrading fencing in key locations to improve visibility and safety. Also, the upgrades to South Road will add to the record development of Melbourne’s south-east transport network, making it easier for drivers to get to their destination. Importantly, the project will improve safety and reduce congestion for the more than 40 000 people who use South Road every day. Construction on the South Road upgrade is scheduled to start later this year, and it will be completed by early 2023. Once again, there is so much happening in the way of infrastructure and transport projects in and around the electorate. All of our road users will benefit from these improvements, and they will cater for Melbourne’s growing south-east now and for future generations. Finally, as we have heard, this is a significant bill that supports the delivery of infrastructure investment; refines transport regulatory schemes to improve safety, efficiency and effectiveness; and implements technical changes that are needed to improve the operation of transport laws. I commend the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, and I commend the bill to the house. Mr EREN (Lara) (18:22): I am delighted to be making a contribution on this very important bill before the house this evening, and of course that is the Transport Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2021. At the outset can I just congratulate and thank the hardworking Minister for Roads and Road Safety and Minister for Public Transport. He is a fantastic minister that gets it, that understands that the issues related to public transport and road safety are so important to our communities.

BILLS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1467

When you consider that the most precious commodity that we have is time, you do not want to spend hours on end on the road. That is why you need efficient and effective road planning for the future. We need to consider that Victoria prior to COVID was the fastest growing state in population in the country, and there were about 150 000 people per year that wanted to call Victoria home. Certainly along with that some challenges come our way as a government, and that is why we need to make sure that we have an effective and efficient public transport service and also an effective and connected road transport service. From that perspective this bill, which is a very detailed and lengthy bill, aims to support the delivery of infrastructure investments; implement election commitments and other policy commitments made by the Andrews government; refine the transport regulatory schemes to improve safety, efficiency and effectiveness; and implement technical changes that are needed to improve the operation of transport laws. The bill achieves these purposes by making amendments. The six main acts are the Bus Safety Act 2009, the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017, the Road Management Act 2004, the Road Safety Act 1986, the Transport Integration Act 2010 and the Victorian Fisheries Authority Act 2016. Consequential amendments are then made to the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, the Fisheries Act 1995, the Marine Safety Act 2010, the Rail Management Act 1996, the Sentencing Act 1991, the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983, the Transport Legislation Amendment Act 2020 and the Transport (Safety Schemes, Compliance and Enforcement) Act 2014. Again I want to thank the Minister for Public Transport for his work on this very important bill. As we all know, in October last year he introduced the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2020 and should be commended for his work in progressing initiatives that provide for the recovery of the Victorian economy and community. That bill supported the delivery of the Big Build projects, met government policy commitments and increased the efficiency and effectiveness of transport regulation. Today’s bill, the Transport Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2021, will further that by improving and refining the regulatory environment in which our transport system operates and ensuring that it is administered effectively and efficiently. As I have indicated before, it is of paramount importance that we get this right. This bill, as I have read out, is a very lengthy bill which we hope will get this right going forward well into the future. While the bill makes a number of amendments to transport portfolio legislation, my contribution will focus on the proposed road safety reforms specified in part 5 of the bill. I am proud of Victoria’s longstanding commitment to road safety, and, Acting Speaker, you would know that this is something I know well from my past days as the chair of the Parliament’s then Road Safety Committee. Our state has many achievements in the area of road safety, whether it be the introduction of seatbelts and random breath testing in the 1970s or of course the introduction of bicycle helmets and TAC ads in the 1990s. Importantly, there was also random drug testing, reduced speed limits and P1 and P2 graduated licensing in the 2000s, mandatory disqualification, behaviour change programs and zero BAC for all drink and drug drivers in 2018, through to police powers to immediately remove more dangerous drivers from our roads, which are due to take effect in November this year. Victoria has often led the way when it comes to road safety, but as long as people continue to die on our roads because of drivers behaving badly, we cannot afford to stop taking this matter seriously. I know that there are lots of technological changes that are being made to in-the-car technologies that now go a long way to protecting the driver. I know that through the work of the Road Safety Committee, when I was the chair of it, we initiated—of course for the government to act on—making the cars that are brought into Victoria or made in Victoria safer than any other. And that is why we legislated to make sure that every passenger car has electronic stability control, ESC, and side curtain airbags—in every registered vehicle in Victoria. And that means that these technologies save roughly 100 lives every year. That is why we have seen a dramatic downturn—a downward trend—in the numbers of fatalities occurring on the roads, which is a great sign, and I am hoping as the technologies get better in the cars that will continue to improve in terms of numbers of deaths on the roads.

BILLS 1468 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

As we know, every death or serious injury on our roads has a terrible impact on so many lives—not just people involved in a crash but their loved ones, first responders and long-term carers, depending on their injuries. That is why the amendments in this bill are so important. Although the changes largely consist of minor or technical amendments, they improve consistency and clarity and address anomalies in road safety legislation. This bill addresses a number of loopholes that exist for some people that do not have a Victorian drivers licence—typically people from interstate or overseas, for example. If a driver commits a speeding offence that would require a Victorian to have their licence suspended, this could not apply to someone who does not hold a Victorian licence. The bill ensures that a court will now be required to disqualify the offender from driving in Victoria for the same period as a person who had a Victorian licence or permit would have been suspended for that offence. Similarly, if an offence would attract immediate suspension by police for someone who holds a Victorian licence, those who commit the same offence and who do not hold a Victorian licence will be immediately disqualified from driving. Interstate offenders who hold an interstate licence subject to an interstate alcohol condition will be subject to a zero BAC requirement in Victoria. Administrators of alcohol interlock conditions will be required to treat a visiting interstate driver who breaches a condition the same way as if they had breached a Victorian alcohol interlock condition. Of course all that makes very good sense, and it will change the behaviour of those drivers that come from interstate or indeed overseas to know that there are serious consequences as a result of breaching the road laws in Victoria. Administrators of alcohol interlock conditions will be required to treat a visiting interstate driver who breaches a condition the same way as if they had breached a Victorian alcohol interlock condition. Another loophole addressed by this bill relates to unsupervised learner drivers. Learner drivers driving unsupervised is a behaviour that is as serious as unlicensed driving. So there is a lot of detail, and I know that the previous speakers from the government side have eloquently put the substance of this bill into Hansard and therefore on the record. I think it is important when we have legislation and law in this place that we as members of Parliament make sure—as ministers do—to take the responsibility of getting the message out to our own electorates as well to make sure that people understand there are laws that are changing so that they are not caught out and they cannot say, ‘We didn’t know’. That is why it is important. I know the TAC and other road agencies do this sort of advertising to ensure that the community knows what laws are intended to change so that people can have warning in terms of the consequences of breaching some of these laws. This bill is a very important bill to secure and to make sure that we have an efficient, effective and affordable public transport service, that we have roads that are safe and of course that we connect Victorians to other Victorians. That is why it is such a great bill. I congratulate obviously the minister responsible for this bill. I wish it a speedy passage, and I look forward to the contributions other members will make on this very important bill. Mr SCOTT (Preston) (18:32): It is a pleasure to rise on the Transport Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2021. As other speakers have touched upon, miscellaneous amendments bills usually consist of a large number of items or amendments which in themselves would not constitute a single act of Parliament, and they are brought together in order to ensure often technical matters are dealt with in such a way that it improves the efficiency and good operation of laws here in Victoria. I will touch on a couple of aspects of the bill. I do not intend to make a particularly lengthy contribution, but there is a particular aspect of the bill relating to the amendments of the Road Management Act 2004 which relate to the provisions for compulsory acquisition of land for the purposes of pathways which have been developed as part of the Alphington link project, which affects the community I represent. Although this is outside of my electorate—and I note the member for Ivanhoe is here and some of that area involves the member for Ivanhoe’s electorate and also the member for Northcote’s along with other pathways that link to the Yarra trail and other such similar bike and walking paths—this is a particularly important recreational facility available to residents in the northern suburbs.

BILLS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1469

It is particularly noteworthy and I think worthy of praise that the relevant golf club’s, which is the Latrobe Golf Club’s, management supports the compulsory acquisition of the parcel of land, which I understand represents 600 square metres, to allow for the completion of this link. It is important because this will allow for the linking of a number of pathways, particularly bike paths, in the northern suburbs to allow greater recreation. I would encourage all members to avail themselves—I can see it is not too far from the Speaker’s electorate—of the wonderful walking and bike facilities that exist along both the Darebin and the Yarra and in fact the Edgars and a number of other creeks in the northern suburbs. The construction of the Alphington link will provide for further recreational and in fact commuting opportunities for members in my own electorate who use it. I will confess that I myself use this particular area of pathways in terms of recreation with my family because they are spectacularly beautiful and they provide wonderful linkages. But there is a gap, and the compulsory acquisition of this land will provide the basis for the Alphington link to be completed, which will ensure that the particular facilities that exist along the Yarra River and the Darebin Creek in Alphington and those in Fairfield and other areas can be linked together into a much more integrated network. This will be of great benefit not just to the constituents that I represent but across the northern suburbs of Melbourne. Again, this is a particularly spectacular and beautiful area of Melbourne, which I will say, with the indulgence of the Speaker and the house, provides a place of refuge and contemplation for not just me but large numbers of constituents and others in the surrounding areas. I also will just touch upon some other aspects of the bill briefly. The bill provides for the consolidation of recreational boating and related fishing functions under the Victorian Fisheries Authority. Now, I will not touch upon the detail, because it is designed to deliver efficiencies and improve service delivery, but I would like to make a brief comment that both the fisheries activity and the boating activity provide recreation and enjoyment for over a million Victorians who enjoy not just the great outdoors but the pursuit of boating and the pursuit of fishing, often of course combined, and this is a really important part. So an amendment, although of a technical nature, which brings together the regulatory framework under the Victorian Fisheries Authority is a logical step and one which will improve the regulatory framework in which these wonderful activities are undertaken. There are also changes to the bus operator accreditation and registration schemes, with a consolidated scheme which will be applying a risk-based approach to the assessment of capacity and compliance. This is to replace the current two-tiered system for permitting entry into the bus industry, and having a more risk-based approach will ensure greater efficiencies. As has been touched on by previous speakers, bus services are an utterly critical part of our public transport infrastructure. For many parts of Melbourne and Victoria it is bus services which are the public transport which is available. We often think of public transport in terms of heavy rail, or trams if people happen to be in the inner city, but particularly in regional areas and in the outer suburbs it is often only buses, so it is important to ensure that we have a regulatory framework which is nimble, effective and risk based and which allows both for the appropriate regulation of the bus industry but also for new entrants into the bus industry. I note that buses particularly service a large proportion in terms of kilometres travelled. There are a similar number of persons who are, say, carried on trams as buses, from my memory of transport statistics, but those persons are carried over a much, much larger distance on average. So buses service particularly outer suburban areas and also regional areas in a way that other aspects of our public transport system cannot. There are also a number of technical amendments, such as ensuring that there are no gaps in protection provided for the Victorian Fisheries Authority’s authorised officers when monitoring compliance and playing their important role in enforcing law. There are also reforms to ensure that the director of transport safety is a sector transport agency to ensure flexibility in terms of resources and the reallocation of functions, and there are other minor and technical amendments to the Road Safety Act 1986, the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017 and a range of other acts. This is a technical series of amendments which will improve the operation of our transport system. I will again

BILLS 1470 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021 emphasise that in the northern suburbs it will allow compulsory acquisition, which will support the Alphington link project, which is so important to the community not just that I represent but across the northern suburbs. I commend the bill to the house. Mr CARBINES (Ivanhoe) (18:39): I am pleased to contribute to the Transport Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2021, and I certainly commend the Minister for Public Transport for the work that he is doing on public transport. Can I just say that there are some particular aspects in relation to this bill that we would both be familiar with, Speaker, since we often ride our bikes—maybe not in the most recent times, not this week anyway for me. But we do traverse the trails on the Darebin– Alphington link, the Darebin Yarra Trail link, on our way to this place and on return. To the member for Northcote, I want to pay tribute to her for her advocacy and her teamwork in a neighbouring electorate and for the work that we have done together on the new Alphington link on the Darebin Creek. It goes back some way, and it is touched on here in relation to this bill and the miscellaneous amendments, particularly going back some time to the Northcote by-election, when the then Minister for Roads and Road Safety, now Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers, was responsible for a commitment that we made to make the Farm Road link, as it was then described, to continue to improve our active transport links across both the Ivanhoe and Northcote electorates. I have been really pleased that among some of the work that has been done of course was up to about $18 million around that Darebin trail link, which has seen a significant portion of linking through Sparks Reserve in my electorate, traversing just along the alignment of Latrobe golf course and linking up the Darebin trail with the Yarra trail, allowing people then to connect up to the new Chandler Highway bridge—that $110 million project which has been fantastic in breaking open congestion in the northern suburbs, making those links in Kew and to the city for those working across the northern suburbs of Melbourne. I want to pay tribute to former member for Northcote Fiona Richardson and the work that she did in advocating for that project, I know in opposition, when she was certainly seeking my support of her advocacy to the now Premier, the member for Mulgrave. You do not understand potentially the toughest jobs until people really commit to them. And when we had the Premier out to announce our commitment to the Chandler Highway bridge duplication—I do not know when it was, but it was on my birthday, 15 June, back then in opposition—he said, ‘I can’t believe we are getting all these toots; we are getting shouts and yells and thumbs up as people are driving past. I can’t believe just how big this is’. And I said, ‘You’ve got no idea just how important this project is’. Anyone who has since then driven across that Chandler Highway bridge can look to the side of the bridge there and see it looks tiny, the original bridge, which provided a fantastic service to our community but of course has been an arterial link—and the shortest highway I think in Victoria—across the Yarra River for so many families and so many workers across our community. But part of that is that it is another part of the active transport links underneath the bridge, connecting up then as we travel through to the pipe bridge and The Boulevard and through into the city. So the new link around the Chandler Highway bridge duplication has been really significant. All of this interconnecting work links us back to a very significant project in that Darebin Yarra Trail link, which is touched on of course in relation to this bill, and in particular around how the Alphington link goes through a parcel of land owned by the Latrobe Golf Club, a private club. I have had the pleasure to play a couple of rounds there. It is fantastic course, and I congratulate the members there. I know there are always some difficulties and some challenges when land is acquired for greater public purposes to link and provide opportunities for active transport across our community, but I really think it is in the best interests of everyone. The Cultural and Recreational Lands Act 1963 provides that land can be acquired by agreement or by an act that authorises compulsory acquisition for specified purposes, and this bill authorises compulsory acquisition of approximately 600 metres squared for public purposes—not potentially for golf of course and driving ranges but to provide active transport links in the northern suburbs of Melbourne back into the city for those who use the Darebin Creek Trail, which Banyule City Council has provided significant upgrades to and is expanding and bringing up to appropriate standards. It is significant work to get in there with several bridges and other links,

BILLS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1471 and we have done that for that Darebin Yarra Trail link, particularly under the time of Minister Donnellan’s stewardship of that portfolio—really significant work. I know that Banyule BUG, our bicycle user group, is really pleased with that work, and so is the running group that I am part of at Ivanhoe Park. We duck along The Boulevard and we run that Darebin Yarra link down there to Kew and return, and it is packed with people. Certainly right through COVID time they were just about wearing a hole in the path, such was the number of those on bikes, walking their dogs or going for a run. It is a safe and fantastic connection for our communities, and also it does provide those links between the Ivanhoe and Northcote electorates and the very significant infrastructure investments in public transport around the Chandler Highway bridge, those active transport links. This of course brings me back again to the significant commitment that was made some time ago but has been subject to a range of complexities, which is that final Alphington link with Darebin Creek, which provides great opportunities for local schools. We have a really narrow Heidelberg Road and Heidelberg Road bridge and a narrow footpath. There are challenges there for young families and for young people who are on their way to and from school to do so safely, to do so effectively and to give peace of mind to families. So what we know is the long-term community advocacy and the work that everyone is doing to provide appropriate links through culturally sensitive waterways, with the Darebin Creek and the Yarra River, working with private entities such as Latrobe Golf Club to make sure that—without disenfranchising people—there is a greater community benefit of how we can use that land. And I am really pleased to be working with the member for Northcote in her leadership and advocacy to make sure that we get the right outcome, a just and fair outcome, as well as one that is effective in terms of providing those active transport links in our communities. We have done so much to link up those active transport trails that the miscellaneous amendments bill that we are dealing with on transport legislation goes to just sorting out that last aspect of the link that will be critical for our communities and the way in which people want to not only move around our suburbs but commute between the city and our electorates. So I really do commend those miscellaneous amendments in particular and the effectiveness that they will provide for our communities when we can see them realised. It just goes to the complexity of these matters, but I know that the outcomes are going to be very significant for our community, and I am really pleased to add further benefit from projects that people said could not be done in that southern part of our electorate— in my electorate—across the Darebin Yarra Trail link and also then the Chandler Highway bridge, the active transport links that we have been able to deliver there. We also see on Heidelberg Road we have got the trial at the moment around the active transport links, which has been just an absolute boon for the community. Some of us stick to the trails and the pipe bridge, others are prepared to take on Heidelberg Road, but we have made it safer and more effective, and there has been overwhelming support for that trial. It has been really significant, given the number of lanes on the road and the capacity there, to provide some dedicated cycle lanes that then allow people to link up with Clifton Hill and work their way through Wellington Parade and other links back into the city. They are really significant changes, and we just need to be thinking more effectively about how we move around the city and provide greater opportunities. A further one of course is the $5 million funded commitment in my electorate between Heidelberg and Rosanna stations to have an active transport link there. Already we have got the use of those rail corridors for other active transport links between Rosanna and Macleod and then to the south, and we have the opportunity now to iron out between Heidelberg and Rosanna with a $5 million funded commitment. The active transport trail through there is the next little bit of work that we are bringing to fruition at the moment. And again that just goes to show, I think, the really dedicated work that we are trying to do to make sure that active transport links are effective across our community, just as we have done in duplicating rail track between Heidelberg and Rosanna, just as we have done in duplicating the Chandler Highway bridge, just as we are doing in relation to the North East Link Project that traverses my electorate and making

BILLS 1472 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021 sure that we move a traffic sewer—for those trying to travel between the ring road and Eastern Freeway—out of my community. We can put them under parts of my community, but we are going to make sure that those projects are effective for the longer term future of the Ivanhoe electorate. Mr McGUIRE (Broadmeadows) (18:49): I am delighted to join the debate on transport. It is absolutely critical, a major link for everyday people, for their work, for the infrastructure, for building back the jobs that we need and the new industries of the future, and I do want to remind the house that the Brumby government invested $80.3 million in the Broadmeadows central activities district more than a decade ago to help transform Broadmeadows into the capital of the north by redeveloping the station, building infrastructure and creating jobs. Broadmeadows lost this defining investment to the one-term Victorian coalition government when it cancelled the project and redistributed the funding from Victoria’s most disadvantaged community to Frankston. Of course they were trying to sandbag that seat, and they lost. I really want to make sure that those who are watching and are part of the debate today and those in the gallery from the Young Labor movement understand the history, the heritage and the significance of why Labor matters. These are defining investments. It was an investment to make this a catalyst, to unlock the value and to really establish this community. The Andrews government has subsequently upgraded the Broadmeadows railway station, but a new opportunity exists for a more strategic redevelopment. Broadmeadows has similar features to Ringwood station, including three platforms connecting to a bus interchange and a location next to a major shopping centre. Hume City Council has agreed to a similar $60 million redevelopment, so this is a critical point for the designation of Broadmeadows as a super-hub in Australia’s biggest transport infrastructure project. The Victorian government’s $50 billion Suburban Rail Loop provides a defining opportunity. Broadmeadows railway station already acts as a link to the Melbourne Airport. Travellers from throughout Victoria arrive at the station and then catch the 901 bus to the airport. There was legislation passed through this Parliament in the 1960s for a rail link to the Melbourne Airport—just go straight down the Broadmeadows line and turn left. It was as simple as that. But that era has passed, so now it is time to look back and see how strategic this northern corridor is. Here is the way to unpack it. Right now, as we are considering the next budget, there is an option for a multideck car park right in the station precinct. At the moment Hume City Council are looking to the Victorian government to co-fund that because what they are looking to do is to have a car park that would be for public servants but not for commuters, and I think that would be highly problematic. I think now is the time for that investment from the Victorian government to make sure that happens so that we do not squander opportunities but we invest where we get the biggest return. This is all part of the role I play as the chair of the Broadmeadows Revitalisation Board 4.0. And how do we imagine the new industries and jobs? Remember it was only four years ago that the Ford Motor Company’s iconic assembly lines fell silent, and that marked the demise of our once-proud automotive industry. The impact was the loss of manufacturing scale, so now we have a national unity ticket to bring back advanced niche manufacturing. Broadmeadows is manufacturing 50 million vaccines through CSL. I have put up a proposal in this Parliament this week and also publicly. There is a chance for a new mRNA vaccine that has new breakthrough technology that means it does not have to be frozen. This has been brought to me in my role as the Parliamentary Secretary for Medical Research and as the chair of the Broadmeadows Revitalisation Board 4.0. The location that fits best and is ideal is in the Maygar Barracks directly opposite CSL, so here is the opportunity to unlock the value of this 12-hectare site. It is commonwealth owned, and this could be the real hub where we want to have this advanced manufacturing occur as well, so we could unlock the value of the great intellectual property that we have and our medical research could be delivered in that way. This also underscores the wonderful investment in the last budget from the Victorian government, the $2 billion Breakthrough Victoria Fund. This is a seminal investment that will have generational impact on medical research and a whole host of other areas to grow our future and deliver the technology that we need.

BILLS Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1473

What I am really asking about transport is: how do we get these linkages right? How do you then connect up the town centre of Broadmeadows over the railway line to the new job hubs and the centres there? This is a wonderful opportunity to make sure that happens. Right now the argument about the car park should just be fixed as a matter of course just to get that done. Then the other option we have is express trains can be scheduled, post COVID-19, to run from Southern Cross station to Broadmeadows, connecting with buses designated for each terminal at Melbourne Airport. This service would provide quick and inexpensive public transport options until the designated rail link to the airport is built via Sunshine. This proposal would benefit most of the airport workforce living in Melbourne’s north, and Broadmeadows railway station has the added value of a V/Line service connecting commuters from northern Victoria. So here is a new epicentre to be highlighted again and redefined as the capital of Melbourne’s north. Speaker, as you well know, there have been two city deals, for the south-east and for the north-west. My argument is: let us make sure that the north is not last and Broadmeadows gets least, which has been the history of events, so now is the time to unlock the value and realise the potential. We have the investors. I am delighted to say that since the demise of the Ford Motor Company the pipeline of shovel-ready projects now with private sector investment tops $1 billion. That is a big comeback. So it is $500 million for the two Ford sites—that is, Geelong and Broadmeadows. They are new industries and jobs. It is advanced manufacturing. That is starting to take shape. We may even have electric vehicles in there. This is what we want as well. They might be transferring left-hand drive cars from the US into right-hand drive, but nevertheless that is one of the projects that is being looked at. Then, as I said, you can have the new centre for mRNA, which is a national imperative, and the Victorian government is putting $50 million in an investment now to land that locally. You can have no better location. You have got the international, curfew-free airport at the back door. So here are the opportunities. Here is how we can bring back advanced manufacturing, bring back our scale. Why do we need scale? Because that gives you independence, supply chains and national sovereignty. So this is critical, and here is a major hub that can deliver. Key infrastructure is required for jobs in Melbourne’s north by unlocking the development potential between Broadmeadows and Campbellfield, one of the biggest areas for industrial manufacturing employment in the region. Connections between the Broadmeadows town centre, the Northcorp industrial area and the rest of Campbellfield are poor. The presence of Pascoe Vale Road and two rail lines acts as a barrier between the east and west of Broadmeadows. These connections would deliver infrastructure that would unlock the value and enable employment. Additions to the local connector road network from the Merlynston Creek crossing to a new Campbellfield railway station would be really important, the Merlynston Creek road crossing linking the old industrial areas with the modern manufacturing precinct through Belfast Street, and a pedestrian and cycling bridge with bus access at Broadmeadows railway station would also be really important. So here is the vision, the plan, the investment and the advocacy. They have succeeded in Broadmeadows recently being defined as a priority precinct for the proposed city deals for Melbourne’s north-west. Such a deal would redress inequality and deliver new infrastructure, promoting industries and jobs. That is what our recovery from recession and pandemic demands. So here is the epicentre. Here is how we can get the vaccines done to get the Australian economy off life support. Here is how we can have the transport infrastructure through these various mechanisms, unlock the value and create the jobs. I am hoping as well that through Kangan Institute we can get the local jobs for local people. You would be aware, Deputy Speaker, that Broadmeadows lost $25 million to the Bendigo Kangan TAFE, so we want our money back. We want our identity back, and ‘Bring back Broadmeadows’ should be the war cry for everybody in the Australian Labor Party, because this is what we need right now. Mr FREGON (Mount Waverley) (18:59): I rise to do a very brief end-of-the-day debate on the Transport Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2021. What a cracker this is, and I love a good omnibus. It is a good way to end the day, talking about a lot of stuff. Transport is not my top priority—

ADJOURNMENT 1474 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021 education I go a bit gaga about, but transport is a very close second. Obviously from down in my patch we have had a number of speakers. I noticed the opposition lead speaker today created a very broad debate for us all, which I did notice the member for Burwood took to extremes, and we had to put up with something about the Melbourne Football Club for a while. All right, enjoy it while you have got it. Look, I cannot talk about transport without talking about the Suburban Rail Loop. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am required under sessional orders to interrupt business now. The member may continue his speech when the matter is next before the house. Business interrupted under sessional orders. Adjournment The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is:

That the house now adjourns.

MOOROOLBARK POLICE STATION Mr HODGETT (Croydon) (19:00): (5841) I raise a matter for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, and the action I seek is for the minister to inform me so that I can in turn inform the residents of Mooroolbark, Croydon and surrounding areas whether the Mooroolbark police station is scheduled to be closed. A constituent has contacted my office, having heard from a reliable source that there are plans to close Mooroolbark police station and is understandably concerned, as am I. The closure of Mooroolbark station would mean that the Croydon, Lilydale and Mount Evelyn police stations would have to expand their areas of operation to ensure that the residents of Mooroolbark were protected. One of my constituents had her house burgled two years ago. The offender was still inside her house when she called the police at 3.00 pm; however, police did not attend the house until 11.00 am the next day. How are Victorians supposed to feel safe in their homes when the police force is so under- resourced? Unfortunately the situation is not much better now, two years later. Victorians have already spent much of this year without adequate police presence. Hundreds of police officers were tied up in Labor’s suspended hotel quarantine program earlier in the year, and fewer than one in four train stations are patrolled by PSOs. In fact Mooroolbark police station, which is supposed to be open 24 hours, has had its doors closed to the public in the evenings. In February I spoke in Parliament of a constituent whose small business was robbed at night. When she called Mooroolbark police station nobody picked up. Her business is barely a few hundred metres from the station, and police may have been able to apprehend the robbers if they were better resourced and had been able to pick up the phone. When she called Lilydale police station she was told that officers would not be able to attend immediately because they were attending other matters. Officers finally attended the scene after a call to 000. The robbers had fled the scene and the damage was already done. Mooroolbark police station should be open 24 hours, seven days a week, not closed down. If Lilydale police station already could not attend to Mooroolbark matters in February, when Mooroolbark police station was still operational, how on earth are they going to cope if the station is closed? Minister, I urge you to provide clarity as to whether the Mooroolbark police station is indeed to close, and if so, why. My constituents, along with the rest of Victoria, have had more than a year of uncertainty and fear about their health and job security. The last thing that my constituents need to deal with now is uncertainty and fear about their safety. NARRE WARREN SOUTH SCHOOL CROSSINGS Mr MAAS (Narre Warren South) (19:02): (5842) The matter I wish to raise is for the attention of the Minister for Roads and Road Safety and concerns the rollout of upgraded pedestrian crossings around schools. The action that I seek is that the minister provide more information on how these upgrades will benefit my electorate of Narre Warren South.

ADJOURNMENT Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1475

There have been substantial improvements to student safety around schools over recent decades, with awareness campaigns, reduced speed limits and crossing supervisors. However, there is always more that can be done to increase safety, and modern technology may help with dynamic pedestrian crossings and upgraded electronic signs. It is great to hear that the Labor government is investing in 75 pedestrian crossing upgrades, which should provide more peace of mind for parents. The Victorian government understands the need to keep improving safety for our kids, especially around their schools, with over 3000 school crossing supervisors and now investing in smarter pedestrian technology. Any improvements that could be made to increase pedestrian safety and improve traffic flow around Narre Warren South schools would be appreciated. I hope that the minister is able to provide further information on how this pedestrian crossing program will benefit my electorate and on any possible expansion of the program. I look forward to sharing the minister’s response with my community. NORTH-EAST RAIL SERVICES Ms RYAN (Euroa) (19:04): (5843) My adjournment matter this evening is for the Minister for Public Transport. The action I am seeking from the minister is for him to inform me as to the date the government plans to have the six new trains that he has promised for the north-east line operational and in service. People across our region are of course greatly looking forward to the delivery of these six new trains. It has been a very long time coming, and as more and more people head back to the office, commuters are again experiencing overcrowded services coupled with frustrations about delayed and cancelled services. I note that while Melbourne’s population suffered a net loss last year, regional Victoria gained about 13 000 new residents, which further highlights why we need investment in our districts, towns and cities in regional Victoria and in our train services. Breakdowns and delays continue to frustrate people from my region, and it is not just on the north-east line. In fact it is anywhere where the old N-class rolling stock is still in service. The Nationals, in partnership with our Liberal colleagues, gave a commitment at the last two state elections that we would fully replace this fleet, yet the Andrews government continues to neglect the need to retire these trains. Barry and Jeanette Woods from Devenish tried to book tickets to travel yesterday from Benalla to Melbourne. Barry is receiving treatment for cancer in Melbourne. No trains were running on the line yesterday, so they instead had to catch a train from Shepparton, necessitating a 4.00 am departure from their home in order to catch the 5.15 am train. After stopping at Wandong the train’s doors stopped working and would not close, so all the passengers—some 100 of them—had to disembark in the rain and wait for 20 minutes for the next Sprinter service. They then had to squeeze onto a two-carriage Sprinter where lots of people were forced to stand. The Woods are understandably furious. I note the member for Yan Yean says talk is cheap, and indeed it is, so I would urge her government to actually do more than talk. Bernard Morris from Tallarook has also told me that he has missed medical appointments in Melbourne on many occasions because of cancellations. In recent times up to five services a day have been cancelled. Bernard has to book his appointments weeks in advance. When the train system fails him it is not as easy as just making an appointment for the next day. Bernard, like many others in our region, wants the government to be accountable for these failings. He rightly asks who is taking responsibility for the woeful service plaguing our region. Government ministers have repeatedly said that new trains would be operational on the north-east line once the federal government’s track works were complete. I note those works have been finished, and the government is now saying that the trains will not be on the line until June 2021. But there is some concern these new trains may not be delivered in June as promised, so I would be very grateful if the minister could clear up that confusion by telling me exactly when the six train sets will be operational on the line and taking passengers, a day we all greatly look forward to.

ADJOURNMENT 1476 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021

LORNE PARADE RESERVE, MONT ALBERT Mr HAMER (Box Hill) (19:07): (5844) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure. The action that I seek is for the minister to do as much as possible to preserve the recreational value of Lorne Parade Reserve in Mont Albert, including the retention of mature trees that fall outside the trench boundary as part of the project to remove the dangerous and congested level crossings at Union Road and Mont Albert Road. My community welcomes the long-overdue project to remove these level crossings, a project that only an Andrews Labor government has committed to and funded and a project that the opposition specifically excluded from their list of level crossing removals. The community also welcomes the project being brought forward to 2023, two years earlier than initially planned. This two-year saving will mean an additional two years of less congestion and safer outcomes. The confirmation that the rail line will be lowered below both Union Road and Mont Albert Road is also welcomed by our community, where an elevated rail solution would have been completely out of character and would have required the acquisition of many homes and businesses. Locals have raised with me their concerns about the impact of the project on Lorne Parade Reserve. The leafy green aspect of Lorne Parade Reserve and adjoining streets, such as Windsor Crescent, are characteristic of this historic area. The surrounding streets are primarily residential in character, and Lorne Parade Reserve is one of the few pockets of open space for residents of Mont Albert. My local community accepts that the project will have some impact upon Lorne Parade Reserve and that some trees will need to be removed along the rail corridor in the delivery of a new premium station. They understand that for every tree removed at least two will be planted. My community also accepts that alternative station options would have an even greater impact on the reserve. However, local residents are looking for a solution for Lorne Parade Reserve that addresses their concerns and ensures that this much-loved pocket of Mont Albert can continue to be enjoyed for generations to come. MELROSE DRIVE OVERPASS, WODONGA Mr TILLEY (Benambra) (19:09): (5845) I wish to raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Roads and Road Safety. The action I seek is for the minister to urgently progress the installation of safety barriers on the Melrose Drive overpass on the Hume Freeway in Wodonga. I stand here tonight, but I cannot help but wonder what the rest of the world is doing. In Benambra they might be eating dinner, picking up the kids from sport, helping others with homework or sitting down to watch the news or Netflix, while we are in this place here, all of us, trying to make Victoria a better and safer place. Despite the theatrics and the pantomime of question time, this involves mature conversations, trust and bipartisanship. Occasionally this happens, but more frequently it does not. Two years ago, almost to this day, I spoke in this chamber of a tragedy, a preventable death, that happened because Wodonga has an unprotected bridge crossing the Hume Freeway. On the other side of the river in New South Wales there are six similar bridges, all with what are crudely called ‘suicide barriers’. It is Ken Wright’s firm belief that his wife drove past those other bridges before arriving at Melrose Drive. It is about 13 kilometres from the furthest bridge to this unprotected crossing. I also retold stories of a mental health worker who grabbed a person by their belt to prevent them from becoming another statistic. The minister at the table, the Minister for Planning, on face value had a very genuine understanding of the issue, and I thank him for that. I will quote again. He said:

I will specifically personally raise this with the minister tomorrow morning. It was absolutely very genuine, and Minister, I thank you for that. Subsequent meetings with the then Minister for Roads, Jaala Pulford in the other place, gave me further hope that despite VicRoads’ objections at that same meeting, we could achieve this together. There was—and still is—$250 000 on the table from the federal government for this work.

ADJOURNMENT Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1477

I stand here two years later, no closer to this being fixed. Over the journey there have been promises of tenders to be advertised, designs to be provided and even start dates, and then late last year I was told that the cost of the project was now close to $1 million. Now, that you could not afford—but anyway. Those six other bridges in Albury cost about $2.2 million—about $350 000 each. Now, I do not want to get started on any of the projects in our area that were promised money by the commonwealth back in 2019, before the federal election, because that will help your Labor mates in Canberra, but what I will not stand for is when this arrogance and blatant politicking affects people. People are reminded of their loss every time they drive past this bridge. This ludicrous cost estimate does not pass any pub test. We know this is your way of thinking that you are so bloody clever, but we learned today that the Victorian Labor government is happy to spend $12.3 million on lawyers to abrogate and apportion responsibility for its failures in hotel quarantine. Last December I put this question; I need it answered. (Time expired) PLENTY ROAD UPGRADE Ms GREEN (Yan Yean) (19:12): (5846) My question is to the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, and the action I seek is confirmation of the completion date of the Plenty Road stage 2 upgrade. Locals in my community are eager to understand the progress that is being made on the Plenty Road upgrade—and ‘eager’ is probably the most polite word I could use; there is a bit of frustration—a project that is upgrading 12 intersections and putting additional lanes between Bush Boulevard, Mill Park, and Bridge Inn Road, Mernda. During the height of the pandemic locals could actually see a lot of action onsite, with excavators, traffic management and project staff. I now understand that the bulk of the work onsite at present is being completed at night, and some of that work is invisible—that is to say, it is not always obvious what the project team are completing because much of the progress is taking place underground, such as relocation of services like gas, electricity, telecommunications and water, so residents cannot always see at ground level during the day that that is occurring. I would also like to thank the minister for facilitating a site visit for me between the last sitting week and this week. I was able to gain a greater understanding following this, but I have to say that I am disappointed that the project team has not effectively conveyed to the community since then what work is being undertaken so they get a greater level of understanding. It would be terrific if the minister could provide me and my community with an update on the Plenty Road upgrade to fill in the gaps on some of these ‘invisible’ pieces of progress that cannot always be seen as you drive past the construction site. The community was well used to the rapid progress that was made with the Mernda rail extension—and of course that being a greenfield site, there were no encumbrances. When the community still needs to travel along a road, it is always harder for workers to complete a project in those circumstances. I am saying to locals that it is safe to return to public transport. I use public transport almost every day to get here. There are plenty of opportunities to get a seat. It is very clean. And I see, by the very empty car parks along the Mernda line, that people have not yet returned to using public transport, so I am encouraging people to use the trains so they can avoid the traffic snarls during the final weeks of completion of the Plenty Road project. I am also looking forward to the duplication of Bridge Inn Road and the beginning of the Yan Yean Road stage 2. There is some road work being done, but it would be more important if the community could hear quite clearly when the Plenty Road project will be completed. BUSHFIRE PREPAREDNESS Ms SANDELL (Melbourne) (19:15): (5847) My adjournment today is for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, and I ask the minister to write to me and explain why her department is pushing ahead with planned burning in East Gippsland and whether any consideration has been given to the areas already burned in the Black Summer bushfires. Everyone in this chamber knows how devastating the Black Summer fires were: five Victorians lost their lives and many lost

ADJOURNMENT 1478 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021 their homes; more than 3 billion animals were killed or displaced; more than 1.5 million hectares of land, including precious, usually fire-resistant rainforest, was burnt in Victoria alone; and the images of children and their families fleeing Mallacoota in boats will never leave me. Autumn is normally a time when the government conducts planned burning, and this autumn a lot of burning is happening in East Gippsland. We understand why planned burns need to happen, and we support them where the evidence and science show they reduce bushfire harm. But the issue is that this burning right now seems to be continuing as if the Black Summer fires had not happened, and I am keen to know whether the department has changed their plans at all and given consideration to the scale of the burning that has already occurred. My office has been contacted by quite a few incredibly distressed locals from across East Gippsland, and they are concerned that the government is now burning some of the last remaining areas that are critical refuges for threatened species that actually survived the fires. I am aware that over the Easter weekend the government planned to do two burns in vital areas of glossy black cockatoo habitat. One was at Wombat Track and Tostaree, east of Orbost. One planned burn was just 500 metres from where Birdlife Australia has nest boxes for these cockatoos. At Bung Yarnda—Lake Tyers—Gunnai elders and local people have said that they are very concerned and upset about planned burning on country. They are concerned about impacts on forest and habitat. They are concerned that consent and consultation has not been properly done and that traditional knowledge and practices on this country are not being followed or considered. There is also the Cabbage Tree Creek reserve area, where important grey-headed flying fox roosting and food resources are at risk. Locals are keen to know why the government is pushing ahead with burns when critical habitat areas have not been mapped and protected and why there has been so little community engagement. The Age newspaper reports that over the next three years the Victorian government is planning 133 burns in greater Gippsland covering more than 62 000 hectares, so I am asking the minister to review the planned burning in Gippsland. We cannot just have set-and-forget government burning plans that do not consider the reality of what is actually happening on the ground, because that is not science or evidence based. And let us not forget that this burning is happening in a context where the government continues to log some of the last remaining unburned bits of our old native forests and that this logging is sometimes happening illegally with very few repercussions. In East Gippsland near Bendock the forest was home to endangered yellow-bellied gliders. The locals told the regulator, but VicForests logged it anyway. Given how much we have lost, I think it would be best practice to go back— (Time expired) CALDER FREEWAY Mr J BULL (Sunbury) (19:18): (5848) My question is to the Minister for Transport Infrastructure. The action that I seek is for the minister to meet with me to discuss vital upgrades to improve safety and relieve congestion along the Calder Freeway between Gap Road, Sunbury, in my electorate, and the M80 ring-road. I have raised this issue in the house before and remain committed to supporting an allocation of funds to improve this very important road corridor. Deputy Speaker, as you very well know, this is a very important stretch of road in our state. It is not just one that is used by my community and many communities in the north-west, it is indeed a major state freight and logistics corridor, an important road that services, as I have said, not just our local communities but communities right across the state. It is quite uncommon for the federal government to commit funding to projects that benefit my electorate. In fact I am often surprised, if not astounded, to learn of the lack of projects that are being made possible because of the federal government in my electorate, but I will say on this particular project I am really pleased that the federal government has made a $50 million commitment to the Calder corridor. I welcome that. I want to see more of that, but what is important is that we recognise that difference between the investment of the state and the investment of the federal government. If I look at transport in my electorate, I think of the removal of the Sunbury level crossing, I think of the

ADJOURNMENT Wednesday, 5 May 2021 Legislative Assembly 1479 construction of the nearly 500-space car park and a whole range of other projects, including the $2.1 billion upgrade of the Sunbury line providing more trains more often. We are of course upgrading schools and getting on and building the sports precincts that we know are so vital and important to the community as well as community facilities, but this is a project certainly that is particularly important to my community. As I have said, it is one that is important to not just improve safety but relieve congestion. I want to thank those in my community that have met with me, that have advocated in a constructive and decent manner for this project, and I certainly look forward to working with the terrific member for Macedon and the terrific member for Sydenham in getting on and yet again delivering another project thanks to the Andrews Labor government. POLWARTH ELECTORATE POWER POLES Mr RIORDAN (Polwarth) (19:20): (5849) My adjournment debate is for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, and the action I seek from the minister is to update my constituents on what her department has done and what they continue to do to ensure that people in south-west Victoria will be safe from collapsing and aged power poles. It is now on the public record that in western Victoria there are 143 005 wooden power poles between the ages of 50 and 100 years, and this is for a piece of crucial infrastructure that has a life expectancy of around 50 years. Based on current replacement rates, which have seen in recent years power companies replacing as few as 400 poles in one year, for the current poles that are now past their use- by date people in my electorate will be waiting 357 years to see them made safe. Why is making wooden power poles such an important part of the government’s responsibility? It is important because 4 per cent of fires are caused by collapsed power poles but 90 per cent of all deaths in bushfire areas and 80 per cent of capital destruction to property, to farms, to fences and to livestock are caused when power poles collapse. Tragically in my electorate in March 2018, 200-odd farms, 40 000 hectares, were destroyed and lives were damaged for an indefinite period of time because the power pole stock in the Garvoc area was too old. It was old to the point that a mere puff of wind was able to blow it over and set the whole countryside alight when people and farmers were at home in their beds unaware of the catastrophe that was heading their way. Unlike other portfolios that have seen ministers swap over in recent years, this minister has been in charge of this portfolio the whole time. She has had reports, she has had inquiries into this problem, and yet we are still unaware of what is being done, what commitments she has sought from the power companies, what actions she has taken personally. In the light of all the information you have got on the complete lack of investment in this crucial piece of infrastructure, what have you done, Minister, to make sure that the people in my electorate can go to bed at night safely and with confidence that a puff of wind will not blow over a power pole and set their world on fire? So, Minister, I look forward to a prompt response. WENDOUREE ELECTORATE MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES Ms ADDISON (Wendouree) (19:23): (5850) My adjournment matter is for the Acting Premier and Minister for Mental Health, and the action that I seek is for the Acting Premier or his representative to officially open the Ballarat Community Health mental health and wellbeing hub in my electorate of Wendouree. I thank the Acting Premier and the Parliamentary Secretary for Mental Health for their commitment to improving mental health services across Victoria and for the work that is being done to support those who need it. Last year the Andrews Labor government delivered a record $869 million funding boost to the mental health system as part of the Victorian budget. Around one in five Victorians will experience a mental health problem this year. Suicide is consistently the leading cause of death for people aged between 15 and 44. For these reasons and many others, our government is implementing every recommendation of

ADJOURNMENT 1480 Legislative Assembly Wednesday, 5 May 2021 the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System and is rebuilding the mental health system that will support all of us now and into the future. The Wendouree new mental health and wellbeing hub will be located at 10 Learmonth Road in the redeveloped Cooinda Centre. This state-of-the-art facility was part funded with a $3 million grant from the Andrews Labor government. Our investment into the mental health and wellbeing hub is all about treating and supporting people in the community. Services provided by Ballarat Community Health at this site will include children’s assessments, counselling, treatment services and family violence support. Group programs will be available from the site, including creative arts, cooking, mental health drop-ins and exercise classes. The needle and syringe program will also be operating in a confidential space, including a vending machine and full service. It is pleasing to hear that lived experience team members will also be available at the hub to provide valuable expertise and insights whilst promoting recovery and hope for clients. I am incredibly proud of the Andrews Labor government’s investment in mental health and the way we are destigmatising mental illness and transforming lives by improving services across Ballarat and Victoria. I look forward to welcoming the Acting Premier or his representative to officially open the Ballarat Community Health Wendouree mental health and wellbeing hub in the near future. RESPONSES Mr WYNNE (Richmond—Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing) (19:26): The member for Croydon raised a matter for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services seeking confirmation that the Mooroolbark police station will remain open, and I will make sure that the minister is aware of that request. The member for Narre Warren South raised a matter for the Minister for Roads and Road Safety advocating for school safety and pedestrian crossing works around schools in his area—a very important issue of course for our young people—and I will make sure the minister is aware of that. The member for Euroa raised a matter for the Minister for Public Transport seeking a date for the commencement of the six trains’ service on the north-east line, and I will ensure that that matter is brought to the minister’s attention. The member for Box Hill raised a matter for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure seeking support for protection of the Lorne Parade Reserve from level crossing works. I understand the importance of those issues, and we will make sure that is brought to the attention of the relevant minister. The member for Benambra raised a matter for the Minister for Roads and Road Safety seeking support for the Melrose Drive overpass in Wodonga. I am aware of this issue, and I thank him for his kind words, and again, I will make sure the representation is made. The member for Yan Yean, as always, raised a matter for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure seeking a completion date for the much-needed Plenty Road upgrade, and I will make sure that we get an answer from the minister. The member for Melbourne raised a matter for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change in relation to planned burns in East Gippsland and a potential impact upon flora and fauna, and I will make sure the minister is aware of that request as well. The member for Sunbury has raised a matter for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure seeking to meet with the minister to discuss the upgrade of a very important section of the Calder Highway. The member for Polwarth has raised a matter for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change in relation to his advocacy for a review of dangerous wooden poles in his electorate, and I will make sure, again, that the minister is aware of that issue. Finally, the member for Wendouree has raised a matter for the Acting Premier in his other capacity as the Minister for Mental Health requesting that the minister come to open the Ballarat Community Health wellbeing centre, a much-needed facility for regional Victoria, and I am sure he will take up that opportunity. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Minister. The house now stands adjourned until tomorrow. House adjourned 7.30 pm.