PARLIAMENT OF

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

(HANSARD)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

FIFTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT

FIRST SESSION

WEDNESDAY, 4 AUGUST 2021

hansard.parliament.vic.gov.au

By authority of the Victorian Government Printer

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

The ministry

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joint committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heads of parliamentary departments

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

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

Member Region Party Member Region Party

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

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

Party abbreviations

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

CONTENTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS Acknowledgement of country ...... 2701 PETITIONS Latrobe Valley battery recycling plant ...... 2701 Breast screening ...... 2701 Wonthaggi Secondary College...... 2702 PAPERS Papers ...... 2702 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Notices ...... 2702 MEMBERS STATEMENTS ...... 2702 Victorian Pride Centre...... 2703 Deer hunting ...... 2703 Bairnsdale Pistol Club ...... 2703 COVID-19 vaccination ...... 2703 COVID-19 ...... 2703 University funding ...... 2703 COVID-19 ...... 2704 Aboriginal early childhood education ...... 2705 Ruth Isbel ...... 2705 ...... 2705 Animal welfare ...... 2706 Tokyo Olympics ...... 2706 Premier’s VCE Awards ...... 2706 Hellas Cakes ...... 2707 Victorian Pride Centre...... 2707 BILLS Members of Parliament (Standards) Amendment Bill 2021 ...... 2708 Statement of compatibility ...... 2708 Second reading ...... 2708 MOTIONS Government performance ...... 2711 Crown Casino ...... 2720 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wheelchair-accessible commercial passenger vehicles ...... 2730 Swim schools support ...... 2731 Ministers statements: Respect and Equality in TAFE ...... 2732 Privacy and data protection ...... 2733 Commercial passenger vehicle driver workplace safety ...... 2734 Ministers statements: kinder kit ...... 2735 Justice system ...... 2735 WorkSafe inspectors ...... 2736 Ministers statements: Sir Edward ‘Weary’ Dunlop ...... 2736 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander justice outcomes ...... 2737 Early childhood education ...... 2738 Ministers statements: Prahran Market stallholders ...... 2739 Written responses ...... 2740 CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Northern Metropolitan Region ...... 2740 South Eastern Metropolitan Region...... 2740 Southern Metropolitan Region ...... 2741 Northern Victoria Region ...... 2741 Eastern Victoria Region ...... 2741 Western Metropolitan Region ...... 2741 ...... 2742 Northern Victoria Region ...... 2742 Western Metropolitan Region ...... 2742 Western Victoria Region ...... 2742 Eastern Victoria Region ...... 2742 Northern Victoria Region ...... 2743 Southern Metropolitan Region ...... 2743 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Answers ...... 2743 MOTIONS Crown Casino ...... 2744 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Orders of the day ...... 2751 MOTIONS Sessional orders ...... 2751 BILLS Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Greater Transparency and Accountability) Bill 2021 ...... 2768 Second reading ...... 2768 STATEMENTS ON REPORTS, PAPERS AND PETITIONS RecWest Footscray ...... 2773 Petition ...... 2773 Box Hill Institute ...... 2774 Report 2020 ...... 2774 Legal and Social Issues Committee ...... 2775 Inquiry into the Closure of I Cook Foods Pty Ltd ...... 2775 Commission for Children and Young People ...... 2776 Out of Sight: Systemic Inquiry into Children and Young People Who Are Absent or Missing from Residential Care ...... 2776 Auditor-General ...... 2778 Integrated Transport Planning ...... 2778 1080 poison ...... 2779 Petition ...... 2779 BILLS Transport Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2021 ...... 2780 Council’s amendments ...... 2780 ADJOURNMENT COVID-19 ...... 2780 COVID-19 ...... 2781 Traralgon men’s shed ...... 2781 Glenroy roads ...... 2781 Workplace mental health ...... 2781 Geelong Project ...... 2781 Frankston line elevated rail ...... 2782 COVID-19 ...... 2782 Frankston line elevated rail ...... 2783 Ambulance response times ...... 2784 Wild horse control ...... 2784 Privacy and data protection ...... 2785 COVID-19 ...... 2786 Wildlife rescue and care ...... 2786 Severe weather event ...... 2787 Pet food industry ...... 2787 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children ...... 2788 Responses ...... 2788

ANNOUNCEMENTS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2701

Wednesday, 4 August 2021

The PRESIDENT (Hon. N Elasmar) took the chair at 9.35 am and read the prayer. Announcements ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY The PRESIDENT (09:35): On behalf of the Victorian state Parliament I acknowledge the Aboriginal peoples, the traditional custodians of this land which has served as a significant meeting place of the First People of Victoria. I acknowledge and pay respect to the elders of the Aboriginal nations in Victoria past, present and emerging and welcome any elders and members of the Aboriginal communities who may visit or participate in the events or proceedings of the Parliament. Petitions Following petitions presented to house: LATROBE VALLEY BATTERY RECYCLING PLANT Legislative Council Electronic Petition The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council the planning approval of a Used Lead Acid Battery recycling facility in Hazelwood North, Gippsland. The approval of the planning permit by the Minister for Planning has truncated the community’s right to a fair, transparent and democratic approval process. This action has undermined 18 months of community consultation and is against the express wishes of the community and the Latrobe City Council. An open court case in Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal was due to be heard in April 2021. The intervention has prevented this from proceeding. The Victorian Government made a commitment to prioritise the needs of the Latrobe Valley community, making it the first Health Innovation Zone in Australia. The development of a secondary lead smelter contradicts this commitment. The secondary lead smelter has been approved to emit up to 54kgs of lead every year. This will fall directly on local primary schools, a playgroup, residential homes, main roads, existing businesses and agricultural land. The project poses an unacceptable health risk to the Latrobe Valley community, jeopardising the health and wellbeing of future generations through exposure to lead emissions and contamination of our air, soil and water. There is no safe level of lead that is not harmful. The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council call on the Government to revoke the planning approval for the Used Lead Acid Battery recycling facility in Hazelwood North and prioritise the health, safety and wellbeing of Hazelwood North residents and the Latrobe Valley community, honouring their Health Innovation Zone commitment. By Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (102 signatures). Laid on table. BREAST SCREENING To the Legislative Council of Victoria, The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council that the Andrews Government has failed to fully reinstate the funding for health protection services which will see 29,000 fewer Victorians have the ability to access a breast screen service. Victorians know that preventative measures such as breast screenings arc vital and potentially lifesaving. We therefore request that the Legislative Council call on the Andrews Government and the Minister for Health to reverse the cuts to women’s health and fully fund the program so all women, at all times, have access to this essential program. By Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (109 signatures). Laid on table. PAPERS 2702 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021

WONTHAGGI SECONDARY COLLEGE TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF VICTORIA The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council the urgent need for road and road safety infrastructure to support the new junior secondary campus for Wonthaggi Secondary College in San Remo, scheduled to open in 2022. The Petitioners therefore request that; To ensure the safety of students, parents and the broader school community to access the new campus, Shetland Heights Road must be upgraded and sealed to reduce the danger caused by dust and include footpaths to encourage walking and cycling. The intersection at Potters Hill Road and Phillip Island Road also needs a full upgrade to ensure safe access to the school. Action The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council call on the Government to fund and build, as a matter of urgency, the necessary infrastructure to ensure students, parents and the broader school community have safe access to the new junior secondary campus for Wonthaggi Secondary College in San Remo, scheduled to open in 2022. By Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (32 signatures). Laid on table. Papers PAPERS Tabled by Clerk: Auditor-General’s Report on Integrated Transport Planning, August 2021 (Ordered to be published). Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978— Minister’s Order of 8 July 2021 giving approval to the granting of a licence at Gasworks Park Reserve. Minister’s Orders of 18 July 2021 giving approval to the granting of leases at— Pakenham Bushland Reserve. Williamstown Botanic Gardens Reserve. Ombudsman—The Ombudsman for Human Rights: A Casebook, August 2021 (Ordered to be published). Planning and Environment Act 1987—Notice of Approval of an amendment to the Victoria Planning Provisions—Amendment VC206. Subordinate Legislation Act 1994—Documents under section 15 in respect of Statutory Rule Nos. 63 and 77. Business of the house NOTICES Notices of motion given. Members statements LUCY STEPHAN Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (09:43): A new group of national heroes were made last week. Lucy Stephan, Rosemary Popa, and Annabelle McIntyre won gold and set a new Olympic record in the women’s coxless four . I would particularly like to recognise the bow seat, Lucy Stephan, whose home town is Nhill in my electorate of Western Victoria. Lucy also went to Ballarat Grammar before moving to Sydney to become a member of the Hancock Prospecting Women’s National Training Centre in Penrith to further her rowing. Lucy is studying a bachelor of arts in sociology and media and works as a production assistant for Rowing Australia sponsor 776BC. Lucy was a recipient of Rowing Australia’s Gina Rinehart Leadership Award in 2017. Congratulations on this terrific effort to Lucy, the rest of the crew, president Rob Scott and CEO Ian Robson at Rowing Australia, the rest of the Rowing Australia team and particularly Gina Rinehart, who has done such an MEMBERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2703 outstanding job of sponsoring our Olympic athletes, including the rowing team and the swimming team, and what an outstanding effort that is. VICTORIAN PRIDE CENTRE Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (09:44): We have had a really significant announcement in the last couple of weeks that has culminated in the opening of Victoria’s and indeed Australia’s first pride centre. This is a physical manifestation of progressive policy that is committed to equality and committed to making sure that all LGBTIQA+ people from metropolitan, regional and rural Victoria have a place where we are welcomed, where we are accepted exactly as we are, where we can access services and where we can make contact with those who can provide us with incredibly important support, support that not only engenders acceptance but also saves lives and improves the wellbeing and the quality of the way in which we move throughout the world. The Premier and indeed Australia’s first equality minister Martin Foley have done a tireless amount of work with the LGBTIQA+ communities to make this Pride Centre a reality. It is a beautiful open, accessible space. The architectural design is one of triumph, of relief and of welcome, and because we as LGBTIQA+ people do not have continuity as far as intergenerational culture is concerned, this is the heart and this is the place and this is the soul that will be ours, not just now but for generations to come. DEER HUNTING Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (09:46): Today I just wanted to raise that the Blond Bay and Snake Island hog deer ballot is now open, and those that are interested should put their number in for the ballot, as I will. Maybe this year I will get lucky, but so far I have drawn a zero. BAIRNSDALE PISTOL CLUB Mr BOURMAN: Also I just want to congratulate Bairnsdale Pistol Club for getting a defibrillator. It was a bit of work, but thanks to a bit of work from me and the government we managed to get them one, so thank you. COVID-19 VACCINATION Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (09:46): Young people in my electorate continue to be disproportionately impacted by the Labor government’s oftentimes totally illogical restrictions at periods of lower transmission—indeed no transmission—and certainly at times when decisions are made to lock down. My friend in the other place David Hodgett has been highly critical of the government’s approach regarding statewide school closures, especially considering that the World Health Organization says that school closures have a ‘devastating’ impact—that is the word the World Health Organization uses—on both the learning and mental health of children. He has called for priority access to vaccines for schoolteachers, and I have joined him as the Shadow Minister for Early Childhood in calling for priority access for vaccines for all workers in the early childhood space. I note the relevant union has now joined me in echoing those calls. I call on the government to heed them. COVID-19 Dr BACH: Last lockdown I was contacted by so many dance schools in my electorate who were perplexed, to put it mildly, at the restrictions—hard restrictions—that were placed on their activities. This last lockdown I was contacted by numerous drama companies who go into schools, who again had very strong restrictions placed upon them. I call on the government, if they are going to continue to do this, to release the advice on which they are locking down and shutting down industries that do so much for the mental health and education of our children. UNIVERSITY FUNDING Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (09:48): I rise to make a members statement today in regard to a meeting I had with the student union at , and it was in regard to La Trobe University’s recent announcement that they are shedding some jobs. The proposal is that it MEMBERS STATEMENTS 2704 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021 will impact approximately 200 positions, and they are teaching positions but also non-teaching positions. It is a very sad indictment of our federal government—the lack of support that our learning institutions are having to suffer because our federal government hates public education and also hates anybody having access to learning so they can better themselves. But of course in this environment, particularly in the COVID environment what we see is a continued lack of support for our learning institutions, and this federal government has a pathological hatred of education. So it is very sad— Members interjecting. Ms TERPSTRA: You can see how much, when the truth gets told, those opposite absolutely hate anybody speaking truth to power, and— Members interjecting. Ms TERPSTRA: Mr President, can I have the clock restarted, please? Members interjecting. The PRESIDENT: Order! Thank you! Ms TERPSTRA: So it is with much sadness that I have to report to the house the number of people that will be impacted in my region by the job cuts, and I will continue to advocate for those that have come to speak to me in my region about the ongoing impacts of these job cuts, particularly during COVID, with the lack of support by the federal government. Ms Crozier: You’re a pathological liar. Ms TERPSTRA: On a point of order, President, Ms Crozier just called me a pathological liar, and I would ask that she withdraw that comment. The PRESIDENT: Ms Crozier, if you did, I ask you to withdraw. Ms Crozier: President, I did make that comment because I was concerned about the— Members interjecting. Ms Crozier: But I withdraw. The PRESIDENT: Thank you. COVID-19 Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (09:50): Today I make a members statement and I just want to know: does the government actually have any other plans other than lockdowns? So when everyone is actually vaccinated, will the government actually continue to go down the path of lockdowns? Is the government going to give us any freedom of choice again? Clearly the government are making up the rules as they go along, so how long will it be before the government will actually stop telling us what to do? Trying to achieve COVID zero is ludicrous. Now, does the government actually have any plans? Mr Finn: No Plan Dan. Dr CUMMING: No Plan Dan. So give people the tools to help themselves, give people choice, give people a way out and give people hope, give people a plan. Are we allowed to live with COVID? Is the government going to give us any choice? Are we actually going to have isolation strategies rather than lockdown of places that actually have no COVID? If we are going to continue down this path, communities have actually had enough, absolutely had enough, that there is no plan other than— Members interjecting. Dr CUMMING: There isn’t a plan. You can interject as much as you want, but there isn’t a plan. MEMBERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2705

ABORIGINAL EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (09:52): Today we celebrate National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children’s Day. This year’s theme is ‘Proud in culture, strong in spirit’. The Andrews Labor government is proud to support Aboriginal children to grow up strong and healthy and proud of their cultural identity. Through the Koorie Kids Shine program, we are offering two years of free kinder for 15 hours a week, and this has resulted in full participation of Aboriginal children in four-year-old kindergarten for the past two years, which is magnificent, and there has been a very strong uptake in three-year-old kinder. Last year we provided $1.2 million for outreach workers to support Aboriginal children and their families to re-engage with kinder and help with the transition to school. It also supported services to be more culturally inclusive. We are also supporting parents and caregivers through our Koorie Families as First Educators program, a program that assists families from pre birth through to starting school. In this year’s budget we expanded the Koorie preschool assistants program to 15 areas across Victoria. This dedicated workforce supports Koori families to access a place at their local kinder and work with services to deliver programs that are inclusive of Koori children. Finally, as part of our early childhood language program we are delivering five Victorian Aboriginal languages at 18 different early childhood services, including at four Aboriginal-controlled community organisations. It is all part of our Marrung education strategy to ensure that all Koori Victorians achieve their learning aspirations. RUTH ISBEL Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (09:54): I rise today to pay my respects to the life of a selfless woman in my electorate by the name of Ruth Isbel. Ruth passed away after a short illness at her home in Crossley at the young age of 58. As one publication put it, Ruth changed the south-western region forever. She was the CEO of Emma House after her dedicated work at Brophy house of over 20 years service. She served a life dedicated to protecting women and children going through family violence and then child protection during her successful career. I met Ruth in February last year and was blown away by her dedication to the sector. As always, when I speak to veterans in the sector they tell me funding does not keep up with demand. This was and still is the case for Emma House. It is timely that all our Orange Door services have had their leases signed and a commitment from this government to have them all completed by the end of 2022. When I spoke to Ruth about Orange Door services she cautioned that with their opening we should not forget that outreach is a big part of family violence and that we still need to provide access to women and children who are in remote areas and not just open a shopfront. I will keep fighting for family violence funding, as I know Ruth did until her recent tragic passing. My condolences to Ruth’s family and friends. Rest in peace. DEAKIN UNIVERSITY Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (09:55): Recently on behalf of the Minister for Higher Education, the Honourable , the member for Burwood, Will Fowles, and I had the opportunity to announce the Victorian government’s $2 million contribution towards Deakin University’s $26.5 million Innovation in Technology, Science and Health project. This vital project will provide new and improved facilities at the university’s Burwood campus for students pursuing their passions in areas including cybersecurity, virtual reality, chemistry, science and environmental teaching, medical robotics, health e-technologies and nursing and midwifery. The Andrews Labor government’s investment towards this project forms part of the Victorian Higher Education State Investment Fund’s response to the impact of COVID-19 on our state’s education sector. This $350 million fund is supporting universities with capital works, research infrastructure projects and applied research focused on boosting Victoria’s productivity and economy as the state recovers from the pandemic. Indeed this particular project will create 79 jobs by 2025. MEMBERS STATEMENTS 2706 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021

As STEM education ambassador and as a proponent of tertiary STEM education, I was delighted to announce such a transformative research and training project. Congratulations to Deakin University on this incredible achievement, which will foster future innovation and local research among university students and staff. ANIMAL WELFARE Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (09:57): I rise to highlight a very concerning trend that has come from lockdowns: pandemic puppies. The president of anti-puppy-farming organisation Oscar’s Law, Georgie Purcell, has reported a 25 per cent increase in complaints about puppy farmers and dodgy breeders since the pandemic began. While Victoria passed historic legislation to crack down on puppy factories in 2017, it has not stopped puppies being shipped in from other states with inadequate laws, such as New South Wales, Tasmania and South Australia. One of the biggest warning signs of a puppy farmer is refusing to meet a buyer at a home or a property, but lockdowns and restrictions have allowed puppy farmers to thrive. It is suddenly more acceptable to meet at a public location to hand over a puppy or even to send one by courier. The way that factory-farmed dogs can still seep into Victoria shows the need for national consistency in puppy-farming legislation. In the meantime, I am calling on the Victorian government to implement an education campaign about how to avoid puppy factories during this period, when the demand for pets is at an all-time high. In particular, Victorians should completely avoid not only buying an animal from interstate but couriering an animal into Victoria unless they are from a rescue group. To anyone looking for that special friend to keep them company as we ride out this pandemic, please remember that a puppy is for life, not just for lockdown. TOKYO OLYMPICS Mr MELHEM (Western Metropolitan) (09:58): I just want to say congratulations to all athletes who are competing at the 2021 Tokyo Olympics. Over the last week it has been an inspiration watching the Australian team compete, and I am looking forward to seeing our Paralympians in action at the end of this month. As a nation we have not been divided by state borders or restrictions; we have been as one Australia supporting our athletes. Watching the games over the last week I was reminded of the multicultural diversity of Australia, and under such adversity and difficult preparation, making it to the Olympics as an Australian athlete is an amazing achievement in itself. A special mention to the new Olympic champion swimming superstar Emma McKeon, with seven medals, four gold and three bronze, on top of another four medals, making her the most successful Australian Olympian ever. The haul of medals over a wide range of sports highlights the variety of sports activities played and participated in across Australia, from grassroots community sports through to elite athletic competition sporting activities. They are for the majority of Australians an essential part of the Australian psyche and way of life. Apart from the incredible health benefits, active community engagement in grassroots community sports is often the grounding for future Olympians. The Andrews Labor government is proudly committed to supporting and encouraging community sports. We are regularly funding grants programs to ensure we can support community sports and to encourage future athletes. I say in conclusion: go Australia! PREMIER’S VCE AWARDS Mr ERDOGAN (Southern Metropolitan) (10:00): This Sunday the best performing VCE students were recognised and honoured in the Premier’s VCE Awards, and I am proud to inform the house that of the 297 Victorian students that received awards, 57 were from 22 schools, both government and non-government, in my electorate of Southern Metropolitan. The teachers, school communities, parents and of course the students themselves have much to celebrate and be proud of. During the 2020 school year they produced incredible educational results while adapting to the challenges of the global COVID-19 pandemic. These 57 students achieved the awards for excellence in subjects MEMBERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2707 including psychology, Australian history, chemistry, business management, biology and theatre studies. They also include one of the three students in the state to receive the top international student award and five of the 23 students to receive top all-round VCE achiever awards. Education and training are key to people reaching their potential. That is why this government is investing record amounts of money in our education system, in particular through the $60.2 million investment in the student excellence program. This will build teacher capability to support and extend the high-ability students in our system. I offer my sincere congratulations to these 57 students, their families, their teachers and their school communities. This is an outstanding result. HELLAS CAKES Mr TARLAMIS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (10:01): Today I acknowledge the important contribution to Victoria’s culinary and cultural life of one of ’s Greek small business institutions, Hellas Cakes. Since opening in 1962 generations of Australians of Greek heritage and many others have made their way to Richmond to savour its delicate pastries. This was Melbourne’s first Greek pastry specialist, or ζαχαροπλαστείο as we say in Greek. The business was founded by Iraklis Kenos, who was trained as a pastry chef in his native Athens. He acquired a business partner, George Laliotis from Athens, who migrated to Australia in the 1970s, and they were later joined by George Kantaras. Iraklis moved on and the two Georges operated and built the business until they both retired, at which point George Laliotis’s son, Peter, took over the business with help from his own son, George. After 60 years of operations and the recent passing of George Laliotis, Sr, they have decided to call it a day. Peter Laliotis and the family have no regrets. As he said, they have enjoyed their beautiful years with Hellas Cakes, meeting many great people, customers and employees and creating many lovely memories for the family and the wider community. I for one enjoyed calling in for a coffee, to pick up cakes and of course to have a chat with Peter, and a special trip at Easter for the tsourekia will be remembered by many. My good friend Christina Despoteris, a long-term Richmond resident, has been a regular customer since the days when her parents took her there in the 1960s. While this announcement will sadden many, we recognise the great contribution that Hellas Cakes has made to Melbourne’s cultural life. It will be missed, but the loss will be sweetened by knowing that its achievements and high standards led the way in the explosion of Hellenic food and hospitality that we all enjoy in Melbourne today. A big thankyou to the Laliotis family and Hellas Cakes, and best wishes with their future endeavours. VICTORIAN PRIDE CENTRE Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (10:03): So I am very happy to speak to the launch of the Victorian Pride Centre on 11 July. I was very proud to be able to accompany the Premier, Minister Martin Foley and Minister Wynne. We also had the mayor of Port Phillip and Josh Burns, MP, and it was an incredible, incredible event. It was incredibly emotional and special. I know our government has invested $25 million to deliver the centre, which celebrates our LGBTIQ+ communities, honours their past and supports organisations and groups driving equality across the state. Part of the reason why it was so moving was the various shared stories of people who had literally lived through the era when members of the LGBTIQ+ community were jailed. They were jailed simply for being themselves. It is horrifying to think that that was ever the case, and it shows that we have come a long way, but that does not mean we are where we need to be. Having said that, from the launch of the mast to the sharing of the stories to the exploration of this exquisite building—I mean, it is an architectural masterpiece, and it is fit and proper for the purpose for which it has been built. I hope everyone here will get an opportunity to visit over and over and to enjoy that, because it is something for all Victorians and the world to delight in. BILLS 2708 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021

Bills MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (STANDARDS) AMENDMENT BILL 2021 Statement of compatibility Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (10:05): I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:

In accordance with Section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Charter), I make this statement with respect to the Members of Parliament (Standards) Amendment Bill 2021. In my opinion, the Members of Parliament (Standards) Amendment Bill 2021 as introduced to the Legislative Council is compatible with the human rights protected by the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement. Overview of Bill Members of Parliament (Standards) Amendment Bill 2021 inserts new definitions of family and specified person into the Members of Parliament (Standards) Bill 1978. It also inserts a new section to prevent the employment of family and specified persons as well as a penalty for contravening the section. This is consistent with Federal legislation and that of other jurisdictions. Conclusion I consider that the Members of Parliament (Standards) Amendment Bill 2021 is compatible with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 because it does not raise any human rights issues. Dr MLC Second reading Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (10:05): I move:

That the bill be now read a second time. Today, I introduce the Members of Parliament (Standards) Amendment Bill 2021 to ensure that members are accessible to their constituents while ensuring taxpayers money is well spent and maintaining public confidence in the system. When I was elected, I had no experience in managing an electoral office. I also admit that I had trust issues, having been through a bit of turmoil between my election and swearing in. I hired an experienced electoral officer who then chose to move on. I also hired people that I knew and trusted who could do the job. Within the first 12 months of being elected I hired my son and daughter on a casual basis as I was in desperate need of staff to man my electorate office. Then, and even today, there is nothing to say what I did was wrong. I didn’t breach the act or any regulations. Politicians hiring family members is, or rather was, not uncommon—in Victoria, in other states, in Federal Parliament or even overseas. Many politicians say their relatives are willing to work much longer hours than they could ask of other staff. They believe the practice helps them maintain a family life amid the long hours and pressures of Parliament. In 2017, over 150 of the 650 MPs at Westminster—almost a quarter of the total—employed family members. BILLS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2709

In the United States, 16 children of presidents worked in the White House with their fathers, from Roosevelt to Trump. It’s been said that the Americans were aware that in casting a vote for George W Bush they were electing not just a man, but a family. But things are changing. When Tony Abbott became Prime Minister, he requested that his ministers not employ immediate family members or partners in their personal office. In 2014, the practice of employing family members for all federal parliamentarians was stopped. Legislation has also been passed in New South Wales and the ACT prohibiting members from engaging family or relatives as staff. In England, following the 2020 general election no ‘connected parties’ can be employed in politicians’ offices. So why has there been this move—here and overseas? There are numerous arguments. It isn’t consistent with good, merit-based employment practices. It is out of step with modern employment practice, which requires fair and open recruitment to encourage diversity in the workplace. And more importantly, it isn’t what the people of Victoria—the people who elected us—want to see. A shopkeeper hiring his/her family to work in their shop is totally understandable. It is a family business coming together to make a living in a challenging world. Their business, and therefore that job, is not funded by the public purse. When it became public knowledge that I had hired family members, the media had a field day. The story ran on every bit of mainstream media, it made the papers in other states and even suburban papers interstate. One story received over 130 comments online. Comments such as ‘ripping off the hardworking taxpayers for their own means with these rorts’. ‘Snouts in the trough again and they bemoan the fact people have such low opinions of politicians’. And they were some of the nicer comments. I’d like to also thank the many people who reached out to me and stood by me during a very difficult time and to make sure that my children and I were okay. And then there were the comments from others in this chamber and in the other place. Comments like ‘does not pass the pub test’. And ‘totally unacceptable for this member of Parliament to use the taxpayers of Victoria as an ATM for her own family’. And another: ‘It is widely considered that having family employed under that banner is not appropriate … It’s an ethical issue.’ I was harassed and threatened. Even worse, my family—my children—were made to feel like they did something wrong. BILLS 2710 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021

I still get comments on social media about it and I still get asked questions by journalists—even though I no longer employ my children. I would hate to see any other member of Parliament subjected to what I went through. Even though I didn’t do anything wrong. But perception is reality. One comment made online stood out. It said, ‘Not one politician has the guts to stand up in Parliament and rip into these rorts and then introduce a bill to change it’. Well, I’m standing up here today and introducing a bill to change it. It’s really very simple. It changes the definition of ‘family’ and ‘specified person’ to make it very clear who is exactly a family member or a business associate. A business associate includes a trust, or an entity that the member has, or plans to establish, a relationship with. And it says that, as parliamentarians, we cannot employ them using the public purse. If this bill passes, there are transitional provisions. No family members or connected parties can be employed following the commencement date. For existing staff that are already employed—and I know that there are some—they can remain employed until the date of the next general state election in 2022. And if someone goes ahead and employs a family member, it will be referred to the Privileges Committee. In addition to the usual penalties that the committee can impose, an additional one has been added. I want to ensure that someone who breaches this doesn’t just get a slap on the wrist, but they have to make full repayment of all costs associated with the employment of the family member or business associate back into the public fund. If I could have my time again, I would happily not have employed my children so they would have been protected and not put into the public eye. And if I could, I would gladly pay back the money so that my children could never be accused of stealing from the public purse—as that was never the intent. So I stand here today simply saying that since employing family isn’t acceptable to the people of Victoria, let’s change it. Let’s make it pass the pub test. Let’s put our votes where they count. Let’s ensure that the responsibilities and obligations of members are a reflection of community expectations and standards. And that’s exactly what this bill does. I commend the bill to the house. MOTIONS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2711

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (10:14): I move:

That debate on this bill be adjourned for two weeks. Motion agreed to and debate adjourned for two weeks. Motions GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (10:14): I rise to talk to motion 604. I move:

That, under section 16 of the Ombudsman Act 1973, this house refers the following matters to the Ombudsman for investigation and report: (1) allegations raised in recent articles published in the Australian which allege, based on documents obtained via freedom-of-information requests, that the Premier’s private office was involved in the authorisation of procurement of public opinion polling contracts in favour of Qdos Research, a company headed by Mr John Armitage, in breach of normal and expected procurement rules; (2) whether the Premier’s private office directed the nature of questions asked in public opinion research, which would be a breach of public sector governance and Westminster protocols and conventions; and (3) if a breach is found to have occurred, whether this raises concerns surrounding the probity of the Department of Premier and Cabinet’s decisions and advice on public opinion research and polling and whether this taxpayer-funded research is being used for party-political purposes rather than to inform the advice of senior public servants to government in the public interest. This is a very important motion. This government is a government addicted to public opinion polling and research. It is a government that has low standards. It is a government that is prepared to help itself to the public purse, to taxpayers money, for its own partisan political activities. Those in this chamber who were here in the last Parliament and indeed the one before will now be very familiar with the red shirts rorts that occurred under the Labor Party through the use of parliamentary staffing allocations and other resources for partisan political campaigning by the Labor Party. A reference from this chamber in 2015 saw the Ombudsman investigate these red shirts rorts and saw the Ombudsman come back with what was a very important report in March 2018, Investigation of a Matter Referred from the Legislative Council on 25 November 2015. I just want to answer some points that have been raised with me by crossbench members and others. The powers that are in this act, the Ombudsman Act 1973, are quite clear and indeed explicit. I invite people who wish to look at that to move to page 51, section 16 in division 2, ‘Parliamentary complaints’. I am answering very specifically the question, ‘Does the chamber have the power to make this reference?’. It says:

Investigations referred by Parliament (1) At any time— (a) the Legislative Council or a committee of the Legislative Council; (b) the Legislative Assembly or a committee of the Legislative Assembly; or (c) a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament— may refer to the Ombudsman for investigation and report any matter, other than a matter concerning a judicial proceeding, which that House or committee considers should be investigated by the Ombudsman. (2) Where a matter is referred to the Ombudsman pursuant to subsection (1), the Ombudsman shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act, forthwith investigate that matter and report thereon. That is the power in the 1973 act. It has been used a number of times by parliamentary committees and this chamber, most importantly in the referral in 2015 from this chamber to the Ombudsman to MOTIONS 2712 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021 ensure there was a proper investigation of the red shirts rorts. At that time of the reference on 25 November 2015 the Council passed the following resolution:

… pursuant to section 16 of the Ombudsman Act 1973, this House refers the following matter to the Ombudsman for investigation and report: (1) allegations that ALP members of the Victorian Parliament misused members’ staff budget entitlements, against the provisions of the Parliament of Victoria Members Guide, that is, ‘Electorate Officers are employees of the Parliament of Victoria, and are directly accountable to the member in whose electorate office they work … These positions are provided to support the member in their parliamentary and electorate duties. The Parliament does not fund positions to support the member’s political or party duties’; and (2) any other breach of applicable policies, laws or codes in relation to these allegations. Now, the reference that was made by this chamber was later followed by what can only be seen as a tit-for-tat reference by the Legislative Assembly. It referred Liberal members of Parliament to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman investigated both those matters and came back and cleared the Liberal members but in a stinging report in 2018 pointed directly to corrupt, crooked behaviour by Labor MPs, and the government took the step of paying the money back, more than $400 000 of taxpayers money that had been stolen by Labor Party members for partisan political campaigning purposes in breach of the law. There was a police investigation as well, and indeed the matters are so serious that the Labor Party was forced to pay that money back. In a similar way what we are seeing today in the Premier’s office is the misuse of public money for partisan political purposes, for what is for all intents and purposes tracking research, research undertaken to follow favourability ratings of the Premier. That research is being directed by people in the Premier’s private office in breach of the normal standards that would be expected in a Westminster system. This is research that is in theory commissioned by the Department of Premier and Cabinet, but in truth we now see in a number of the emails that have been made public in the Australian and quotes from emails that have been made public in the Australian and the Herald Sun that in fact the PPO is intimately involved in the commissioning of that research. It was intimately involved in the decision to hire Mr Armitage and the Qdos polling and research group. This is a group that is linked to Labor; there is no question about that. I mean, you can go online and see Mr Armitage has his membership card out online for the Labor Party. There is no question about his long, rolled-gold Labor links. He is entitled as a matter of human rights to be a member of the Labor Party—of course he is—but the government and the Department of Premier and Cabinet are required to undertake proper procurement processes, and it is clear they have not done so. In 2014 at the change of government Mr Armitage was appointed without a tender process, immediately on this government coming to power. He was reappointed again in 2016, and he has received millions of dollars in polling and tracking money that has been public money, taxpayers money. I want to go through some of the matters around the nature of this procurement. This follows the Labor red shirts rorts that occurred in the 2014 period and were detected in the period of the last Parliament and subject to the Ombudsman’s devastating, damaging report on Labor Party corruption and crookedness that occurred on such a wide front. There were literally dozens of Labor Party members caught up in that rorting and corruption. I say what is occurring here is no less serious. The quotes that have been referenced from these FOI documents I think leave real concern as to how this operates. We saw even this weekend the information come forward that Mr Armitage and Qdos had privately, separately addressed cabinet. This is not, again, in the nature of the normal arrangements with public opinion social research that departments across the land do quite appropriately to inform the government—ministers—via the bureaucracy. No, this is a direct line from Labor—Labor ministers, the Premier, the Premier’s private office—to this pollster. MOTIONS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2713

There is strong intimation that ministers have spoken to the journalists on this matter, ministers who are concerned about the unorthodox nature of what is occurring. On the weekend in that article the Andrews media team said:

… all governments around Australia—federal and state … seek community feedback … to gauge how best to deliver services. Of course that is right, and of course that is appropriate. The article says:

The government’s procurement document states the $1m+ deal handed to Armitage without competitive tender in December 2019— note, before COVID, so before anyone starts saying, ‘Oh, it’s COVID, it’s COVID, it’s COVID’, these tenders were done before COVID—

was to “understand and track public perceptions of government services” … But as one public servant, who has worked at a senior level— in both colours of government—

… asked: Where does Armitage’s research sit on the continuum of relevant public administration and party political intelligence? Sixty-four documents were in scope for this particular FOI for correspondence in 2019–20 between Qdos, the Department of Premier and Cabinet and the Premier’s private office. The article says:

Fifty seven documents, including many emails, running to more than 200 pages were released, and the newspaper has published a series of stories highlighting the political nature of some of the QDOS research. Sweeping redactions to many documents … No doubt these will be followed through by the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner and other appropriate steps will be taken to try and find out exactly what is in those significant redactions. But they show that during the second wave of the COVID crisis in Victoria:

… QDOS monitored Victorians’ reaction to restrictions and were asked to score the government’s performance—including its leadership—out of 10. Now, this is not social opinion research about people’s attitudes to issues; this is party-political polling and tracking. The report also establishes that:

… in late August, deep in the 112-day lockdown, Armitage addressed the Premier’s eight-member crisis cabinet. Labor sources say the content of the briefing wasn’t about public health, it was about the public’s perception of how the Premier was handling the pandemic. And this is the significant difference here: a Labor pollster, Labor to his bootstraps, and no tenders, repeatedly no tenders, just sweeping aside the normal procurement process to give multimillion-dollar contracts to Labor mates corruptly. Corrupt contracts, crooked deals, crooked procurement—it smells to high heaven. This is a red shirts-style rort for research. This is outrageous. It is money that is being spent by taxpayers and being spent by taxpayers in a way that they have little control over. But it is not being spent in the public interest; it is being spent in the interests of the Labor Party, and they have corrupt form on this matter. They have form on the misuse of taxpayers money in this way. The article says:

Labor sources say the content of the briefing wasn’t about public health— ‘Labor sources’, note that—

it was about the public’s perception of how the Premier was handling the pandemic. More broadly, Labor sources have said that Armitage’s research helped guide the premier’s strategy in appearing at daily press conferences, his tone and language. MOTIONS 2714 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021

The more we learn about the government’s QDOS operation, the more it seems to resemble a research version of the Red Shirts … arrangements that applied earlier. And it is worth looking at some of the material from 13 June this year, 2021, that was put on the front page of the Australian by the Victorian editor, Damon Johnston. They obtained the documents, many marked ‘cabinet-in-confidence’, and the company’s expertise, the Armitage expertise, in ‘changing public opinion’. It says:

The surveys asked Victorians to score the government from 0 to 10 on “providing leadership during the coronavirus outbreak” and rate its performance on “acting on advice from health officials”. Victorians were asked if they thought the restrictions had been “much too soft, too soft, about right, too harsh, much too harsh” … I thought we were following health advice. Actually what the Premier is doing is following polling advice, tracking research, and he is crafting his messages against the health advice and directly in terms of the polling advice that he is getting from the nightly tracking research done by his crooked Labor mate John Armitage and his corrupt arrangement, his corrupt links, with these people. It is stinking and it smells to high heaven. We all know what is going on here. We can see this given Labor’s track record. The Premier will not release the health advice and nor will the government in this chamber. The government will not release the health advice at FOI. It is fighting at every turn. And the reason it will not release the health advice is it is not always following it. The health advice is not always being followed, because the polling, the tracking advice, trumps the health advice. When the Premier gets the word from John Armitage, he jumps. He is like a puppet. He has got the hand up his back and he is moving the words, moving the sounds out there, directly out of the polling, directly out of the research. This is not the health advice. This is not Brett Sutton. This is not the public health team. This is John Armitage and Qdos making the decisions for the Premier—how he frames things, how he puts the rules in place—and this is outrageous and it is corrupt. I would say this is one of the greatest scandals we have seen in the mismanagement of public health. And you wonder why we had trouble through that period in the second lockdown, you wonder why the health advice was so contradictory, you wonder why there was a failure to manage this properly. We saw it leach out of quarantine, explode across the land. 801 Victorians died, and we are getting decisions made on the polling advice by the Premier straight out of Armitage’s research the night before. We know from some of the information that has been put forward here that people in the Premier’s private office were given links to this: to watch it, to spy on people in these focus groups, to spy on people who were being asked these questions, to watch it—to watch it on replay if they wanted. Has the Premier seen these? I reckon he has, and I reckon he has focused on it closely. I reckon he has been watching this research. But certainly people in his private office have been given the link to watch it live or to watch the replay of the focus group research for that night and to actually see what has been said by people and to actually make decisions directly out of that. We also know that much of this is going straight to the PPO. It is not going via a filtering mechanism in the department, where the department assesses material and looks at it closely and then briefs the minister. The research has been commissioned by the Department of Premier and Cabinet, although it appears to have been on direction from the PPO—you do this—and we see them doing research even before the contracts are renewed at certain points. So this is very crooked the way this is operating, and I think people should be very concerned. The staggering of the research is actually being managed, it appears. This is the 13 July article too:

At 9.28am the DPC manager emails Ms Loukomitis, stating; “Thanks Sue, We might be able to space the rounds out a bit based on the dates … … Ms Loukomitis responds: “Maybe keep in mind there have already been some shifts in what can open in metro Melbourne (beauty and gyms … MOTIONS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2715

Again, this is them researching where the restrictions are going to go, how tough they are going to go on certain groups, how they are going to make the decisions. Not on health advice—this is polling advice we are talking about here. The article says:

At 3.32pm, the DPC manager emails … QDOS … “Please see below for the options I’ve provided to PPO (Premier’s private office)—follow up tomorrow. “My preference is to go with Option 2. Then they go down to suburbs. So we are actually getting decisions made by the PPO about which suburbs are being done.

“Please let us know if you have a preference on dates, is there a need to go prior to the next key date for metro on the 28th Sept?” Again, this is in the second wave of COVID in Victoria, with the huge impact that that had on the state, but here we have decisions being made where the PPO is deciding what night, where and what questions. The article says:

… September 20 … in an email tagged “cabinet in confidence”, the DPC manager emails Ms Loukomitis, saying: “Below are the list of suggested areas of focus that I plan to send to PPO. I would appreciate input from John (Armitage) and yourself if you have time to review this morning.” A “discussion guide” for these focus groups has been released … It suggests the government was focused on assessing the level of frustration in the community to the marathon lockdown. It goes on:

“Once cases are lower and restrictions ease further, do you have confidence that contact tracing and health response will keep numbers low?” This is not a question about public health outcomes here, this is a question of taking perceptions of what people believe about the government, and it is filtering it back so that they can mislead and hoodwink the public. They can use the smooth words and the clever words that the Premier uses. These are all being driven straight out of research directed out of the Premier’s private office. The article says:

Under a section headlined “Victoria’s direction”, the guide states: “Do you compare Victoria’s to other stated/NZ/other countries? So it is doing comparative stuff here. That is nothing to do with the public health response. I say this is an important motion. I call on the chamber’s support. If people want further information, I am happy to provide it. (Time expired) Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (10:35): The suggestion that the government has misused public resources in the conduct of this research is completely unfounded. The Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) procured the research as one means of assessing government performance to inform improvements in policy and service delivery. Contracts were awarded to Qdos following a competitive tender process in 2016. The contract was won by Qdos Research due to the company’s expertise, experience and value for money. The ensuing contract placed Qdos in a unique position to provide insights and analysis, including on how government policy and services have been received and experienced over time. Procurement processes allow for exemptions to be granted. Exemptions can be applied where no other reasonable alternative to the goods or services exists—because of specialist expertise, compatibility requirements, limited trial or prototype, or specific research and development agreements—or where the wide distribution of procurement documentation creates a health and safety risk. These procurement exemption criteria apply to all procurement sourcing activities, regardless of value. Qdos fulfilled these criteria for the December 2019 contract, and an exemption was applied by DPC. The MOTIONS 2716 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021 award of the December 2019 contract to Qdos followed the previous competitive tender and accorded with procurement requirements. We always ensure our contracts deliver value for money for Victorians. All governments around Australia, federal and state, Labor and Liberal, seek community feedback to gauge how best to deliver services. The Premier’s private office supports the Premier in developing policy and improving service delivery across every portfolio in government. The Department of Premier and Cabinet supports the implementation of the government’s agenda for Victoria, in line with Westminster principles, which Victorians overwhelmingly endorsed at the last election. This research has enabled us to get direct community feedback on coronavirus measures, making sure Victorians understand the public health requirements that keep them safe and enabling us to provide the services they need during the pandemic. The Victorian government has undertaken community research for more than a decade to make sure policies reflect the needs of the Victorian community. Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (10:39): Here we go again. There is one thing that is abundantly obvious to anybody who takes even a passing interest in what goes on in this state—very obvious to everybody: that the Andrews government is corrupt to the core. This government is crooked. This government is corrupt. And this is yet another example of the corruption of this government. That they would use taxpayers funds to do polling to help themselves electorally is yet another example of them helping themselves to public money to prop themselves up, to put them in a strong position—or a stronger position, I should say. But they have been caught this time again with their fingers in the till. It is not the first time, as Mr Davis pointed out not so long ago. It is not the first time at all; we have seen this become a regular event over the seven years of the Andrews government. We have seen this time and time again— where they have used public money for blatant partisan political reasons. We have seen this government using public money to prop up their mates—and it is well known in the business community. You do not have to go too far at all to find people who will swear black and blue that if you are not a mate of the Labor Party, if you are not in the inner circle, if you are not doing the right thing by the Andrews government, you have got no hope of getting any sort of decent tender. You have got no hope in any competitive tender process. That, unfortunately, is not just the perception in the business community in this state and indeed interstate, but it is the fact. This government specialises in jobs for the boys and jobs for the girls. If you are not in with this government, you have got no hope. You have got no chance of getting hold of some of the largesse that this government wants to, and is prone to, give out to all its mates. What we are seeing here, even worse, is a Premier and a government that are being directed on a very important public issue of health by polling. Now, this could explain the recent backflip by the Premier, who, when he came back—the very day he came back—from his sick leave, made the announcement that lockdowns would be as a last resort from here on in. ‘Hallelujah!’, we cried across the state. From one end of Victoria to the other you could hear the cry of celebration that at last the Premier had come to his senses. But, no, obviously the Premier looked at some polling again, which he does every day, and within days we were back in lockdown. That is the only excuse, the only reason one can find for such an extraordinary backflip by the Premier of this state. He is constantly being fed polling material paid for by the taxpayer and is locking us down as a result. Of course we have seen in this state what the impact of those lockdowns—1, 2, 3, 4, 5—have had in this state to this point. One just has to walk down the steps of this building and walk down Bourke Street to see the devastation that those lockdowns have caused. One does not have to look very far from this building to see empty shop after empty shop, closed restaurants—you name it, the economic devastation is there for all to see. Of course every time a small business or a restaurant goes bust, not only do the owners lose their dreams and possibly their homes as well but employees lose their jobs and unions—this is probably something the government has not thought of—lose their members, because you have got to have a job to be a union member, and when people lose their jobs obviously they will not be in the union. So that might be something that the government might like to think about MOTIONS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2717 next time they are tempted to lock us down again. But here we have a government which is making major decisions based on what the pollsters are telling them—not on what Brett Sutton is saying or not on what we have heard from the public health people. This would be why the government refuses point-blank to release the public health advice that they supposedly use to lock us down. They refuse point-blank, and we have had a motion. And Minister Leane—I can understand why he is very touchy on this subject. If I was in his position, I would be embarrassed too. I would be horrified at what my Premier was doing. I would be appalled as well. But here we have a government making decisions on the advice of a pollster instead of the advice that they should be acting on, and that is professional health advice. It is beyond belief almost, but sadly it is true, and it is actually happening in Victoria in 2021. We saw it in 2020; it is happening in 2021. It will probably happen in 2022 as the election draws near next year. So I am hopeful that the crossbench will join us today in referring this matter to the Ombudsman. And one has to say that if the government wants to claim credit for creating jobs, it has certainly created jobs in the Ombudsman’s office, because it has been referred to the Ombudsman before, and the Ombudsman is keeping a very close eye I would imagine on just about everything this government does, because they know, I am sure. And I do not want to speak for the Ombudsman, but they along with every other Victorian are only too aware of how crooked and how corrupt the Andrews government is. So I am hoping, and I am asking the crossbench today to join with us to refer this matter to the Ombudsman to ensure that Victorians find out exactly what has happened here. If members of the government, and we have heard from Ms Taylor today, say, you know, ‘Oh, it’s all hunky-dory. There’s nothing wrong here, nothing to see here, move on’— Mr Davis: They gave no explanation. Mr FINN: And there is no explanation, as Mr Davis says. Mr Leane interjected. Mr FINN: If that is the case—and Minister Leane will, I am sure, endorse this—then this government will have not a problem supporting this motion. They will have not a problem referring this matter to the Ombudsman for full investigation. If they have got nothing to hide, let the Ombudsman investigate and let the Ombudsman clear them. If they have got nothing to hide, let us pass this motion unanimously today. Let us get this matter cleared up. Let us get this appalling accusation of corruption—or an accusation of appalling corruption, perhaps I should say—and let us clear this matter up for all time. So I challenge members of the government to support this motion. If you have nothing to hide, let us investigate this. Let us see exactly what has happened, and if you have got nothing to hide, if you have done the right thing, then I will be very pleased. I for one will be very pleased. But until that time, the Victorian public are perfectly entitled to ask, ‘What the hell is this government doing?’. Why is this government so corrupt? Why is this government so crooked? Why is this government constantly stealing our money and using it for their own purposes? Why is this government treating the people of Victoria in this manner? Until this matter is cleared up, the people of Victoria are well entitled to ask that question. Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (10:49): I am sorry to disappoint Mr Finn again, but I do not go along with your line of argument there, and I think where you lost me was that you had not actually contacted the Ombudsman about this. If I was this concerned, the first thing I would have done is write a letter to the Ombudsman asking her to investigate this. I think that is how most of us expect this. But no, you have skipped a step, and you have decided to ask the Parliament to force her to investigate this. Now, yes, we have got every right to do that under the legislation, and I acknowledge that, but I am not comfortable with skipping over the first steps of actually asking the Ombudsman to consider this—just picking up the phone, making a call, speaking to that office MOTIONS 2718 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021 directly—rather than taking this heavy-handed approach of asking the Parliament to force a fiercely independent office to investigate something on our behalf. Now, if this was a referral for us to investigate it, well, so be it. Had you come here and said, ‘We asked the Ombudsman. We didn’t get much of a response, so we thought we’d take it to the next level and do this via the Parliament, do it via the legislation’, then I might have listened more carefully. What do they say? ‘When it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck’. This does sound like political opportunism. Mr Finn: When it sounds like corruption and looks like corruption, it is corruption. Ms PATTEN: Well, in that case the Ombudsman will investigate this, and I am sure— Members interjecting. Ms PATTEN: As I say, up until yesterday I was not aware that we could force the Ombudsman to take on investigations. I am now well enlightened of that— Members interjecting. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Order! I am having trouble hearing Ms Patten. If she could continue without assistance, that would be great, Mr Davis. Mr Davis interjected. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): That is great, Mr Davis, but I would like to hear Ms Patten’s contribution, thanks. Ms PATTEN: I have actually finished my contribution, and as I say, I think there would have been far better means to achieve this. Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (10:52): I will be brief. In October 2000 John Armitage was awarded a $20 000 contract from this government for six days work. At that time John ran a company called Auspoll. There was no competitive tender process for the $20 000 contract, and it was later revealed that John had ties to the Labor Party and had run as a Labor candidate in the federal election two years prior. In 2010 John became involved with a company called Qdos. Qdos is a partisan political marketing organisation that is strongly aligned with Labor views on political issues. In 2016 Qdos received $786 000 of taxpayer funds for research commissioned by the Andrews government and then another $1.1 million contract. As part of that contract political staffers in the Premier’s office were given logins that allowed them to secretly spy on focus groups run by John. John also provided at least one private briefing to ministers regarding the Premier’s popularity. Mr Gepp: Says who? Mr QUILTY: Says me. Despite it being a crisis committee of cabinet, public servants were excluded from this meeting. Let me say explicitly that I believe opinion polling of public opinion has driven this government’s COVID responses and restrictions. The opinion polls drive the restrictions, not the health advice, which is why the government will never release the health advice. Members interjecting. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Order! Can everyone just let Mr Quilty continue in silence, please. Mr QUILTY: During the height of the pandemic, public image was a priority for Dan Andrews. He commissioned fortnightly surveys from Qdos on the perception of government, and focus groups were asked about perceptions of the Premier. I will admit there is a thin line between gathering feedback on government action and researching campaign messaging. This ambiguity is an additional reason we need less secrecy and more clarity around these issues. We have since learned that the MOTIONS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2719

Premier’s department has directed the pollsters to perform political research instead of public interest research, down to the specifics of the questions asked. Taxpayers are being slugged millions to market , and all the funding is passed on to Labor’s mates. The research and outcomes have been kept secret using confidentiality powers. The Labor Party already receives millions in funding from the Victorian Electoral Commission for party-political activity, but Labor is always looking for ways to rort additional taxpayer funds. This is precisely the same kind of problem we saw with the red shirts scandal, where Labor MPs used resources intended for parliamentary duties as campaign resources instead. All this should be subject to greater scrutiny. It is time to smash parliamentary secrecy and make our governments honest. I am certain this behaviour is not unique to the Labor Party— Members interjecting. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Order! It is hard to hear Mr Quilty. Can everyone keep it down to a dull roar? Mr QUILTY: I am certain this behaviour is not unique to the Labor Party. Similar powers are available to every government across the country, and I would be surprised if they were not doing the same kind of thing—but that does not make it okay. We need to change the rules to remove secrecy powers that are used to cover up dodgy behaviour and keep the public from learning about abuses of power. The Liberal Democrats believe in honest government. I welcome this referral and look forward to increased scrutiny around political expenditure. Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (10:56): How do I beat that? Well, my community does not want to hear propaganda, nor do they want to hear spin and nor do they want the government to actually pay millions of dollars to be spun at or have propaganda spat at them. I must say I have raised many times in this Parliament the language that is currently used against our community—that spin, that propaganda. I continually hear it out of the mouths of the government, especially in things like you cannot actually say anything at the moment without being called a conspiracy theorist—rather than that is just the community’s concerns. This is yet another example of the hypocrisy of the government—a government that is very happy to create regulations for private companies, such as in the Energy Legislation Amendment (Energy Fairness) Bill 2021 yesterday, and to make regulations for local government, but when it comes to its own behaviour it is a different story. Apparently it is okay for the Premier to hand a contract to a Labor Party stalwart without any competitive tender process. Apparently it is okay for him to hand out a contract without any fixed brief, because that is what I can see. The contract was granted in December 2019. Mr Gepp interjected. Dr CUMMING: That is right—I will take that up. Apparently the government is only interested in making sure that other members of Parliament get their news via media statements that obviously were created by this gentleman. The contract was granted in 2019 for work up until October 2022, right just before the election—so goodness, let us make sure that we have got the right tone, the right propaganda, the right spin at the community rather than just being truthful. Now, I would have thought that through this a brief would have been prepared and that Qdos would have been asked to quote on the brief, along with other companies, before the contract was offered. But why should I be surprised? They handed out a security contract at the start of a pandemic. This did not happen. Somewhere along the way the brief, if there ever was one, must have been changed, because last year Qdos was doing work on the pandemic and the government’s response to it, yet when the contract was granted we had not even heard of COVID. But why am I surprised? The government consistently flouts the rules it sets for everyone else. It says community consultation is vitally important, that Victorians need to have their say on matters that MOTIONS 2720 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021 affect them, yet consistently we have seen this government put forward legislation when no community consultation has taken place. We are told the consultation will take place later: ‘Don’t worry—just agree with this legislation, and we are going to do the consultation later’. Mr Gepp: You just made that up. Dr CUMMING: No, wait until tomorrow, Mr Gepp. Tomorrow, Mr Gepp, will be a prime example. We had legislation given to us yesterday that somehow we as members of Parliament cannot consult on. How do you do that in such short time? Then we are told at our own briefing, ‘Don’t you worry’ and that after we agree to this legislation the consultation will take place later. So it is ‘Do not worry’ and also ‘Just read the media release’. Apparently I am a member of Parliament. And a briefing is always a brief briefing, by some juniors. The only things that I am told are actually things that are already in the public domain, but all the secret stuff, you have got that: ‘Don’t worry. Don’t make it public. It’s okay. Trust us’. Well, the community has had enough of the old ‘trust’ bit with you guys, because you are not forthcoming with the information that you make your decisions on, so therefore make it all public. If there is nothing to see here, nobody will worry about it. A member interjected. Dr CUMMING: That is right. Apparently it is a conspiracy theory, is it? Again. When we question the government, we are making things up. A conspiracy theory, is it? ‘Don’t worry. The consultation will be done later after we’ve made the law’. But let us give the Premier the benefit of the doubt. Let us give him that. Let the Ombudsman investigate the matter, and surely if the Premier has done nothing wrong, the government will have no problem in supporting this motion today. House divided on motion:

Ayes, 14 Atkinson, Mr Cumming, Dr McArthur, Mrs Bach, Dr Davis, Mr O’Donohue, Mr Bath, Ms Finn, Mr Ondarchie, Mr Bourman, Mr Limbrick, Mr Quilty, Mr Crozier, Ms Lovell, Ms Noes, 23 Barton, Mr Leane, Mr Stitt, Ms Elasmar, Mr Maxwell, Ms Symes, Ms Erdogan, Mr Meddick, Mr Tarlamis, Mr Garrett, Ms Melhem, Mr Taylor, Ms Gepp, Mr Patten, Ms Terpstra, Ms Grimley, Mr Pulford, Ms Tierney, Ms Hayes, Mr Ratnam, Dr Watt, Ms Kieu, Dr Shing, Ms Motion negatived. CROWN CASINO Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (11:08): I am very pleased to move notice of motion 603 standing in my name. I move:

That: (1) this house: (a) notes the allegations regarding the regulation of Crown Casino and criticisms of the performance of the current regulatory regime; (b) further notes allegations regarding the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation’s failure to investigate the possible corruption of AFL betting markets; (c) calls on the Andrews Labor government to amend the terms of reference for the Finkelstein Royal Commission into the Casino Operator and Licence, within seven days of the house agreeing to this MOTIONS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2721

resolution, by inserting a paragraph that states ‘If you consider the casino regulatory regime, including the regulator, the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation, suitable and whether you consider changes relevant to the casino regulatory regime are required’; (d) further notes the findings of recent New South Wales inquiries into Crown Casino under section 143 of the Casino Control Act 1992 (NSW); (e) further notes the findings of Commissioner Patricia Bergin and the recommendations concerning Crown Resorts and the more general recommendations for a new regulatory body, an independent casino control commission, that should be established via legislation to act as a dedicated, standalone, specialist casino regulator with the powers of a standing royal commission; (2) if no variation of the terms of reference pursuant to paragraph (1)(c) has been gazetted within seven days of the house agreeing to this resolution, as advised to members by the Clerk, a select committee be established to inquire into, consider and report, by 20 December 2021, on the implications of the Bergin inquiry findings with respect to the existing Crown Casino licence in Victoria and casino regulation more generally in Victoria and the regulator’s failure to investigate the possible corruption of AFL betting markets; (3) if the committee proposes to transmit a report for the inquiry to the house on a day when the house is not sitting, the chair may give the report to the Clerk and: (a) the Clerk must: (i) as soon as practicable after the report is received give a copy of the report to each member of the house; (ii) as soon as practicable after the report is received cause the report to be published on the tabled documents database and the committee’s website; (iii) cause the report to be tabled in the house on the next sitting day of the house; (b) the report, when given to the Clerk, is taken to have been published by order of the house; (4) the committee shall consist of seven members comprising three members from the government nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Council, two members from the opposition nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Council and two members from among the remaining members in the Council nominated jointly by minority groups and Independent members; (5) a majority of the members appointed pursuant to paragraph (4) will constitute a quorum of the committee; (6) the chair of the committee must be a non-government member; (7) in addition to exercising a deliberative vote, when votes on a question are equally divided, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote; (8) the committee shall proceed to conduct business within seven days of its establishment, notwithstanding that all members have not been appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy; (9) the committee may examine, call for and compel evidence in relation to the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation’s recently announced, self-established investigation; (10) consistent with the powers of the Legislative Council, the committee may: (a) compel witnesses to attend the committee; (b) require the production of documents and other things; and (11) the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing and sessional orders or practices of both houses will have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing and sessional orders or practices of both houses. At the outset I acknowledge the Shadow Minister for Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Ms Steph Ryan, and the work she has done on this issue and the issues associated with Crown Casino and the supervision of Crown by the VCGLR, the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation. The issue of liquor and gaming regulation is a vexed one for governments. If governments are determined to legalise gaming activities, it needs to be done with strong and robust oversight and regulation. The model in Victoria since the Labor Party under Joan Kirner introduced poker machines or electronic gaming machines to Victoria was to have a separate regulator, and then Labor commenced MOTIONS 2722 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021 the process of examining a casino for Victoria and, as history shows, the Kennett government then awarded a licence to Crown, initially in a temporary location and then ultimately during its term at the current Southbank location. Initially the casino had a separate regulator and subsequently during the term of the Liberal-Nationals the liquor and gaming regulators were merged to create the VCGLR. I note that Daniel Andrews was the gaming minister in the Bracks government between December 2006 and 2007. We know from comments Mr Andrews has made that he has a longstanding relationship with Mr James Packer. Of course during the term of the Baillieu and Napthine governments , now one of the most senior ministers in this government, was the shadow minister for liquor and gaming. Of course the benefit of a merged regulator is that every gaming venue with electronic gaming machines and indeed the casino also has a liquor licence, so there are clear and obvious synergies in having a combined regulator. At the change of government in November 2014, there were approximately 70 liquor and gaming inspectors at the VCGLR. Now, at this time, just before the 2014 election, when time was scarce and the leader’s office was trying to maximise every possible opportunity to woo voters, to demonstrate to voters that they had what it takes to form the next government, Daniel Andrews and Martin Pakula, three weeks out from the 2014 election, decided to hit the road and visit Lloyd Williams at his racing property. It is clear from the TV footage that night that those three men enjoy a very familiar and friendly relationship. Acting President Bourman, you will recall, as I am sure many Victorians do, that in what he thought was off camera but was picked up by the Channel 10 microphone, Mr Williams said to Daniel Andrews:

“You should probably know I am on the executive of the Packer estate, and James is going to kick every goal he can for you.” In subsequent media questioning, Mr Andrews confirmed he had known Mr Packer for years, but refused to go into details about their relationship and refused to deny that they were friends. Whether their relationship stems from Mr Andrews’s period as the gaming minister—now many, many years ago—or whether it preceded that time, we do not know, because Mr Andrews has refused to give any further details. If we move forward from 2014 to 2017, the Auditor-General tabled a report in the Parliament on regulating gaming and liquor in February 2017. In what you would describe as a scathing report, an absolutely scathing report, the Auditor-General said in relation to casino supervision—and I am quoting from the Auditor-General’s report, page xi at the start of the report, which says in relation to casino supervision:

VCGLR is responsible for regulating and monitoring the Melbourne casino. It says:

… its compliance division has not applied a level of focus on the casino that reflects its status and risk as the largest gaming venue in the state and its approach has lacked continuity. He goes on to say, the Auditor-General:

As a result, VCGLR has not paid sufficient attention to key areas of risk in the casino’s operations, such as the detection of people excluded by Victoria Police, responsible gambling and money laundering. VCGLR has recognised these issues … et cetera, et cetera. Now, the words from the Auditor-General should always be closely scrutinised, reviewed, by this place but also by the executive about how it can inform better delivery of government services and supervision as part of regulatory functions. When the Auditor-General says that the regulator, which has responsibility for oversight of the casino and its licence, has not paid sufficient attention to money laundering, that should ring alarm bells. That should ring enormous alarm bells, and it also should ring alarm bells because as the recent Four Corners investigation detailed and as is MOTIONS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2723 publicly known, junket operators, those bringing in the high rollers from overseas at that time, principally from China, increased the risk of money laundering and criminal activity. So at a time when the risks were increasing, the Auditor-General found that the Andrews government, through its regulator, did not pay sufficient attention to issues such as money laundering. I go back to the statistic I referenced: that at the change of government there were approximately 70 liquor and gaming inspectors employed by the commission whose job it was to ensure appropriate compliance at the casino and across liquor and gaming venues in Victoria. If we fast-forward to earlier this year, it was revealed in information provided that the number of gaming inspectors employed by the regulator dropped from 69 in June 2015—so similar to, as I understand it, the number at the change of government—to just 56 in March this year. So we have an Auditor-General’s report of 2017 saying that supervision of money laundering and the exclusion of suspect people from the casino did not have sufficient oversight and we have an enormous increase in high-risk junket operations which, while very lucrative for Treasury, increased the risk of money laundering, and at the same time we have an enormous cut to the number of inspectors whose job it was to supervise and oversight the casino. These statistics reflect the concern expressed by the Four Corners whistleblowers—courageous former VCGLR inspectors who have spoken out and have talked about cutting corners and about pressure to not push things up the line against Crown. It would appear we have a culture of not taking on the casino and cuts to the number of inspectors while at the same time risk was increasing significantly. What did the Labor government decide to do when confronted with this information—this damning report from the Auditor-General? Well, the Auditor-General did a follow-up on its 2017 report in November 2019, so not that long ago. We find from the audit update or summary that key recommendations such as supervising casino operations—recommendation 11—still have not been properly and fully implemented. So despite having over 2½ years to implement these damning recommendations, which should ring alarm bells in the highest level of government, the Auditor- General’s update on the implementation of the recommendations in November 2019 found that key recommendations surrounding the casino’s supervision still have not been done. I should also note that during this time the government took some liquor and gaming inspectors out of Richmond—close to the casino, where supervision and immediate response was possible—and located some in Sale, Ararat and regional Victoria, reducing the pool of available inspectors to supervise the casino and other venues as well. I have cited the close relationship between the Packers, Crown and the Premier, but what do Labor people say? What do former Labor ministers say about this? The Four Corners report, as subsequently reported by ABC state political reporter Richard Willingham on 7 July this year, said, and I quote:

Even senior government figures privately concede that the government has not been tough enough on Crown. It goes on to say:

One former minister told Four Corners that money laundering was not properly discussed at cabinet level, and that the Premier had a history of shutting down conversations relating to gambling policy or Crown casino. Now, why would Daniel Andrews at cabinet level shut down conversations relating to gaming policy or Crown Casino? Why would he do that? Mr Leane interjected. Mr O’DONOHUE: I will pick up on Mr Leane’s interjection. He is a cabinet member. Maybe he can contribute to this debate and he can tell us, because one thing about this government is that information is difficult to get. It is really revealing when a former minister feels a public duty to disclose cabinet discussions, or lack of cabinet discussions, around money laundering and the operations of Crown Casino. Now, I know Mr Leane is sensitive about this issue, and we know MOTIONS 2724 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021

Mr Andrews is sensitive about this issue, because any time he is questioned about this in a doorstop you look at his face and the anger that brews within him is palpable and real and he hates it. Now, I think Mr Andrews, we would all concede, is a polished media performer. He has had many years in the job. But that polish disappears when the issue of Crown is raised, and his relationship with Mr Packer, who he says he has now known for a long, long time. He does not dispute that they have a friendship. Why does he get so angry about that? It is revealing that Labor ministers are happy to leak against the Premier about his failure to hold Crown to account. So we fast-forward to the New South Wales government. Allegations have been aired in the media throughout this time—through 2015, 2016, 2017 and ongoing throughout the term of this government—about alleged money laundering and illegal activity at Crown. The New South Wales government did not sit on its hands and did not push the issue aside. They commissioned an inquiry, the Bergin inquiry. The Bergin inquiry was scathing about Crown’s operations, principally Crown’s operations in Melbourne, and about allegations of money laundering. Perhaps the best-known example is the Aldi bag of cash being pulled out and wads of cash being handed over. The Bergin inquiry found that Crown was unfit to hold a casino licence for the $2.2 billion casino in Sydney. The West Australian Labor government then took action and launched a royal commission. Faced with this evidence, as Ms Ryan has correctly pointed out on numerous occasions, Daniel Andrews was left with no choice but to commission a royal commission. Having done so, the terms of reference and the reporting time are just way too tight and too narrow. The terms of reference do not allow the royal commission to examine the operations of the regulator of the casino—the so-called cop on the beat, the organisation that is there to ensure that Crown complies with the law, complies with its act and complies with the conditions of its licence. The terms of reference do not allow that—they simply do not allow that. We can speculate why the terms of reference were drawn in such a narrow fashion, but at the end of the day, what is known from whistleblowers—former VCGLR inspectors—from documents that have been leaked or produced and from other sources is that there is a huge amount of evidence that the VCGLR simply has not been up to the job of holding the casino to account with the terms of its licence, with oversight and with preventing criminal activity. So what this motion is seeking to do is to fix that—to request an amendment to the terms of reference so that these issues can be properly investigated, and if the terms of reference of the royal commission are not so expanded, then a select committee of this place should be established to do just that. Because I have spoken to some of those whistleblowers. They tell me they have no faith in the inquiry established by Mr Ross Kennedy of the VCGLR. It will not be a public process. They have no faith in the way it will be conducted, and they believe that a transparent, open and accountable process is required to get to the truth. And while Ms Horne does not want to look in the rear-vision mirror, to quote her from radio this morning, how can we learn the mistakes of the past if we do not understand what has gone on, why it has gone on and how this can be fixed? The government is in a panic trying to announce things, but the simple fact is we need a full investigation by the royal commission, and failing that, by this place. Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (11:28): It has been an interesting opportunity for Mr O’Donohue to get to his feet today to wax lyrical about all sorts of matters, from the Premier’s body language through to his level of perceived emotional engagement in the regulation of gambling matters across the state, but what Mr O’Donohue has failed to do with the time spent on his feet today is to acknowledge the work being done at the highest level of independent scrutiny available to government through the royal commission to investigate the very matters which lie at the heart of this particular motion and indeed very serious allegations, which Mr O’Donohue has referred to in his contribution, including footage, disturbingly, of large amounts of cash appearing to be transacted through the casino for purposes which no doubt Justice Finkelstein will have a view on when the royal commission finalises its report and issues findings and recommendations in October. MOTIONS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2725

Mr O’Donohue referred to the royal commission not having sufficient time in order to conduct its work, and to that end I note also that there has been an extension of the time available to Justice Finkelstein, which has been widely reported, from August until October to enable further evidence which has come to light to be considered by the royal commission in acquitting its obligations within the terms of reference. Now, Mr O’Donohue is also keen to craft a narrative about this government in relation to the calling of this royal commission, but the facts actually speak for themselves. We have indicated very, very clearly that illegal behaviour within the gaming industry will not be tolerated, and the way in which these matters have been referred to a royal commission is to the government’s mind the best way to get sunlight as a disinfectant onto these issues. This comes off the back of the Bergin review and the recommendations for a standalone independent casino regulator, something which Mr O’Donohue also referred to in quite a deliberately nuanced way in his contribution to perhaps diminish or dilute the importance placed by this government upon the review to consider the option of a standalone independent casino regulator. The terms of reference are also something which, for the royal commission, Mr O’Donohue has called into question, and this is a really common opposition tactic. Not only do we see that they have done this in the inquiry into hotel quarantine, not only do we see how they have done this in relation to the Royal Commission into Family Violence and the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System, and federally in relation to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety as well as the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, but we also see that this is an exercise in hairsplitting, which enables the opposition to in fact cast aspersions about the legitimacy of governments’—Labor governments’, I should say; let us not pull any punches about that—intent and desire to see that inappropriate and illegal behaviour within certain sectors is stamped out. The Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry is another example where again terms of reference were sought to be changed, and unfortunately for the commonwealth government, at least in the eyes of many, industry super funds were found not to have actually done anything that was not beyond reproach—and as a consequence, a political target for was removed as an option and an opportunity. On the other hand, we have heard speakers in this place say this week that self-regulation is the best form of action. Just yesterday I heard numerous speakers from across the way refer to self-regulation being the best antidote to inappropriate behaviour, and that was in relation to reforms to the energy market. So on the one hand those opposite are very, very happy to say that we should let sleeping dogs lie, even where we have examples of manifest inequality and disadvantage being occasioned by an unregulated market, a decentralised market, as we have seen in the case of the energy sector and the privatisation which occurred in the 1980s and 90s, but we also now see that those opposite, when it suits them, are able to do a 180-degree pirouette that would make any Olympic gymnast blush to in fact take on the very opposite view to the one that they espoused just yesterday. The facts in this matter are actually really important for the purposes of this motion and for the purposes of the government’s opposition to this motion. We do not and we will not tolerate illegal behaviour. We will and we must and we should, as any responsible government should, wait for the final recommendations, wait for the findings from Justice Finkelstein, in order to respond properly to them. We do not and we will not compromise the process, the integrity of a royal commission by seeking to wade into a narrative being crafted by those opposite for entirely improper and bad faith purposes simply to enable those who want to craft that narrative or to put something on social media to in fact do so and to play lowest common denominator politics with an issue that they simultaneously claim to be of significant public interest. It is also again worth noting that the announcement made this week by Minister Horne on the overhaul of the regulation of gambling in Victoria is not, despite the best efforts of those opposite, to spin a narrative. It is not being done for any improper purpose. It is being done in order to establish a casino MOTIONS 2726 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021 and gambling regulator with a dedicated casino regulation division focused entirely, solely, exclusively on holding Melbourne’s casino operator to account. And of course there will be findings and recommendations from the royal commission, and of course they will have a direct bearing on the way in which government responds to the nature of regulation, the nature of recognition of improper conduct—potentially illegal conduct—and the way in which governments are responsible for ensuring integrity within this sector. What we do know also is that the structure and governance of the new body of the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission (VGCCC), to replace the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (VCGLR), have been shaped and led not within cabinet rooms, not within backroom or corridor discussions, as might be claimed by those who again want to score a cheap political point, but by the eminent regulatory and public policy reform expert Deborah Cope. Now, if those opposite want to again seek to undermine Ms Cope’s expertise and experience in the way in which public policy can be shaped to improve and enhance regulation, then power to their arm. It does more of a disservice to them in undermining the work of experts than it does to reflect on Ms Cope’s merit in this regard. Now, Ms Cope’s review has been undertaken in parallel with the royal commission and has been considering the appropriate regulatory requirements in this sector and the way in which changes might and indeed should be made. There has been an emphasis made by Ms Cope on greater oversight of monitoring gambling harm and those minimisation measures which are such an integral part of meeting the challenges in the casino gambling sectors and on in fact accelerating the work in this regard around work undertaken for problem and harm-minimisation gambling within the existing regulatory space. In contrast to the VCGLR, the VGCCC will also have an exclusive remit which goes beyond regulating liquor licensing. So, again, splitting those two areas of regulation is an important part of making sure that regulation within the gambling and gaming sector can be dedicated to where it is needed most. In short, Justice Finkelstein will issue findings and recommendations in October which go directly to the heart of this motion. The Cope review will continue to inform and to shape the work which the VGCCC undertakes, and we remain absolutely committed to the way in which illegal and improper conduct within the gambling and gaming sector, as with every other sector, should be recognised and identified for what it is and indeed measures should be put in place to stamp out this sort of conduct now and into the future. On that basis the government will not be supporting the motion in the form put today. Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (11:39): I rise to speak in support of this motion. The Greens support this motion because the limitations that the government has placed on the terms of reference of the royal commission mean that it is not able to properly investigate the role of the gambling regulator despite the glaring and mounting evidence that the failure of regulation has fuelled this scandal. If the royal commission is not allowed to inquire into the role and operation of the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (VCGLR), then this Parliament should and must. It is clear that the government is really worried about this motion and is doing everything it can to shut an inquiry down. First they refused to include it in the terms of reference of the royal commission, and then yesterday they announced the creation of a new casino and gambling regulator with a new dedicated casino regulation division. While this was welcome news, albeit overdue, it seems obvious that they rushed to announce it yesterday because they wanted to use it to dissuade members of this house from supporting this motion. We have to see through this cynical move, and, if anything, the announcement yesterday makes an inquiry into the VCGLR even more urgent. If we want the new regulator to succeed, well, we need to know how it failed in the past and what lessons need to be learned. What has been revealed at the Crown royal commission must be up there as one of the worst scandals in Victorian political history. Government after government allowed Crown to get away with corrupt and illegal behaviour and to exploit Victorians by facilitating dangerous gambling practices. If we are MOTIONS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2727 serious about strengthening casino regulation in this state, it is essential that there is an examination of the relationship between the government in this state, Crown and the rest of the gambling industry and the way that years of political donations and favours have created a corrupt gambling behemoth that has convinced the government it is too big to fail. But these areas of investigation were deliberately left out the royal commission’s terms of reference, so that is why if we cannot have the terms of reference expanded we urgently need a parliamentary inquiry. I do find it somewhat amusing to sit here and listen to the opposition criticise the regulator for failing to properly regulate Crown Casino, which is quite clearly a failure of their own making. It was their government that merged liquor and gambling regulation, which in the nine years since has been a disaster. In 2017 in one of my first actions in Parliament I moved to refer the VCGLR to an inquiry, a motion which was voted down by both sides of this house. In opposing the motion Mr O’Donohue praised the move to combine the two regulatory arms and said, ‘I think on any objective analysis it has delivered a better regulatory model’. Four years later it is all too clear that it has absolutely not. Both sides of this house are to blame for the situation we have found ourselves in today, and that is why it is even more important that the crossbench today does all it can to hold both these parties to account. That is what an investigation into the VCGLR could do. I will now tell you why. Despite years of warning, we saw both Labor and Liberal gaming ministers turn a blind eye when Crown got into trouble. It is clear that the cosy relationship that Crown had with both parties has something to do with this inaction. Since 2007 Crown has poured $566 965 into the coffers of the Victorian Labor and Liberal parties. Can these parties guarantee that these donations are not the proceeds of crime? And the question has to be asked: what influence did these donations have on the leniency shown to Crown by both these parties? For all intents and purposes it seems that Crown has used its special relationship with the major parties to skirt the rules and get away with bad behaviour. It has also benefited from the revolving door between ministerial offices and big lobbyists, which is why the evidence we have heard through the royal commission, while shocking in its breadth and depth, is also not surprising. The regulator was set up to fail. The merging of the gaming and liquor authorities by the Liberals meant that the liquor functions of the regulator quickly expanded to be the priority for the VCGLR, with gambling relegated to the background. One former gaming inspector described it as a takeover by liquor where gaming inspectors were regularly pulled off gaming floors and sent to conduct liquor licence checks at bars and restaurants. We can see the effects of the takeover in the limited gaming oversight the regulator has today. The number of gaming inspectors has dropped 20 per cent in the last three years from 70 in 2018 to 56 today. Right now Crown has one responsible gaming adviser on duty for every 870 poker machines, yet Victorian pubs and clubs must have one responsible gaming officer on duty for every 105 machines. Not only has the regulator failed to respond to the allegations of criminal activity or money laundering but it has also failed to prevent patrons at Crown from experiencing significant gambling harm. Crown is one of the most harmful places to gamble in the whole state. The royal commission heard that people who gambled at Crown were three times more likely to experience gambling harm than gamblers at any other venue in the state, and members of the loyalty program were even more likely to be harmed. Crown has created a culture where maximising profit was more important than keeping patrons safe and following the law. And while Crown told the royal commission that they were engaging in cultural reform, replacing senior staff, it is hard to believe that the many problems at Crown were the result of just a few bad apples. At the start of last month the Crown executive chairman wrote to the minister with a clear threat about the possible findings of the royal commission. The letter said that it was not in the public interest for Crown to fail and any recommendations against the casino would be a huge problem for the government too—a clear threat from a predatory corporation that thinks it can get away with all kinds of bad behaviour and face absolutely no consequences, because it has done so for years. Crown is rotten to the core. MOTIONS 2728 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021

We support the creation of a new gambling and casino regulator, something we have been calling for, but until we take tougher action to stamp out the corruptive influence of gambling on politics we fear nothing will change. If lobbyists are still whispering in the minister’s ear and staffers are following the gilded paths into cushy jobs at Crown Resorts, then the years of special treatment for the casino and gambling industry will just continue. We have to ban donations from the gambling industry to stop Crown or any future holder of the casino licence from making the same payments and getting the same special treatment in return. And in a new licence we must have mandatory harm minimisation measures as a requirement for the casino— strong measures like bet limits, spin restrictions, limits on cash withdrawals, reduced opening hours and mandatory precommitment that work. And we need the new independent gaming regulator to be properly resourced so that it can oversee not just the casino but all the thousands of pokies venues across the state. Commissioner Finkelstein’s comments suggest he is not convinced that Crown have made a strong enough case to retain their licence. And we want to see the royal commission result in ripping up Crown’s licence once and for all. But if we do not make more drastic changes, then we risk doing all of this over and over again. Giving the casino licence to another operator will only kick the can down the road and create a new industry giant with the same arrogance and the same expectations of special treatment that Crown has. To avoid this result we need an inquiry that will look behind the curtain into how the intersection between politics and Crown laid the foundations for what the royal commission has uncovered. The royal commission’s terms of reference are too narrow, considering only Crown’s behaviour and not the political circumstances that let it get away with so much for so long. Without a proper inquiry into the political connections between Crown and successive Victorian governments, without understanding how the regulator ended up unable to do its job, not only will our political leaders not be held accountable for this massive failure of public policy but we will be risking history repeating itself. We must remember that if it was not for the New South Wales inquiry into Crown the Victorian community would still be in the dark about Crown’s illegal behaviour. We would still have the Labor government and Liberals talking up Crown, defending the regulator and continuing their ‘move along, nothing to see here’ attitude. The Premier had to be dragged into calling a royal commission into his mates at Crown and set it up with the most narrow terms of reference possible. Commissioner Finkelstein and his team have been impeccable in uncovering the evidence of Crown’s wrongdoing and shining a light into how Crown has ripped off the Victorian community for decades. We await the commission’s report with interest and expect the government to act quickly and definitively on all recommendations. However, the commission has one hand tied behind its back, with the terms of reference—which guide the scope of its findings and recommendations—focused on Crown’s behaviour, not the political connections that set the scene for Crown’s corruption. I urge my crossbench colleagues particularly to not let the government get away with hiding its role in the Crown scandal. Do not let them pull the wool over your eyes. I urge you to support a broader inquiry so that we can do our jobs in ensuring a strong and robust legislative response to regulating the casino in Victoria in the interests of the community and not the billionaire gambling corporations and their political mates. We have an opportunity to inquire and investigate this matter that deserves this Parliament’s attention. I urge you to support this motion. Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (11:48): I also rise to make a contribution in regard to Mr O’Donohue’s motion in regard to Crown and in opposition to this motion. I have had the benefit of listening to both Mr O’Donohue’s contribution and Dr Ratnam’s contribution, and I just want to start off my contribution by talking about the structure of this motion and what it is actually seeking to do. I guess there are two main aspects of this motion which concern the house. First of all, it is calling on the house to note a number of things—fine—but then it also calls on the government to amend the terms of reference for the Finkelstein Royal Commission into the Casino Operator and MOTIONS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2729

Licence. That is really the first part of what this is seeking to do. But, secondly, if the terms of reference are not suitably amended to include the things that Mr O’Donohue is seeking in paragraph (1)(c) of his motion, it then calls on the house to agree to a resolution for a select committee to:

… be established to inquire into, consider and report, by 20 December 2021, on the implications of the Bergin … findings … et cetera. So I guess what is troubling about this resolution is that it would concern me that the government has already established a royal commission into Crown—as I understand it, hearings began on 17 May and the final report on this matter is due on 15 October, and we are now in August— and to change the terms of reference of a royal commission midstream would be very irresponsible and reckless, particularly when, from all accounts, from what I can see, the royal commission is doing an excellent job of actually looking at what has been happening with Crown. There has been lots of evidence, with lots of people giving evidence—and stakeholders—and there have been some very serious concerns already unearthed by the royal commission. Particularly noteworthy are the allegations around the underpayment of state taxes, which is of concern, and the alleged failure of Crown to manage problem gambling. So I would actually say in response to that that the royal commission is actually doing its job. It is actually inquiring in great detail into what is happening with Crown. I think it is a backhanded way of reflecting poorly on the calibre of the people that the government has enlisted to undertake the inquiry. I mean, Ray Finkelstein, QC, has served for more than 40 years at the Victorian Bar and has been a Queen’s Counsel since 1986. He was appointed a judge of the Federal Court in 1997 and has held other notable appointments as deputy president of the Copyright Tribunal of Australia and president of the Australian Competition Tribunal. He retired as a judge of the Federal Court and president of the Australian Competition Tribunal in 2011 and returned to private practice at the Victorian Bar. I do not know who else you would want to preside over a royal commission. It is a very important royal commission, and as we all know, royal commissions have quite broad- ranging powers. I note Dr Ratnam’s comment that the terms of reference for the royal commission are narrow, but I would reject that assertion. Again, there seems to be a ‘the sky is falling in’ concern that the royal commission is not going to get to the truth about what it needs to get to in regard to this, and I think that sometimes you actually just need to wait and see what comes out of it and what falls out of it. When you look at what has already come out of it, you concede that there are some very serious concerns. I will talk a little bit about what those opposite did when they were in government in a moment, which has led us down to where we are now. If those opposite want to sit there and say they are lilywhite and have clean hands, au contraire, mes amis. That is not the case. I would certainly think that Mr Finkelstein is a pre-eminent person to be presiding over this royal commission. I could talk to the actions that the government has already taken in regard to this. I am advised that there is talk about why the regulator has been joined, but effectively that was something the Liberal government did. They combined the gaming and liquor regulator, and that was something that was a legacy that was inherited by this government. But in response to the particular issues that have been raised at Crown the government has already announced that it will split the regulator and the new regulator will have greater oversight in monitoring gambling harm minimisation measures and the like and also contemplating the decision which is to have a dedicated part within the regulator that will have responsibility for monitoring Crown. That is something that very few jurisdictions in the world have actually done. So I think that there has already been very strong action taken by Minister Horne in response to some of these things. That is just by way of background. But in terms of what those opposite did, in 2014 in the lead-up to the election the then Treasurer, Michael O’Brien, ensured that there was an arrangement reached that had longstanding consequences. So there were long-term changes to Crown’s casino licence. Significantly, under these changes there was an increase in gaming tables, there were fully automated gaming tables and the maximum number of gaming machines increased from 2500 to 2600 et cetera. But significantly, under these changes, if QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 2730 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021 a subsequent state government wanted to make changes, this state government would have owed Crown compensation for any of the following. For example, if we said we were going to put a prohibition on smoking in the VIP room, bang, we would have to pay compensation for that. So the legacy that this government was left, in response to those opposite and what they did when they exited government, is shameful. We are again left to clean up the mess. But I will get back to this motion again, which says that if we do not change the terms of reference of the royal commission we should therefore set up a select committee. I am sorry, Parliamentarians on a select committee are not the appropriate people to be looking into this. We need a royal commission with all the powers of a royal commission, which is what this government has announced. We have a pre-eminent person in Mr Finkelstein chairing that, and we should all have great confidence in his ability to get to the bottom of what needs to happen. Again, calling on a select committee to be created simply to look into this is nothing more than a political stunt—it is nothing more than a political stunt. I think it was said before in Ms Shing’s contribution: those opposite are looking for the social media grabs and want to put it on Twitter and want to ping everyone and those sorts of things; that is kind of what they are wanting. As I said to those opposite, where are the social media grabs about the legacy that they left? They are not talking about that. They are just wanting to say ‘Bad government— everything that Labor does over there is corrupt’ and all the rest of it. Let the royal commission do its job, do its work and work through the process. As I said earlier, the final report on this is due on 15 October. I think members of the public and others in this chamber can indeed look at the proceedings that are happening. I think they can be viewed online. You can see the evidence that is being given. All of these things are being conducted in an open and transparent fashion, and the public should have great confidence in the ability of the royal commission to get to what needs to happen. I think those in this room are prejudging perhaps the outcome, which is not an appropriate thing to do. I think this motion is ill conceived and the primary purpose of this is a stunt. It is to simply try and land some political blows on this government. Again, to try and suggest that a select committee of this house could do better work or more important work than a pre-eminent QC with many, many, many years of experience, somebody who is eminently experienced and appropriate to be leading this, I think just smacks of hypocrisy and ridiculousness. But that is what we have come to expect from those opposite. I note that we are fast approaching question time, and I have got about 40 seconds left on the clock. However, I— Ms Symes interjected. Ms TERPSTRA: I know. I am getting there. I would urge all of those in this chamber to vote against this motion. As I said, it is really important when governments set up processes like royal commissions that we encourage people to have confidence in those processes to ensure that the right outcome is delivered. It has been suitably set up. It is a suitable and appropriate mechanism to deal with what has happened at Crown. It is very concerning not only to government but to a range of people what is happening in this space, and I urge everyone in this chamber to vote against this motion. I also look forward to the final report from the royal commission, when it is due, on 15 October. Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders. Questions without notice and ministers statements WHEELCHAIR-ACCESSIBLE COMMERCIAL PASSENGER VEHICLES Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:00): My question is for Minister Pulford, representing the Minister for Public Transport. Surprisingly across the country we are seeing provision of wheelchair-accessible vehicles reducing. Recently Western Australian taxi operators in Broome and Geraldton have closed or reduced their services. This has raised concerns with the disability sector on QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2731 what is going to happen beyond that. Here we know in Victoria we had an operator in Geelong not replace six vehicles which were due to be replaced this year. We had an operator in Bendigo have an accident last week; he may not replace his vehicle. Does the minister support a safe and regulated industry that operates on a level playing field? Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:01): I thank Mr Barton for his question and his advocacy. I think, like me, everyone in the chamber was not shocked at your subject and matter of concern given your long and proud advocacy for people in the vehicle hire and transport and taxi service, so we thank you for that of course. I will take that question on notice for Minister Carroll. Your preamble was very much about special access vehicles and thinner regional markets; your question was perhaps broader than that. But I am sure Minister Carroll will take the opportunity to provide context and a response that hopefully satisfies your interest. Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:02): I apologise, Minister, because I completely brought the wrong notes, which threw me. My supplementary question, which is on the other notes, is: what does a level playing field look like here in Victoria? Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:02): Thank you, Mr Barton. You are riffing with the best of them. The question of a level playing field and its impact for access in a whole lot of different manifestations in different locations for different people in the community is an important question. I will seek a response from Minister Carroll for you. SWIM SCHOOLS SUPPORT Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:02): My question is to Minister Pulford in her capacity as Minister for Small Business. Minister, Learn to Swim Victoria conducted a poll of their members and asked them who had received payments of $2000 from lockdown 4. Not one of them had received any payments. So I ask: why not? Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:03): I thank Ms Crozier for her question in relation to the swim instructor and swim school sector, one that has been profoundly impacted by the pandemic, as all members would appreciate. In terms of specific applications for payments for different programs, I am loath to speculate as to the reasons that applications may not have been successful, so I will answer this in very general terms. The payments to support small businesses and indeed all businesses that were eligible during the late May and June lockdown related to the arrangements and rules about which industries and which Australian and New Zealand standard industrial classification code linked businesses were able to trade. Our focus through previous support packages has been very much to support those that are not able to trade. In recognition of the very significant impact of what have become colloquially known as lockdown 4 and lockdown 5, in quick succession—the late May and early June lockdown, the restrictions that existed in the weeks following that, and then the July lockdown and the restrictions that currently exist to this day following that—the cumulative effect has been profound, so the business support package that the government announced last week in partnership with the federal government takes a different approach. Instead of support for businesses being locked down, it provides support for businesses as they open up. I think it is also really important to stress and for us to recognise that there is a difference between being allowed to be open and the reality of being open, and there are lots of examples of that—for instance, a takeaway operator in a food court when nobody is going to the shopping centre. There are lots and lots of examples, but swim lessons, when you are halfway through the school term, when the business model typically involves 10 weeks of lessons and where the first half has not been able to occur, would be the kind of example that would be similarly affected. That is why that package with QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 2732 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021 the federal government includes $85 million for small business hardship, and we will be finalising the guidelines for that new fund in the next couple of weeks. We look forward to updating the house as that is done. But they are the kinds of examples that are very much front of mind as we design the application of that program for those who have been ineligible for others. In terms of the specific comments, if Ms Crozier wants to provide me with business details and names, I can respond. Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:06): Thank you, Minister. I think you are well aware of my advocacy on behalf of this industry. You have just said in your response to my substantive question that there were assessments going through for those businesses from May and June that were not able to trade. These swim schools have been shut down since last March, through lockdowns 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. When these businesses did phone Business Victoria last week, they were told that there was no need to reapply and that all payments would be made in July—well, it is now August—so my question is: will you guarantee, based on what you have just told the house, that in any future lockdowns delays like this will not occur again? Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:07): On the question of delays of payments or non-payments or applications that have not been able to be conclusively resolved, I can absolutely give the house and the community the undertaking that we will continue to work through these as quickly as is humanly possible. The thing that I think is a challenge for some of our small businesses is a challenge because there have been numerous business support packages, now well north of 30 different programs, that each have their unique eligibility, so there are instances where businesses perhaps were eligible for a program last year but might not be for this year because the programs are designed to respond to the specific restrictions that obviously are difficult to assess. But for all— Members interjecting. Ms PULFORD: Just shoosh a sec. But for all businesses— (Time expired) MINISTERS STATEMENTS: RESPECT AND EQUALITY IN TAFE Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:08): Today I am proud to speak of Respect and Equality in TAFE, a project that I had the privilege to launch last week. At the heart of this project is ‘change the story’, and that is to achieve gender equality and prevent gender-based violence. And what better place to embed this practice than in our TAFE system. Respect and equality are something that this government are passionate about, and we will change the story. This clear message is brilliantly portrayed in the project’s short film. This whole-of-institution approach to gender equality and the prevention of gender-based violence is an Australian first. Our Watch, a national leader in prevention of violence against women and their children, worked in partnership with Bendigo Kangan Institute, Chisholm Institute, Melbourne Polytechnic, SuniTAFE and Swinburne University of Technology to develop the project and great resources. This is a strong step forward to drive and embed cultural change. It is about the prevention of discrimination and violence against women. It demonstrates what we can do through education and awareness. It recognises that everyone at TAFE and in all sectors of society has a role to play in promoting gender equality, and I am proud that Victorian TAFEs are leading the way in working towards gender equality. I am proud that this government recognises the role that TAFEs play in establishing standards, shifting perceptions and creating change. Now is the time to change the story, and I encourage everyone to visit the Respect and Equality at TAFE website and watch the short film that could start to change many lives in this country. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2733

PRIVACY AND DATA PROTECTION Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (12:10): My question is for the Attorney-General and is related to privacy concerns. I have asked questions both in this chamber and in the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee about privacy protections related to contact-tracing apps. I am somewhat comforted by the answers I have received about data protection and destruction, particularly the fact that police have been denied access to this information. But for people who do not have a phone that the app functions on there is a requirement to use an alternative check-in. I am less satisfied with how this requirement has been rolled out and communicated with businesses, particularly how to perform this function in a way that respects and protects people’s privacy. Members would have seen this, with many businesses simply having a pen and paper on a table for people to enter personal details in public view. Many consider this to be a minor issue, but my office has received contact from women who are concerned about violent ex-partners stalking them and identifying their private information for nefarious purposes. My question to the Attorney is: how is the government ensuring that privacy is protected with contact-tracing information for people who cannot use the Service Victoria app? Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (12:11): I thank Mr Limbrick for his question. Mr Limbrick, it is difficult for me to answer, because it is not directly within my portfolio responsibilities. When it comes to the laws and how they relate to privacy, sure, but the application in this instance is not within my remit. Public health orders are requiring people to check in, whether it is through the app or whether it is through pen and paper. I understand that there are destruction requirements around the amount of time people can hold on to those records. There has also been a lot of business support and information going out through the Department of Justice and Community Safety in relation to businesses and how they can comply with the health orders. In relation to the matters that you raise, you may wish to direct those to probably the QR code responsible minister, who is Minister Pearson. Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (12:12): I thank the Attorney for her answer. The state and federal information commissioners met early on in the pandemic, and the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner published guidance last May on how to collect contact-tracing information in a way that is compliant with the federal Privacy Act. They updated this information and published draft guidelines for public consultation in December. The commissioner’s office responded to inquiries from my office, confirming that the Australian Privacy Principles do apply to many of the businesses and organisations collecting this information. But looking at the state websites, you would not really know it. Looking at the published privacy policies of many large corporations operating in Victoria, my team could not find a single one that published information on how they were handling this information. For some of these large businesses that may have a dedicated privacy officer or a legal team, it seems they may be aware of these concerns. Over the past few months the pen and paper has quietly disappeared on many of them. My question for the Attorney is: will you work with the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner and other relevant departments within the government to ensure that updated information is available for businesses on how to comply with privacy obligations? Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (12:13): I can certainly commit to having a conversation with the privacy commissioner in relation to those matters. I did speak to him—I have regular meetings with him on all things privacy and transparency across government—and I can confirm that he was very much of the view that the one-app Service Victoria system is much better for privacy protection for Victorians, rather than the range of apps that were available at the start. I do note that my personal experience is that the one app is more convenient for people but indeed has better protections in relation to privacy. I endeavour to have further conversations on what you have suggested at my next regular meeting with him. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 2734 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021

COMMERCIAL PASSENGER VEHICLE DRIVER WORKPLACE SAFETY Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:14): My question is to the Minister for Workplace Safety. Minister, Judith lives on her own in a retirement village and earlier this year became unwell, fearing she was having a stroke. She activated her personal alarm as her symptoms worsened. She was told that an ambulance would be called. She received several calls, telling her finally that there would be a long wait for an ambulance and would she be prepared to take a taxi, to which she reluctantly agreed. Box Hill Hospital was 10 minutes away from where she lives, but she was shocked to discover the taxidriver did not know where Box Hill Hospital was or where the emergency department was. Judith was admitted to hospital and had the necessary tests and treatments. But, Minister, what safeguards have you put in place to ensure that taxi and rideshare drivers who face this situation are provided with a safe workplace? Ms Pulford: On a point of order, President, that is clearly outside the minister’s areas of responsibility. Mr Davis: Further to the point of order, President, it is becoming an increasingly common issue where ambulances are not available and taxis are being used as de facto ambulances. Consequently there is an issue with the workplace for those drivers of taxis and commercial passenger vehicles, and that is why the question is being given to the Minister for Workplace Safety. Taxidrivers and commercial passenger vehicle drivers deserve a safe workplace. The PRESIDENT: Thank you for both the point of order and the further point of order. To be honest, I was struggling with your question, Ms Crozier, because you started on the ambulances and then you ended up on the taxis and then work safety, but I will ask Minister Stitt to advise which minister the question should be directed to. Ms CROZIER: On a point of order, President, if I may, I was giving the story as a way of context, because this is the reality of what is happening, and it is around the safety of those taxidrivers and commercial passenger drivers in terms of their responsibilities in transporting these patients who are seriously ill. I gave the story as context. Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:17): I thank Ms Crozier for the question. Firstly, Ms Crozier, can I say I am very sorry to hear about that distressing experience for that particular constituent of yours. That does sound like a situation that would have been quite distressing for her. The question of whether or not this constitutes a matter of workplace safety is really going to come down to details about whether a duty of care or a duty holder under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 has been triggered. I more than happy to take further information from Ms Crozier about this matter, but on the face of it I do believe that this is more appropriately referred to the Minister for Ambulance Services in the sense that the issue that Ms Crozier is raising is an issue which arises out of the fact that she says there was no ambulance available for this particular person. Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:18): Minister, I do think this is an issue, and my supplementary was going partly to how you have just responded, so I will ask this in relation to you following up, because it is of concern. What rules apply or advice have you provided to commercial passenger vehicle providers regarding their responsibility for workplace safety in the case of a patient’s condition deteriorating? Members interjecting. Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:19): I will take up Ms Terpstra’s interjection there, because it is highly relevant, and it is going to come down to whether or not there is an employment relationship and a duty holder situation. Again, I am very open to you providing me with more details, Ms Crozier, so that can be followed up, but I QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2735 would say that these are matters that the safety regulator is responsible for, and I would encourage the member to advise constituents that WorkSafe are able to give advice on such matters. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: KINDER KIT Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:20): Today I am thrilled to share with the house that the Andrews Labor government will give Victorian children starting three-year-old kinder in 2022 a special kinder kit. To help give these children the best start on their learning journey, we will be providing every three-year-old with a kinder kit from the start of their kinder year in 2022. The kinder kit will be a collection of toys, books and resources to encourage play and engagement between young children and their families. The resources will support early literacy and numeracy learning in the home, with some materials translated into multiple languages. An independent panel of Victorian early childhood experts will advise on items that are safe, sustainable and inclusive. The kit will also align with the Victorian early years learning and development framework outcomes of identity, community, wellbeing, learning and communication. The kinder kits are an $8 million investment in this year’s state budget to support children’s learning and development, and it is part of our $5 billion commitment to deliver an extra year of kindergarten for Victorian children. As far as possible, the contents of the kit will be sourced locally and produced sustainably. As part of the launch today, we are calling on local businesses to submit proposals to provide items for the kits, helping to keep jobs local and support Victoria’s economic recovery from the pandemic. I am proud that Victoria is leading the way on three-year-old kinder, and I am pleased that these kinder kits will support children and families to enjoy rich play and learning at home. JUSTICE SYSTEM Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (12:22): My question is for the Attorney-General, and it relates to the enormous case backlog facing our court system. Attorney, as a preface to my question I cite a media report on 17 July in the Warrnambool Standard of an alleged offender seeking an adjournment. This article reported the magistrate suggesting it was a delay tactic by the alleged offender so they did not have to stop driving, saying, and I quote, ‘The court doesn’t like being taken as a fool’. A seven-month wait was noted in terms of the next available date, and the magistrate noted that it costs about $10 000 to run a 1-hour plea hearing. Attorney, what public data is available from government that details the number of adjournments granted in our courts and the associated costs to Victoria to understand the impact on court backlogs? Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (12:22): I thank Ms Maxwell for her question, and indeed in relation to the numbers of adjournments I am happy to take that on notice. I have had a similar question from Mr Grimley in relation to adjournments. I happened to have on hand the number when he asked me the question, but I do not have that at hand today, but I can confirm that the numbers are low. A lot of adjournments exist in our system for a variety of reasons—the availability of people, the health of people participating. Not all of the adjournments during the last 15 months were connected to the pandemic. In relation to the Warrnambool matter, I cannot comment on the specific nature of that matter, but I am more than happy to get some adjournment figures for you because I have received that data from the courts before and I can get an update. Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (12:23): Thank you, Attorney. That would be greatly appreciated. As at July 2020, 80 000 criminal matters had been adjourned due to coronavirus restrictions, and as of April 2021 there were over 132 000 matters pending in the Magistrates Court. The Victorian government provided $23.1 million in December and another $210 million from July to reduce court backlogs. Can the Attorney advise the backlog figure now and what systemic changes are being considered in response? QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 2736 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (12:24): I thank Ms Maxwell for her question and ongoing advocacy and interest in these matters. Thank you for mentioning the $210 million funding boost that was made available in the most recent state budget, designed to drive down the court backlogs that are obviously the direct result of restrictions in order to keep Victorians safe from COVID. The busiest court obviously is the Magistrates Court, and the court backlog did reduce by about 4 per cent in May compared to the previous month, representing a reduction of 5700 cases. I would be more than happy to seek the latest figures in relation to what we can obtain from the court. I can say that I visited the Magistrates Court about two weeks ago and had a bit of a tour of the online Magistrates Court area, which is going to be a fantastic asset in dealing with cases, not only to deal with backlogs but ensuring there are less adjournments and the like. It manages to bring people together to ensure that cases can keep going and the wheels of justice— (Time expired) WORKSAFE INSPECTORS Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:25): My question is again to the Minister for Workplace Safety. Minister, can you guarantee Victorians that no WorkSafe workplace inspector is thumbing through personal medical records of patients in Victorian public hospitals? Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:26): I thank Ms Crozier for her question. I am again a little perplexed about how this relates to workplace safety, but I can assure the house that our WorkSafe inspectors always follow their particular code of conduct to the letter. They obviously have been playing an incredibly important role in the government’s response to COVID-19 and have played a very important frontline role in helping employers right across the state across a range of industries, including high-risk industries, to mitigate the risks against COVID-19. I can assure the house that our workplace inspectors, whether they are exercising their rights as an inspector or as an authorised officer, will be doing so in accordance with both the health orders and the appropriate legislation. Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:27): Well, Minister, you have just said that you can guarantee that. Members interjecting. Ms Stitt: On a point of order, President, Ms Crozier is verballing my answer. I did not say that. I said I could assure the house that our hardworking inspectors are acting appropriately. Members interjecting. The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister made it clear. Ms CROZIER: Minister, I think that is correct. You have made it clear. I refer to sections 2.1(a) and (b) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, which give these inspectors a right to be able to roam around and inspect patient records in public hospitals, and I ask: what protections exist against workplace inspectors misusing Victorian patients’ personal medical record information? Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:28): I do take issue with Ms Crozier’s characterisation of our workplace inspectors roaming around, rifling through records. I mean, it is absolute nonsense. Our workplace inspectors have a very important role that they have been fulfilling. In the last 18 months they have literally conducted tens of thousands of inspections and they have responded to queries from employers and workers right across this state. The inference from Ms Crozier that they are doing something inappropriate is absolutely outrageous, and I reject the premise of her supplementary question. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: SIR EDWARD ‘WEARY’ DUNLOP Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (12:29): I would like to update the house on a fantastic event QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2737 which was funded by the 2019–20 Victoria Remembers grants program. Everyone would know of the Weary Dunlop commemorative service, which was held on 12 July, last month. This service commemorated the life of the great Victorian Sir Edward ‘Weary’ Dunlop on the anniversary of his birth. Sir Edward was a man who was selfless, resilient and courageous on all levels and always placed the needs of others before his own. It was an honour to have the opportunity to reflect on Sir Edward’s leadership, his outstanding character and the legacy he has left behind to perpetually care for others, even when facing adverse circumstances. Just one example of this is during World War II, when Sir Edward was in Java, in 1942. He had the opportunity to escape but decided to stay and look after his patients while he was a prisoner of war. As he was a prisoner of war, Sir Edward survived torturous circumstances while providing medical care, and he managed to do it with the little resources he and others could muster within the prisoner-of-war camp. After World War II, Sir Edward continued his medical career and in 1985 established the Sir Edward ‘Weary’ Dunlop Medical Research Foundation, which focuses on grants to emerging medical researchers to undertake research regarding the impacts of conflicts on veterans and their dependants. Every year the foundation awards at least six grants, and this year there is no difference. I just want to once again congratulate the recipients of the grants and acknowledge the great work this foundation continues to do in honour of such a great man and such a great Victorian. ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER JUSTICE OUTCOMES Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (12:31): My question is for the Attorney-General. Today is National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children’s Day, and last week marked the first anniversary of the Meeting of Attorneys-General to discuss raising of criminal responsibility from 10 to 14 years old. I am deeply concerned to see that the national process seems to have failed, with Queensland publicly declaring their opposition to progress. Here in Victoria we have had the Our Youth, Our Way report released by the Commission for Children and Young People and the calls of 50 groups, representing lawyers, doctors and Aboriginal organisations, all of whom are urging this government to protect Victorian children under 14 years from the harms of incarceration at such a young age. Attorney, you have previously deferred to the national process when I have asked why Victoria has not acted to reform this harmful law, so I ask now: is the Victorian government still committed to the failed national process, or, like the ACT, will you now act to raise the age of criminal responsibility? Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (12:32): I thank Dr Ratnam for her question and indeed pointing out the importance of protecting our most vulnerable in the community and in this instance Aboriginal children. I would highlight the amazing report, Our Youth, Our Way, that was released about a month ago. I would urge all members to have a look at that, particularly as it details the voices of young people directly. It is pretty compelling reading. In relation to the national agenda, Dr Ratnam, there is indeed an imperative to have a conversation at the national level. I think of just the issues raised by Mr Quilty yesterday. Differences of legal application across states is undesirable, and it is best to avoid it if you can. Having said that, it is no secret that there is not a lot of priority on this issue from that forum. I can confirm that there are attorney-generals in that forum that want it to remain on the national agenda, so we can continue to have the conversation, and that is not an indication that everyone is going to agree. In relation to your consideration of raising the age here in Victoria, I would point out that it just needs to be undertaken with careful consideration alongside the delivery of alternative services to ensure that there is adequate support for those children aged 10 to 13 that would ordinarily be caught up in the justice system. We certainly know that in the youth justice system this cohort is our most vulnerable and there is an over-representation of Aboriginal children, bearing in mind that they are very, very QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 2738 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021 small numbers. But they do exist, and there are more Aboriginal children than I would like to see caught up in this. We are committed to early intervention that keeps children in this group out of the criminal justice system. There are regular meetings with ministers that are very interested in good outcomes in this space. You have got , , obviously Minister Hutchins and indeed the police minister. These are topics that we are committed to making improvements on. We want to strengthen partnerships that support rehabilitation. We want to deliver and strengthen individual programs and interventions. We want to ensure families are well supported to improve children’s behaviour, and we certainly want to engage young people in education and training as a positive pathway as opposed to any offending behaviour. A key issue in considering any changes is to ensure that the justice system uses the right tools to continue to support community safety, and I do thank the organisations that continue to have this conversation with me. It is a regular topic with the stakeholders. Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (12:35): Thank you, Attorney. One of the consequences of our current laws is that most children who are incarcerated are on remand and ultimately do not receive a custodial sentence. Between 2010 and 2019, 98 per cent of all those children aged under 14 years were in this category. In 2019, the most recent year with available data, every 10- to 13-year- old in prison was on remand. Not one single child was actually sentenced to jail. This is an indictment of Victoria’s bail laws and a direct result of Victoria failing to raise the age of criminal responsibility. Notwithstanding your response on the need to have a national conversation to make sure there is consistency across jurisdictions and the need to improve services, Attorney, I am interested to know: what are the actual barriers to the government now acting to reform these harmful laws? Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (12:36): I thank Dr Ratnam for her question. The most recent figures showed that in the last year there were no more than 44 children in the age bracket of 10 to 13 that were on remand and no sentenced children. That is 44 kids, and if we raise the age we need to make sure that we have alternative service options to ensure that those kids can be supported and indeed diverted away from the justice system. So in direct response to your question, we need to make sure that we have all of the support services in place to deal with the very small numbers of children that are currently caught up in the justice system, and we are doing that regardless of whether we raise the age or not. EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:37): My question is for the Minister for Early Childhood. In a 30 June early childhood workforce strategy submission the Early Learning Association Australia (ELAA), the peak body, advised the government that due to the critical shortage of early childhood teachers and educators there was an urgency for immediate action, with examples of many rooms and indeed whole services being shut down. What immediate action will the government undertake? Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:37): I thank Dr Bach for his question. The submission that Dr Bach is referring to is from an organisation who have taken the opportunity to provide their views to a process that the Department of Education and Training have had out for public consultation, which is the ongoing work that the government is committed to in relation to the early childhood workforce and all of the challenges and opportunities that arise from three-year-old kindergarten being rolled out right across the state. In terms of that work, I am very pleased that ELAA and others in the sector have given such good insights into how their early learning services have been responding in a particularly tough time for the sector. Can I take the opportunity to again, as I have often done—and I think is important to continue to do so—acknowledge the amazing work that our educators, our kindergarten teachers and our early learning services have done throughout the pandemic. It has been particularly challenging, QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2739 and I really am in awe of the way in which they have gone about making sure that our youngest learners in Victoria have had all the benefits of early childhood education during a pretty tough time. This reform, the rollout of three-year-old kindergarten, will create around 6000 early childhood teacher and educator roles over the life of the reform, so of course there are many challenges but also opportunities in terms of realising those amazing job opportunities for Victorians. The government has already put in place a range of initiatives to support our early childhood workforce, including $32.4 million for attraction and retention strategies including incentives for people to join or return to the sector, to support graduates with mentoring and coaching opportunities and of course to attract teachers into those harder-to-staff areas in regional Victoria. Of course I do regularly meet with stakeholders in the early childhood sector, including ELAA. I am very much aware of some of the issues that they have been raising around staff shortages, particularly in the area of emergency relief. We are, together with the Department of Education and Training, working very closely with those stakeholders to make sure that we are responding to those immediate needs as well as having an eye for the longer term opportunities that our reforms will deliver to the sector. Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:40): I thank the minister for her response and for listing some of the government’s previous initiatives. The point of the ELAA submission and the point that has been made by many other actors within the sector is that those initiatives have failed. There is now a need for urgent action. The Early Learning Association Australia further advised that their sector is at a critical juncture, and they said, quote, ‘Families will not be able to access services if we do not act immediately’. With already rapidly declining numbers of kindergarten attendance under this government, what is the minister doing to ensure that all families and their children have access to kindergarten in the next six months? Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:41): Thank you for your supplementary question, Dr Bach. I can assure you that there is much work going on in this portfolio, including the very important work to ensure that our services have been open and viable throughout the pandemic. That has included obviously supporting parents with free kinder for the 2021 calendar year through the budget that was announced last year, a significant contribution to ensure that parents were able to continue to afford to have their children in kindergarten services. We are obviously working very closely with the sector in terms of the next steps of our three- year-old kindergarten reform, and the member knows very well that there are a range of initiatives that we have recently announced that will help families find kindergarten services close to home that provide quality education. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: PRAHRAN MARKET STALLHOLDERS Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:42): Just over a fortnight ago Victoria entered, as members well recall, a short lockdown to allow us to get ahead of the delta strain and to keep communities safe from COVID-19. We know that these measures are tough on Victorian businesses, who are the backbone of our economy, and in particular on our small businesses, who have been such important players in the fight against coronavirus for the past 18 months. They all continue to do the right thing to protect the community. We know that it is really hard, and we thank each and every one of them for it, particularly when they then are able to rally around others in the community despite the significant challenges they may be facing themselves. So today I would like to acknowledge and thank the traders at Prahran Market. When they were advised the market was a COVID-19 exposure site and would be closed for deep cleaning for up to 10 days, millions of dollars of fresh food was put at risk, but instead of simply throwing it away, stallholders donated thousands of kilograms of produce to good causes. One trader donated 400 kilograms of premium fish because he wanted to do some good. This gesture alone had an enormous impact, providing more than 3000 free meals for people experiencing food insecurity and CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS 2740 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021 disadvantage. In total it was estimated that 2000 kilograms of fruit and vegetables, 1000 kilograms of seafood and several hundred kilograms each of dairy products and ready-to-eat meals were donated to hundreds of families in need. Meals were donated to FareShare Victoria— Members interjecting. Ms PULFORD: I am horrified at the interjections by the opposition on this, can I say. Meals were donated by these generous small business operators to FareShare Victoria, SecondBite, OzHarvest and the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre. It is wonderful gestures like these that make most of us—it certainly makes me—very, very proud to be part of this Victorian community. Our small businesses have done it tough over the past 18 months, and the Victorian government will continue to stand with them as they continue to recover strongly and support Victorian communities. These businesses are to be congratulated, and they are to be supported as they return to trading. Mr Davis: On a point of order, President, perhaps the minister would like to tell the chamber whether all of the businesses at Prahran Market have received their lockdowns 4 and 5 support. WRITTEN RESPONSES The PRESIDENT (12:45): Regarding questions and answers today, Mr Barton to the Minister for Public Transport, via Ms Pulford, two days, question and supplementary; and Ms Maxwell to the Attorney-General, one day for the question. Constituency questions NORTHERN METROPOLITAN REGION Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (12:45): (1294) My constituency question today is for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. The people of Thomastown in my electorate of Northern Metropolitan Region are concerned about the illegal dumping of rubbish, antisocial behaviour and hoon driving. Recently I invited the Thomastown community to complete my community survey, and I thank the many, many people who responded to that survey. Thomastown is such a diverse and wonderful community, but they are concerned about drug dealing and the safety of their families. To protect my residents, my question for the minister is: will they commit to extra police patrols to better deter the illegal dumping of rubbish near bike paths along the M80 and Alexander Avenue and to deter antisocial behaviour and hooning near Edgars Road and Main Street? Thomastown residents really care for their community, and they want a cleaner and safer suburb. Last time I asked the minister about that they said, ‘It’s not my responsibility; illegal dumping of rubbish sits with Lily D’Ambrosio’. Well, that is not the case. We want police patrols to stop it in the first place. SOUTH EASTERN METROPOLITAN REGION Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (12:47): (1295) My constituency question is directed to the Minister for Workplace Safety and Minister for Early Childhood, . My question relates to the portfolio responsibility for workplace safety. The Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Provisional Payments) Act 2021 came into effect from 1 July this year and makes it easier for Victorian workers to get treatment and support for work-related mental health injuries as soon as they need it. The South Eastern Metropolitan Region is home to many locals from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, including residents whose first language is not English. We know that lack of access to resources such as translated materials can be a barrier to receiving provisional payments for reasonable treatment and services for work-related mental injuries. Can the minister please update me on what the Andrews Labor government is doing to ensure appropriate and accessible information, like translated materials, is reaching workplaces in the South Eastern Metropolitan Region? CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2741

SOUTHERN METROPOLITAN REGION Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (12:48): (1296) My constituency question is for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change. Residents have contacted me with concerns over the Victorian government’s upgrade of Wattle Park in Burwood. Wattle Park is one of the last informal bushland settings in this area where people can enjoy the natural environment. The residents have made clear that they do not want to see it ruined with unnecessary works which will adversely affect the natural and cultural heritage and attract more traffic, particularly bike riders, which will also negatively impact the natural environment. The residents have written submissions to Parks Victoria via the Engage Victoria process, but like much of the feedback received on these types of surveys, the residents say they do not feel they have been heard. My question is: why is it necessary for the government to upgrade, enlarge and resurface these trails when the residents are perfectly happy with the beautiful natural, unsurfaced paths that already exist? NORTHERN VICTORIA REGION Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (12:49): (1297) In Homelessness Week my question is for the Minister for Housing. The Andrews Labor government proudly trumpeted the increase in public housing investment through its big build. However, not enough has been allocated to Northern Victoria to combat the growing homelessness crisis in Northern Victoria. Since Labor resumed government in 2014 we have seen huge increases in the priority waiting list for public housing across Northern Victoria. This list includes applicants who are homeless. Bendigo’s list has increased by over 300 per cent, Mildura’s 257 per cent, Seymour’s 286 per cent, Wodonga’s 99 per cent and Benalla’s 228 per cent, but the greatest increase has been in Shepparton: 333 per cent. Shepparton has the highest number of homeless people in regional Victoria, yet the big build allocation will house just 10 per cent of the total housing waiting list. Will the minister provide more funding to address the homelessness crisis in Northern Victoria, including funding for housing projects, youth foyers in Wodonga, Wangaratta and Mildura and other homelessness programs such as the Wodonga and Shepparton projects? EASTERN VICTORIA REGION Ms GARRETT (Eastern Victoria) (12:50): (1298) My constituency question is directed to the Minister for Workplace Safety and Minister for Early Childhood, Ingrid Stitt, MP, and it relates to the portfolio responsibilities of workplace safety. As the house is aware, Eastern Victoria is home to many families who operate farming businesses, many of whom have passed these businesses down through generations, but unfortunately the agricultural industry has remained one of Victoria’s most dangerous. Can the minister please update me and my constituents on what the Andrews Labor government is doing to ensure that workers in Victoria’s agricultural industry have the resources to continue shifting farming culture to one which prioritises and improves safety? WESTERN METROPOLITAN REGION Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (12:51): (1299) My question is to the Minister for Health from a resident, Valerie Gillen, from Point Cook: why are there no checks being conducted on passengers arriving at Melbourne Airport? Ms Gillen’s husband travelled to South Australia for work on Tuesday, 29 June. On arrival in Adelaide all passengers from all flights had to line up for a COVID test, show their complete police check forms and fill in details of their movements before arrival and their reasons for travel. On arrival back in Melbourne the following day, all passengers from all gate lounges freely left the airport, with no-one even checking the police form. After what Victoria has been through and the many livelihoods that have been greatly affected, this has angered both Valerie and her husband. Victorians deserve better protection, and I hope the government protects our Melbourne Airport. CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS 2742 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021

WESTERN VICTORIA REGION Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (12:52): (1300) My question is for the Minister for Health and relates to the categorisation of preschool music and movement classes in COVID regulations. My constituent runs a preschool music and movement class in Geelong but has been told her business is classified as a creative studio. Whilst she can conform to the density quotient and other requirements, the group limit of 10 makes the classes unworkable. Normal classes include 10 children, but due to their age this means 10 carers also attend. By contrast, the rules for physical recreation and sports limit groups to 10 but do not include parents or carers in the cap. Just down the road from my constituent’s business, Gymbaroo and gymnastics classes are operating at double the capacity. My question to the minister is this: will you clarify the rules, remove this technicality and end the unfair treatment of my constituent’s business in Geelong? NORTHERN VICTORIA REGION Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (12:53): (1301) My constituency question comes from a concerned resident in the Alpine shire, and it is to the Treasurer regarding fire insurance for alpine resorts. The winter season contributes more than $1 billion each year to our gross state product, though likely less in recent times due to bushfires and COVID. Since the 2020 bushfires, fire insurance has become unaffordable and some resorts are without insurance completely, in breach of their lease and at substantial risk. Others have resorted to community insurance programs which are not authorised by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. It has been conveyed to me that in order for the government to intervene and have VMIA, which is the Victorian Managed Insurance Authority, take over as insurer it would require a market failure, which would necessitate the financial collapse of a significant alpine operator, so I ask the minister what the government will do to support alpine operators with this insurance debacle. WESTERN METROPOLITAN REGION Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (12:54): (1302) My constituency question is to the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, and I draw the minister’s attention to the ongoing grave concerns of residents living near sites in Bulla and Ravenhall chosen by the Andrews government and Transurban to house carcinogenic toxic soil from the West Gate Tunnel Project. Despite constant objections, local residents feel they have been railroaded by the government. Assurances from everyone from the Premier down that the poisonous material to be dumped in Melbourne’s west poses no threat to anyone have done nothing to allay fears of locals that their health is taking a very poor second to a dodgy deal with one of the Andrews government’s mates. They feel their health is playing second fiddle to the profits of a multinational corporation. Minister, will you release any health advice that you have to calm the worries of my constituents who feel this way? WESTERN VICTORIA REGION Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (12:55): (1303) My constituency question is for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change and is about concerns that local residents in the Cape Bridgewater area in my electorate have over what has become famous around the world as the Portland koala massacre. It is just over a year now since the investigation began into this outrageous and wilful murder of these iconic and protected animals. My constituents are becoming nervous that no charges will be laid, no prosecutions brought, because there has literally been no word in the public sphere as to what stage the investigation is at. Will the minister inform my constituents by at least issuing a public statement in this regard or even outlining a time frame over which they can expect to see some action? EASTERN VICTORIA REGION Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (12:56): (1304) My constituency question is for the Premier. Kane Busch is an organic horticultural producer in my electorate. The horticultural industry is worth in excess of $5 billion to the state’s economy, and the bulk of that comes from family businesses just like QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2743

Mr Busch’s. They provide an enormous amount of infrastructure and jobs and support for our Victorian regional economy. The pandemic has caused huge uncertainty and anxiety, particularly for growers in Gippsland. Last season Mr Busch had to unfortunately plough in $150 000 worth of celery as a result of workforce shortages. Farmers need certainty; they need to know that they will be able to plant and have harvest opportunities through the workforce. So I ask the Premier: what action is your government taking to ensure that there are sufficient seasonal workers in Gippsland in time to plant this year’s crop? NORTHERN VICTORIA REGION Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (12:57): (1305) My constituency question is for the Minister for Health. Will the minister intervene and pursue the proposal from the Kiewa CFA to establish a pilot program for first-aid responses? The Kiewa CFA are keen to establish a pilot scheme using CFA crews for first-aid response to serious incidents when ambulances are not available, as my colleague Ms Maxwell raised last sitting week. Ambulance response times in regional Victoria are consistently poor, and it makes perfect sense to use trained and experienced CFA crews as a supplement to help save lives. I understand there is a great deal of resistance from some emergency service departments who believe CFA crews are not up to the task of performing CPR or using defibrillators despite their experience from being first on the scene of car accidents and hazmat situations. The Kiewa CFA have received expressions of interest from doctors and nurses who would be willing to join up and provide additional first-aid expertise, and Kiewa CFA members are willing to undertake any extra training deemed necessary. Regional patients are at risk because of departmental bickering and demarcation disputes. SOUTHERN METROPOLITAN REGION Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:58): (1306) My question is to the Minister for Health, and I ask that he meet with a group of doctors who have been requesting a meeting for over 12 months so that they can discuss the policymaking decisions regarding COVID-19. These doctors, who are psychiatrists, general practitioners and geriatricians, have a great deal of experience, and they are seeing firsthand the impacts of COVID-19 and also the government’s response. These doctors are in my electorate of Southern Metropolitan Region, and I speak with some of them very regularly. They are very concerned about the impacts. They all understand the dangers of the virus and the horrendous toll it is taking, with deaths around the world. We all do, and we are reminded of the tragic loss of over 800 lives here in Victoria in the second wave. But there are other tolls as well which are having catastrophic, harmful effects on all sections of our society, from mental health impacts on our children to the isolation and depression amongst the elderly and the ongoing distress and stress of financial ruin due to ongoing lockdowns and lack of certainty. So I ask the minister: please action this request that was put to the minister over 12 months ago. The PRESIDENT: The question is, Ms Crozier: ‘Will the minister meet the doctors?’. Ms CROZIER: I beg your pardon: will the minister meet with the doctors as requested? Questions on notice ANSWERS Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (13:00): I would like to quickly raise a matter regarding a significant number of unanswered questions on notice that I have previously put in, if I may. I have 23 questions that are all overdue—some by a significant period, many by 41 days—overwhelmingly to the Minister for Child Protection in the other place but some also to the Minister for Higher Education and Minister for Training and Skills in this place. Respectfully, and through you, President, obviously, I would like to request an explanation as to why they are so overdue. I will just quickly read the question numbers for the benefit of Hansard. They are questions 3723–4, 3728–9, 3825–42 and also question 3843. MOTIONS 2744 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (13:01): Dr Bach has provided some numbers. I will have my office follow up with the relevant ministerial office. Sitting suspended 1.01 pm until 2.06 pm. Motions CROWN CASINO Debate resumed. Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (14:06): I am rising to speak to Mr O’Donohue’s motion on a range of things, but I think most importantly a select committee to review the casino regulators. Two years ago I sought a motion of urgent public importance in this chamber to launch a parliamentary inquiry. It was not successful then, but it was clear then that there was not sufficient oversight to ensure that our casinos were free from criminal influence, that the gaming was being conducted honestly and that problem gamblers were being protected as the act requires them to be. It seemed, as I said at the time, that the gambling regulator just was not up to the job. It was not up to the job to mount proper investigations. At that time we said that the public had a right to know what was happening at Crown and nothing short of a thorough investigation by the Victorian Parliament would satisfy that, and yes, we have been proven right. Now, a lot has happened since then. We have had the Bergin inquiry in New South Wales. And it was interesting watching the 7.30 report on the ABC last night, where Crown’s lawyers said, ‘Yes, we’ve failed. Yes, we are wrong. Yes, we have done the wrong things. We’re terribly sorry’. And I kept thinking to myself, ‘Where was the regulator in all of this? What were they doing?’. As I said, this is something that has been of great interest to me for a number of years. When we released video testimony with Andrew Wilkie in a quite unusual collaboration between state and federal Independents, again calling for action, that was a whistleblower who said he had witnessed the abuse of women. He had been forced to courier drugs and to break customs regulations. And at that stage we said that there needed to be an inquiry into the regulator. No-one was able to say that Crown was free of corruption, and now certainly we are seeing this with damning inquiries interstate and here in Victoria, where we have seen QC Ray Finkelstein run a very in-depth and a very detailed commission. I think we will all look forward to his report, but a lot of it will be stating what we already know: that Crown really thumbed their noses at their regulator. Crown was reviewed every five years, and I remember seeing the recommendations from the regulator—you know, ‘This must be improved’, ‘This must be improved’. Five years on nothing had changed. Things like designing little sticks to put into poker machines so you did not have to press the button—I mean, absolutely illegal actions. When the regulator raised it with the casino, the casino basically failed. They have failed. Now, certainly Mr O’Donohue spoke about the lack of staffing and the reduction in staffing, and when we spoke to whistleblowers from the regulator, they spoke to this and they spoke to the fact that they were stretched very thinly. So I commend the government in recognising this and in moving and certainly in Ms Cope’s review of this. But I do not think this select committee will interrupt that, and in fact I think this committee will actually assist in getting a better regulator for casinos and gambling in Victoria. It may also show the failings, not just as the opposition would say, of the Labor government, but I think it will show the failings of Liberal governments in the past as well—that they have failed in their responsibilities. We talked about this being the biggest and the best casino in the world, and this goes back to former Premier Kennett and also former Premier Kirner. I think what we have now seen is, no, it is not. It may be the biggest, but it certainly is not the best. That casino should have been learning, MOTIONS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2745 but our regulators should have been fiercer, should have done their jobs, and I do not believe that they have done their jobs adequately. As I say, I do commend the government for recognising this, for making changes, but more needs to be done, and I think that an inquiry like this that has been placed here will assist with that, because, as I mentioned, successive governments have failed to adequately regulate Crown. We have seen now the sort of frantic purging of their board, of all of their senior management, and share prices taking a dive. Crown is really facing an existential moment at the moment. But where was the regulator in all of this? How did it get to this? This should have been picked up. We know problem gambling is the cause of so much misery in our community, and Crown should have adequately protected those people, and, from everything that we have heard during the Finkelstein review and during the Bergin review, that was not happening. So why wasn’t the regulator making sure that was happening? I think the public needs to have confidence going forward. We want to have confidence that the largest employer in our state is operating ethically, morally and legally. I think we can get there, but I certainly believe that this select committee will help us do that. This will certainly be about reviewing some of what has gone past, but it will also look at how we go forward, how we develop a regulator that can have the faith of the community but also have the teeth to ensure that we do not have the same problems that we have seen, the same corruption that we have seen, happen again in our gambling facilities in Victoria. So I am hoping that this will provide an opportunity to reduce the chances of repeating those mistakes, and I commend the motion. Ms GARRETT (Eastern Victoria) (14:15): I am pleased to make a contribution on the particular motion before the house and reiterate, as others have who have spoken on this motion, that the government will not tolerate illegal behaviour in our gaming industry. The Premier has made it very clear that he will do whatever is necessary to deal with what is coming out of the royal commission. Importantly, we need the royal commission to conclude its work. There has been a range of statements, comments, analysis and work done in light of what occurred at the New South Wales liquor and gaming authority inquiry, and as a result of that and other matters the Victorian government acted decisively to establish the highest level of analysis, undertaking and review: a royal commission with an eminent judge to look at the suitability of Crown Melbourne and its associates regarding its conduct over the last while and its suitability for a licence. Again, the Premier has made it very clear that if the casino licence is to be cancelled, if those are the recommendations, he will not be hesitating to act on those recommendations. In conjunction with the royal commission and in relation to the New South Wales findings, a review was established by us to have a regulation expert, Deborah Cope, look at the current governance structure of the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (VCGLR) and see whether and how it could be done better. Of course the minister this week announced as a result of that review that there would be a serious and full overhaul of how gaming is regulated in Victoria, with the establishment of a new casino and gambling regulator that has a dedicated casino regulation division solely focused on holding Melbourne’s casino operator to account. This gambling and casino control commission will have oversight of all gambling and gaming activities in Victoria right through from pokies to the casino. This is a result of the independent work done by regulation expert Deborah Cope and has occurred in parallel with the royal commission. These recommendations have informed the decisions that the government has taken and the announcements that the minister made. Critically, the new regulator will have greater oversight in monitoring gambling harm minimisation measures in both the casino and gambling sectors—more than what the existing regulator does—and it will be separating out the liquor regulation and liquor licensing and solely focusing on the casino and gaming. I think we have seen from those people who have participated in this system since it was introduced under a previous government that there have been concerns about the commingling of the two activities and that it is important—indeed it is essential—that there is a standalone division relating entirely just to the casino and just to gaming. This will see really a return to the governance model that existed prior to 2012. MOTIONS 2746 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021

Again, announcements have been made by Minister Horne ensuring that the division will have the right staff and leadership with the right expertise and the right clout and that there can be the shared resources and expertise from the board of the regulator, but this standalone division will be solely focused on ensuring that our casino and our gaming operators are up to scratch. This will take place. It will be finalised over the coming months, and we will have further things to say once we have a new chair and the like. The VCGLR will continue its work until the new regulator is established, and clearly the new regulator will have a range of powers and resources to do the work that needs to be done. And it is very important that this government established the royal commission, as was dealt with in other states, and that this commission is being given the powers and the resources that it needs to undertake its very grave task. The central point will be the suitability of holding the casino licence. These recommendations are due really quite soon, in a couple of months, from Mr Finkelstein, QC, and we know his experience. He served more than 40 years at the Victorian Bar and has been a Queen’s Counsel since 1986. He also held the esteemed position of a judge of the Federal Court and a range of other tribunal positions. The government has made it clear that it will legislate later in this year to enable any findings of the royal commission to be put into action. So there will not be any holding of that up or dragging of the feet. In fact quite the opposite—the work has already started regarding the changes to the regulator’s structure and personnel and governance arrangements. Again, Minister Horne has commissioned a review to advise on those structural and governance arrangements, which will occur in parallel with the royal commission. Critically part of that work will be assessing the regulation of money laundering and junket operations, which have clearly come to the fore in recent times. So these are very significant changes. We have an incredibly significant royal commission ongoing as we speak, done in the full public glare, as it should be. These changes will be very important in ensuring that the casino operator discharges the obligations that it has to the Victorian community to the highest possible standards. It will ensure that we have the best and toughest regulation that can be introduced, and it will be standalone, to focus entirely on the casino and gambling activities in this state. Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (14:22): I will be brief. From a royal commission in New South Wales we learned that Crown Casino has avoided taxes and turned a blind eye to money laundering through gambling in the venue. It is easy to understand the motivation for the casino in doing this. They are not alone in liking to make money and disliking paying tax. The major issue with Crown is that they are a government-legislated monopoly. As the only player in the market, they have become a giant with the expectation of special treatment from the government—too big to fail. Competition would deliver better outcomes for gamblers and for taxpayers and for society as a whole—perhaps not for politicians who get kickbacks and lobbying jobs when they retire. To me the bigger question is why the regulator did not identify these problems. After all, that is their purpose. It is what we pay them to do. If Crown has been a bad actor, it is the job of the regulator to keep it in check or to expose that it has not been kept in check. Crown has underpaid $50 million in taxes in total since 2012. Taxpayers spend $35 million every year on the Victorian gambling regulator, totalling more than $250 million over the same period. In other words, Victorian taxpayers would have been better off financially letting the casino avoid its taxes than they were paying for a regulator to prevent the tax avoidance, which it did not do. We were also told that there have been no audits by the regulator into how clubs spend their tax- exempt community funds, funds that should be supporting community groups and sporting clubs over many years. It would appear the regulator has been asleep at the wheel for a long time now. The inquiry we are debating today is not an inquiry into Crown; that is already happening. This would be an inquiry into the regulator. Just last week the government announced the regulator would be torn down and rebuilt. The government clearly recognised that the regulator has done the wrong thing, but they are going to shield it from inquiry anyway. You are left asking yourself, ‘Why are they doing that?’. There have been MOTIONS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2747 many accusations that ministers are directly involved in the regulator’s misbehaviour. Allegations even go as far as to implicate Labor politicians as part of a corruption scandal. Wouldn’t this inquiry vindicate the government and demonstrate the falsity of these claims? Doesn’t the government always say, ‘If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear’? So what are they afraid of here? Leaving all such allegations aside, an inquiry provides an excellent opportunity to identify the flaws in the present regulator so that we can avoid repeating them when setting up a new one. When something goes wrong it is worth investigating. It is all part of running an honest government. The Liberal Democrats believe in honest government, so we will support this inquiry. Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (14:26): I rise to speak on Mr O’Donohue’s motion 603. For the following reasons I will not be supporting this motion. This sends a very poor message to the public. It is saying that the Parliament does not have confidence in the royal commission. It is a reflection on the commissioner and it could be seen by some as setting a precedent to run interference on a royal commission. I had a quick look yesterday and could not find another instance where a parliament ran an inquiry while a royal commission was taking place. This would be unprecedented. This is a $20 million royal commission. I think some people here think they could do a better job than Commissioner Finkelstein, but they may have tickets on themselves. The royal commission must be allowed to finish this very important work without political distraction. The government, for whatever reason—and it is their choice—have made it very clear that they wanted to separate the work of the royal commission and the review of the regulator. Last February the government appointed Ms Deborah Cope, a person who has over 30 years experience in analysing and reforming public policy and regulatory practice. She has worked to develop and implement consumer and competition policy and has a particular focus on developing and applying risk-based regulation principles. She works with government groups to facilitate the most efficient and most effective policies and regulations and to enable regulators to work at their peak efficiency. Her advice to the government on the future of the casino and gambling regulation has been for a single regulator, the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission. It will have two arms: one to regulate the gambling and one focused on holding the casino to account. The VGCCC will have a strong focus on harm reduction. Ms Cope has not finalised her work, and she must be given every opportunity to complete that work. For those who have a genuine concern, and there are many in here who want to scrutinise the regulator, they will be able to when the new legislation comes to this house. We will be able to go over this legislation regarding this regulator with a fine-tooth comb when it comes before us, and that is the appropriate time. I will just say to those who are outside the tent and believe they have serious and genuine concerns: you have avenues to express your concerns, and they are IBAC and the Ombudsman. However, I strongly encourage you to engage with the Cope review. Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (14:29): I rise to speak to the motion put up by Mr O’Donohue. Even though Crown Casino is the largest single-site employer in the state and has contributed directly and indirectly to this state, no organisation, including Crown Casino or anyone else for that matter, can operate outside the law and operate without adhering to the conditions of their licence, as has been made very clear on the record by Premier Andrews. We were very concerned by the inquiry in Sydney, so the government made an immediate decision to establish a royal commission to inquire into the suitability of Crown Melbourne and its associates. The public hearings began in May—17 May to be exact—and we will soon be tabling the report, on 15 October this year. So we should let the royal commission, with all its compelling powers, inquire, get witnesses and probe into Crown’s affairs, according to the terms of reference, before we rush into interfering with the work of the highest commission—namely, the royal commission conducting the inquiry. MOTIONS 2748 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021

Not only that, but the government is holding an independent review into the regulator, and that review is being led by an expert, Ms Deborah Cope. With all her credentials, experience and expertise, she has explored and is exploring the current structure and governance arrangements of the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (VCGLR) in relation to its role as the casino regulator. More than that, Ms Cope is also looking into the requirement for regulation of money laundering and junket operations, which are also matters of concern for the government. The Cope review is being conducted and it is from that review that Minister Horne has made an announcement that there will be an overhaul of the regulation of gambling in Victoria—namely, the government will establish a new casino and gambling regulator separate from liquor and licensing. In that new entity there will be two branches. One will be looking into gambling and one will be dedicated entirely and solely to casino activities. This review has occurred in parallel with the royal commission and also has made recommendations to government. Accordingly, Minister Horne has made the announcement of a new entity. Unlike the existing regulator, the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation, the new body will not regulate liquor and licensing but will be, as I just mentioned, looking into gambling, and one branch will be looking solely into the regulation of the casino. This is perhaps a good reminder that before these changes the Liberal government in 2012 put the liquor and gambling standalone control agencies into one agency. For the record, in 2014 the then Treasurer, Michael O’Brien, who is now the Leader of the Opposition, increased the number of gambling tables from 400 to 440, increased the number of fully automated table games from 200 to 250 and increased the maximum numbers of gaming machines from 2500 to 2628. Also he agreed to conditions such that the government would have to compensate Crown Casino and its associates if the following were not adhered to—namely, if there were any changes to exemptions even for smoking in the VIP area or any changes that may adversely impact the earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation of the company and a few other things, including any changes to the loyalty scheme. So now the new division will have specialist leadership and staff. Not only that, but they will also have access to shared resources and gambling and licensing expertise from the broader regulator of our state. The final details will be announced in the coming months of who will be the staff for that new division and also what the operational structure will be, but in the meantime there will be no disruption to regulatory activity, with the VCGLR continuing its work while the new regulator is being established. So once again the government has committed already to establishing a royal commission, and we should give the time for the royal commission to finish their work and not interfere with their investigation. Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (14:37): I rise to speak not in support of this motion. It is not because I do not think it is needed; I think there is a timing issue. The timing is that there is a royal commission going on. The government has started action on the regulator, and whilst the action on the regulator I think needs close scrutiny to make sure that we do not repeat the mistakes that were made earlier on, which would be a crying shame, when we have a royal commission it is kind of the top level of inquiry we can really do. Now, I understand that there was no mention of the regulator in the royal commission—and that was the object of the first part of the motion—but I also think that that is very unlikely to happen, also I think because of the timing. I think we are in the summing-up stage, if I wanted to paraphrase it, at the moment of the royal commission, and I cannot imagine that trying to start a new line of inquiry right now is going to work. If this had come up once the royal commission had handed down its findings and the government had at least made some sort of response, it may have been different, but as it is now, I see a problem—and I did get some independent legal advice—with this possibly affecting the royal commission. There is $20 million being thrown at this, which is not inconsequential money, and I do believe we should just let the royal commission finish and then pick this issue up. MOTIONS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2749

Mr ERDOGAN (Southern Metropolitan) (14:39): I appreciate the opportunity to rise and speak on this motion. I will be speaking against the motion for a number of reasons, some of which have already been well articulated by some of the previous speakers: Mr Bourman we just heard, and Dr Kieu. Mr Barton before, for example, raised a number of issues about the fact that matters of the highest public interest usually attract a royal commission, and this government did take decisive action in calling for a royal commission, which is ongoing at the moment. It is inappropriate to, I guess, relitigate issues that are before the royal commission as they stand and especially to propose amendments to the commission at a time in which it is quite well advanced. This commission started public hearings in May. Here we are in August. So at this late stage to say ‘Come, we’re going to change your terms of reference. We’ll amend them, and now all the submissions that have been made to that commission and those hearings will have to be redesigned and reframed in light of the new terms of reference’ is just inappropriate. So I think to an extent it is a silly motion before the house at the moment, in light of the fact that the government has taken decisive action. Like everybody I was concerned by the allegations that came out of the inquiry in New South Wales, and that is why I was also pleased to see the Andrews Labor government taking decisive action and referring it to a royal commission. Much has been said about the terms of reference, but I, like many of you, have been following the public commentary on the inquiry, and I have seen the way in which Raymond Finkelstein, QC, has conducted the hearing. It is quite transparent, quite an open process. The public has been able to follow what is going on, and obviously the revelations are a concern. But I think for this process in this chamber at this time, to reopen this matter would be completely inappropriate. Dr Kieu touched on an important point, and I thank him for reminding me. He reminded me of the state opposition’ s record in terms of their relationship with Crown Casino. It led to an increase in the number of gaming tables from 400 to 440, it led to an increase in the number of fully automated table games from 200 to 250 and it increased the maximum number of gaming machines from 2500 to 2628. You cannot say you stand against gaming and the harm caused by this and play to family values when you supported these increases in gaming at the casino. So I thank you very much, Dr Kieu, for reminding me of those statistics. It was quite revealing, and it should be revealing to the public of the duplicity at play here. I think there are a number of important recommendations that came out of the New South Wales inquiry, one of which surrounded the point about a need for a standalone independent casino regulator, and I am again pleased to see that our government is taking decisive action. The minister announced today, in an overhaul of consumer affairs, liquor and gaming regulation, particularly in relation to gambling specifically in our state, that we will be establishing a new casino and gambling regulator, with dedicated casino regulation. That is what came out of the recommendations from former Judge Bergin in New South Wales, and it is an important one, I guess. It outlines the unique challenges of gaming regulation, specifically in a casino environment. I think it is important that we do take on board those learnings, and we have. The minister has taken it on board, so that is fantastic to see. This review has occurred in parallel with the royal commission, and it has made a number of recommendations to government regarding the appropriate regulatory requirements. Unlike the existing regulator, the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation, the new overarching body will not regulate liquor licensing, ensuring its focus is solely on regulating our casino and gambling operators and minimising harm. Prior to the changes, under the Liberal government of 2012, liquor and gambling were regulated by two standalone control agencies. Our changes will see governance return to a model that has a specific and separate focus on liquor and gambling regulation—so again, identifying the unique challenges of each sector and dedicating resources appropriately. Obviously, further information will be announced in relation to that new model, but I am glad to see that action is being taken. MOTIONS 2750 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021

Obviously at the same time the royal commission is taking place. I do not want to extend my commentary in relation to this matter for too much longer in this chamber, because that important work is being done outside this place, and I look forward to hearing and reading about the recommendations and findings of QC Finkelstein in due course. It is an important job, and there is a great public interest, as there is for all royal commissions, and this one is no different. As a government we are always committed to stamping out all forms of illegal behaviour. So I am proud of this government’s record and the fact that we took decisive action in referring the matter to a royal commission in due course. The way in which, I believe, this motion was brought before this house was politically motivated. I do not believe it has a proper basis, and that is why I will not be supporting it in any regard. Mr ATKINSON (Eastern Metropolitan) (14:45): There is an inherent contradiction in the hymn sheet that each of the government members has been singing from, and that is to say that we ought not to be pre-empting the royal commission at this stage by having some other inquiry. Fair enough, except that the royal commission is not investigating, has put no scrutiny on, the systems of governance that were supposed to ensure that the casino behaved. You cannot expect the casino as a private organisation to have been self-regulating in this sort of environment, this sector of activity, because we know the inherent problems associated with the gaming industry. So that ought to have been one of the areas that the royal commission was very much looking at. The Cope inquiry is being done as a separate exercise away from public scrutiny without having terms of reference that would allow proper analysis of what went wrong and where the regulator in fact failed to do its job, and that is what needs to be added to the royal commission now. There is no problem with Mr Finkelstein’s work. There is no problem with the commission and the way they are going about it, and certainly the revelations that have come out there are significant. But the problem is that at the moment it is not able to investigate what needs to be investigated for the sake of Victoria in terms of where the regulator failed, where governance failed. Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (14:47): I thank speakers who have spoken in relation to my motion. To pick up the points Mr Atkinson made, the government members are very good at reading the bill book prepared by the Department of Justice and Community Safety, but there is an inherent contradiction in what they say. Ms Terpstra and Ms Shing both referred to the fact that we need to let the royal commission finish its job, wait for the recommendations, but within the same breath: ‘Oh, but we’re reforming it anyway. We’re reforming the way it operates. Wait for the commission to do its job, wait until it’s finished what it’s doing, but we’ve got it fixed already’. They are pre-empting the royal commission, and they refer to the Cope inquiry and the Freckelton inquiry. Where is the opportunity for public submissions? Where are the public hearings? When will the report be released? Oh, that is right, there will not be any public hearings; the report may not be released or may be redacted by the minister. And with the greatest respect to the Freckelton inquiry, the person who commissioned that inquiry, the chair of the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation, was the director of the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing when the VCGLR was established, and to me that is an inherent conflict. He is a highly respected individual and I do not reflect on him, but there is a clear at least appearance of a conflict of interest. Now, to Mr Barton’s ridiculous notion that we are reflecting on the royal commission—nonsense, absolute nonsense. What we are doing is asking for the royal commission to do more. It is a vote of confidence in the royal commissioner. No-one is perfect, and Mr Finkelstein’s legal advice to the Labor Party about the east–west link, I think, perhaps was not his best work, but we have absolute confidence in what he is doing in this royal commission and we want him to do more. We want him to do more. It should look into the regulator. Now, Mr Bourman says he has legal advice to say what we are doing is wrong—again, nonsense. Release it, Mr Bourman. Release the legal advice. I highly doubt that there is clear legal advice saying what we are doing is somehow wrong. This is the Parliament of Victoria. We have every right to BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2751 express an opinion about what should be in the royal commission. We have every right to ask the executive to amend the terms to do more, because it must do more. The VCGLR is not up to the job. It has shown that it has failed, and Ms Garrett, who was a gaming minister, had the opportunity to explain why under her watch junket operators went through the roof, which increased the opportunity for money laundering and criminal activity, but she failed. She just recited the same old hymn sheet or bill book that every other Labor member recited. It is simply not good enough to let this go by with, ‘Oh, never mind, we’ll look at it later’. This must be investigated. Our request to the royal commission is a vote of confidence in the royal commission. We want it to investigate the VCGLR, and if the government will not let it do that, then the Parliament should do that job in an open and transparent manner. House divided on motion:

Ayes, 16 Atkinson, Mr Finn, Mr O’Donohue, Mr Bach, Dr Hayes, Mr Ondarchie, Mr Bath, Ms Limbrick, Mr Patten, Ms Crozier, Ms Lovell, Ms Quilty, Mr Cumming, Dr McArthur, Mrs Ratnam, Dr Davis, Mr Noes, 21 Barton, Mr Kieu, Dr Stitt, Ms Bourman, Mr Leane, Mr Symes, Ms Elasmar, Mr Maxwell, Ms Tarlamis, Mr Erdogan, Mr Meddick, Mr Taylor, Ms Garrett, Ms Melhem, Mr Terpstra, Ms Gepp, Mr Pulford, Ms Tierney, Ms Grimley, Mr Shing, Ms Watt, Ms Motion negatived. Business of the house ORDERS OF THE DAY Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:57): I move:

That the consideration of order of the day, general business, 2, be postponed until later this day. Motion agreed to. Motions SESSIONAL ORDERS Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (14:57): I move:

That until the end of the session, unless otherwise ordered by the Council: (1) the following sessional orders be adopted, to come into operation with immediate effect: 1. Sitting and Adjournment of the Council Standing Order 4.02 is suspended and replaced with the following: The President will take the Chair as soon after the time appointed for the meeting of the Council as a quorum* of Members is present, and Members will stand in silence and pray or reflect on their responsibilities to the people of Victoria. Standing Order 4.05(1) is suspended and replaced with the following: The President will take the Chair as soon after the time appointed for the meeting of the Council as a quorum* of Members is present, and Members will stand in silence and pray or reflect on their responsibilities to the people of Victoria. MOTIONS 2752 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021

* To constitute a quorum there must be present (inclusive of the President) one-third at least of the Members of the Council [See section 32(1) of the Constitution Act 1975]. 2. Broadcasting, Recording and Photography of Proceedings Standing Order 20.02(4) is suspended and replaced with the following: Visual and/or sound recordings and excerpts of visual and/or sound recordings must not commence until the President or Deputy President takes the Chair and must conclude on the adjournment of the Council or as soon as the Chair is vacated for a suspension of proceedings. (2) The foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders or practices of the Council, will have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders or practices of the Council. (3) The Clerk is empowered to renumber the sessional orders and correct any internal references as a consequence of this resolution. I am very pleased to rise to speak to this motion, and it is a very simple one. It is about freedom and it is about fairness, and it is that simple but it is that profound. From the outset, and let us make this clear, I am not against the Lord’s prayer. I know it by heart. I used to say it many times. This is pro-religion. This is about disadvantaging no-one and making space for everyone. Should any member wish to continue to recite the Lord’s prayer here, of course they can under my motion. Should those of other faiths wish to recite a different prayer, well, they can. And for those of no religion, I invite you to reflect on your responsibilities and how you are going to serve the community while you are here. Why are you here? And I would urge all of us to reflect on that, to think about that, to consider the start of the day with a sincere moment of reflection. This is not a crusade against Christianity, as some of the more hysterical voices and extremes would have you believe. Again, as I say, this is pro-religion and thus pro-Christianity. It is not some form of culture war. It is not cancel culture. The power that people seem to think I have is quite extraordinary. ‘Cancelling God’ I think someone from the other house may have accused me of. This is not about cancel culture, and those that are resistant to this are really arguing this on the grounds of tradition; that is all—that this is tradition. And of course tradition is important. Our heritage is important. But it is not immutable, and I think it is certainly insufficient grounds to reject a simple change that reflects the changing nature of our community. Were tradition the key determinant to so many things, we would not evolve. Women would not be voting. Women would not be here in this house. Children would still be beaten as a matter of course in our schools and in our homes. There are so many examples of this change. Change is how we progress our civil society, but it does not deny our heritage. Evolution in rules and proceedings just reflects and respects the changing nature of society and economies. When this was first debated, and I would encourage people to look at the Argus of 1851, it was the first vote that was made in this chamber, and at that vote they opted against a compulsory recitation of the prayer. It was a very interesting debate. Most of it came down to the fact that they were saying, ‘If you want to pray before you begin Parliament, by all means do that—but do it outside. This is a chamber for everyone from all religions, from all races, and we should be respectful of that’. This is a secular chamber. It is not a church. It is not religious. Yes, we have angels surrounding us—little naked ones as well—but this is the Parliament of Victoria. This is a place where we are here to represent everyone in Victoria. And when the prayer was finally adopted by the standing orders in this chamber, nine out of 10 people in Victoria identified as Christian. Today that has halved. Today many, many religions are practised here. Today almost a third of Victorians follow no religion. Today half of our entire population was either born overseas or has at least one parent who was. And so today the compulsory recitation of one religion’s prayer has become divisive and disrespectful but also discordant to our society. MOTIONS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2753

I know many of you have received letters from a range of people, but I just want to quote a couple that I have received, including one as late as today. A voter from Mornington said:

I am shocked that such a practice continues in 2021, when we have come so far to remove discrimination. If a … Prayer was recited at my workplace, I’d soon be getting a call from HR! I think for many of us when we have discussed this around our community—I know from my experience when I have discussed this with my community—the first thing is that they are shocked that we do it. They cannot believe that that goes on in a parliament—a parliament that they just assumed had a clear separation, a parliament that they just assumed was secular. Indeed Yehuda Harmor, who wrote to me today, said:

You start each … day with a statement that automatically excludes me and people like me. I see it as an unambiguous declaration that you are not in that place to work for my kind. I understand that this insult may be … a historical anachronism but it’s insulting nonetheless. So my motion is in the spirit of inclusion, and it is about being more inclusive in our daily proceedings, progress and respect. I mean, seriously, I think as someone who spent a lot of time—well, maybe not a lot of time, but some time—at Sunday school and certainly in religious studies, as most people my age grew up with, we heard about a Jesus who was very progressive. We heard about a Jesus who was there for everyone. We heard about a Jesus who advocated for fairness. He championed the downtrodden. He denounced the abuses of powers. In fact he was probably one of the most prominent progressives in history. Now, as I said in an article yesterday in the Herald Sun:

Everybody has the right to religious faith. Nobody has the right to impose their religious faith. No religion has a spiritual or moral monopoly. With freedom of religion comes the responsibility to respect others’ freedom to follow another god, or none. The Age’s editorial said:

While Christianity is still the most common faith, it is evident that the religious and ethnic make-up of our state is far more diverse today than it was a century ago, when the Lord’s Prayer became a daily feature of Parliament. They went on to say that they believed that:

… Parliament should reflect these societal changes— and that they could—

… see a future where there is an opening of Parliament that is more inclusive of all faiths than the current practice of reading the Lord’s Prayer … I would like to note that this is not something that we have not been talking about. This is something we have been talking about for the last couple of years. We certainly had the Premier a couple of years ago also agree that we needed to move in another way. And I actually appreciate the conversations that I have been having with the government about this—about how we can be inclusive, how we can greater reflect our community and how we can not insult people in our community by leaving them out and by them feeling excluded by the way we start our day. I get this from most people that I meet. They want to see an inclusive parliament. They want to see a parliament that reflects the people that it represents. In conversations with different faith leaders, with different organisations, this came out clearly from them too, and I include in that the Jewish Community Council of Victoria, the Victorian Council of Churches and the Buddhist Council of Victoria. They all supported a quiet moment of prayer or reflection on the duties and solemn responsibilities that each and every one of us has in this place today. We also had an open letter that was circulated today from eminent people across the community, and those signatories included people like Reverend Ian Smith, who is the executive officer of the MOTIONS 2754 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021

Victorian Council of Churches; Daniel Aghion, the president of the Jewish Community Council of Victoria; Eddie Micallef, the chair of the Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria; Professor Gary Boumer, who is the UNESCO chair in intercultural and interreligious relations; Father Bob Maguire, a Catholic community leader; Professor Pat McGorry, professor of youth mental health at the University of Melbourne; and Simon McKeon, a lawyer, philanthropist, sportsman and chancellor of . In part, that letter that they were all signatories to said:

We believe it promotes community harmony, better protects freedom of religion and reflects the evolution of Australia from its Judeo-Christian heritage to its current and future diversity of culture and religion. It is clear too that we can do this, but we probably should do this in both houses—and that is beyond my remit. But certainly if the knocks on my door and the emails that I have received over the past couple of weeks are any indication, there is a great willingness for change not just in this chamber but in the other chamber as well. I note the opposition’s position—and this was I think very eloquently put by Mr Davis in the Herald Sun yesterday as well—but the point that they raised when we discussed this in the Procedure Committee was that we need to respect the rights of each and every individual. Now, in some perverse way, to do that we maintain a prayer that excludes people and we maintain a process that excludes a large number of people even in this chamber, not to mention the exclusion of people in our community. I think you just have to look at the census to see that that proposition of maintaining a prayer is utterly inconsistent. I think people who are opposing this motion are reading the community wrong. A number of people from both sides of this house have privately shown support for this, and I understand that this has been difficult. I also want to just make the point that, when you look at this motion, this is actually about how we begin our days on sitting days. In recognition of that tradition and heritage that Mr Davis has spoken about, which the minority report of the Procedure Committee about this exact same issue spoke to, on that opening day when the Queen’s representative comes to this house, when we have the chamber filled with that tradition and heritage at the opening of each session—when we have the black rod, when we have that pomp and ceremony—that is the day that I believe that we can maintain that recitation. That is a day that is a tip to our heritage and to our tradition, but on a daily basis it would be far more inclusive and it would be far more reflective if we actually did something that reflects our whole community: a quiet moment where we could think about how we are going to behave in this house—how we are going to reflect and represent our community. That, I think, would be a very important activity for us. Elizabeth Reid, who was the first women’s adviser in the federal government many, many years ago, was making this point, because she was arguing that a moment of reflection at the start of a council meeting would be more appropriate than a prayer. She said: in a place where you are going to conflict, where there are going to be contrasts of opinion, where there are going to be disputes and differences, maybe starting the day with silence actually starts the day in a better way to listen to others—to listen to the views of others and to be respectful of other people’s views. I think that that would be something that our community would love to see. This is a compelling change, and it is based on the evidence that Parliament needs to evolve with the community. It is driven by the fundamental value of fairness, of justice. It is driven by freedom— freedom of religion and personal liberty. These surely are principles upon which we can agree. Anglican Bishop of Wangaratta Clarence Bester put it well the other day:

The Lord’s prayer is relevant to those of us who are part of the Christian society and … a secular state should not and cannot favour a particular religiosity or even where people do not adhere to any religion or faith. He said:

No particular faith or religious tradition should have the monopoly of our ever changing society … MOTIONS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2755

It is beyond doubt time to give all religions a fair go and all people their due respect. I commend my motion to the house. Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (15:13): It is with some concern that I rise on this motion. It is a motion that Ms Patten has pursued in one form or another for some time, including at the Procedure Committee, but it is a motion that I think misses important points. Yes, there is no question that the Lord’s Prayer is a Judaeo-Christian prayer, a prayer that comes mainly from the New Testament. It is a prayer that goes way back into our history, back into the earliest days of Christianity, but it is also a prayer that stands for much, much more. It is a prayer that actually points directly to the individualism which, paradoxically, Ms Patten pointed to a moment ago that is inherent within Christianity. Many of the traditions that have built our Parliament, our Westminster system, our way of life, our legal system and our inherent respect for human rights all come from that tradition. The Lord’s Prayer typifies that, and that is the importance of it. I say too heritage is important, and I do feel very strongly that we have got to be prepared to stand up for our own heritage. It is a little bit like a beautiful old building—you do not just knock it over because some new modern thing comes along. You have actually got to judge and keep important traditions in place, and I say this is such a tradition. Ms Patten says it is not part of a culture war. Of course this is part of a culture war. Of course this is about an attack on Western tradition. Of course this is about an attack on all that is true and on important values to many people in our society. I also think this is the wrong time. We are in the middle of a pandemic. COVID-19 has been running rampant. We have had many deaths in our state, and I do not think that this is the most important target for change at this time. I think also Ms Patten has misunderstood the importance of consultation, and I think that if we are going to make such a change we should do in a full, public and transparent way, and we said that in the minority report from the Procedure Committee a couple of years ago. We were quite clear that if the government and minor parties wanted to proceed, we would participate in a full and transparent process where everyone had their say. But to do this without that process I think is quite wrong too. I do think that it is about freedom and liberty. It is about the signal and about our history and about the fact that the prayer does actually link straight back into our past, the tradition that built the Westminster system. You know, that is actually a big part of where we have come from, and it is a big part of our system, and I for one do not believe that there is anything wrong with standing up for those traditions and saying, ‘Let’s look at history, and let’s move forward, but do so in recognition of our history’. For that reason I and the coalition will oppose this motion. We think there does need to be consultation. We think this is the wrong time. We think the prayer stands for much, much more than has been allowed by some. I mean, even the Premier has said today that this should not be done at this time. This is not on his agenda. He says that this should be done at the start of a Parliament. Well, that is a legitimate point. If you are going to sit and change things in this way, willy-nilly, well, that is also something that I think is worthy of consideration. But tradition is important. I recognise where we have come from, and I think that is what the prayer does too, and in that sense I think it is very important to maintain those traditions and that reflection back to our past. Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (15:17): Thank you, Ms Patten, for your motion today. There are a lot of fulsome topics to cover today. I just wanted to make a brief contribution on this one. As we know, sitting days in federal Parliament and in most state and territory parliaments across Australia have a requirement to read in a prayer at the start of proceedings. I understand the majority of them read the Lord’s Prayer. The ACT Parliament, by contrast, asks its members to stand in silence and pray or reflect on their responsibilities to the people of the ACT, which in effect is what Ms Patten is proposing in her motion. Of course Christianity is the most common faith in Victoria, but it is fair to say that our state is far more diverse today than a century ago when the practice of the Lord’s Prayer commenced in this place. Whilst I concur with Mr Davis that traditions are important, we should always strive towards MOTIONS 2756 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021 inclusivity, and there is merit in the Parliament reflecting a modern society. I know that there are limited opportunities for members of the crossbench to prosecute their motions, as they have got limited slots. But my observations concur with Mr Davis’s that the urgency of matters related to the pandemic and ensuring that the Andrews Labor government continues to focus on delivering our priorities has meant that we have had limited capacity to give due consideration to changing standing orders of the chamber or indeed across the Parliament. It is our view that if this change was to be made it would be better suited to the beginning of a term rather than closer to the end of one. As the emails on this topic indicate, there are a range of views on the worth or relevance of reciting the Lord’s Prayer at the start of a parliamentary session. Frankly I actually think the vast majority of Victorians probably could not care less about this issue, but some people feel strongly one way or the other. One thing that is certainly clear is that there is no agreement. Can there ever be agreement on a set of words that respects the traditions of the past, the foundations of this place, whilst also reflecting and formally acknowledging the secular society that is Victoria? I do suspect that that is extremely difficult and is perhaps why the model of a moment of reflection, such as is the case in the ACT, was landed on. I also understand that other jurisdictions seek to be inclusive and that the US Congress rotates between prayers from different faiths to try and pay respect to the differing views in that nation. So with that said, the government is not in a position to support Ms Patten’s motion today; however, I thank her for inviting this conversation about whether we as a Parliament can be more welcoming and truly representative. A Labor government, if re-elected, at the beginning of the next term and as part of the consideration of changes to standing and sessional orders will commit to workshopping a replacement model that is purpose-fit for Victoria. It is certainly our feeling that the model should be consistent across both houses of Parliament and not just the Legislative Council. I know that there are a lot of people who are interested in having a say in relation to this, but now is not the time. Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (15:21): I rise to speak in support of this motion today, which is about bringing parliamentary procedure in the Victorian Parliament into the 21st century and getting rid of an outdated practice that no longer reflects the Victoria we live in today. I thank Ms Patten for moving this motion today and continuing advocacy the Greens began some years ago. The Greens do not enter our respective chambers for daily prayer—a longstanding practice of ours— because we know the prayer is not representative of the Victorian people. We have advocated for an alternative to the daily prayer for some years, most notably in 2016, when my Greens colleague Sue Pennicuik moved a motion to get the Procedure Committee to consider alternatives, a motion which was defeated. Our Parliament represents all of Victoria, and our job as parliamentarians is to represent our electorates and our communities, including ensuring the voices of those who are often silenced or marginalised are heard. But our parliamentary procedures are still stuck in the 19th century, remnants often more of our colonial history than of our First Nations history and the evolution and diversity of the community since. So while, as many members have noted, beginning a sitting day with a daily prayer reflects the Westminster heritage of our parliamentary system, established hundreds of years ago in England, it no longer reflects Victoria today. We are a multicultural, multifaith community with members from all corners of the world and from all faiths. Many of us have religion other than Christianity or no religion at all. I have to say that I was quite struck and quite shocked when I entered the Victorian Parliament by how backwards it was as an institution in so many ways. You just have to walk through the place to see very clearly that it does not reflect modern-day Victoria. I had previously been in local government, and I can tell you that most of our local councils in Victoria are streets ahead of this place. I was really disappointed to hear the Premier today dismiss this move for reform, saying that it is not on his list MOTIONS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2757 and inferring that he has other priorities. But I have more faith in this place than he seems to, because I am sure we are quite capable of doing multiple things at once. There are others who will dismiss this move as symbolic, but it is more than that. When we signal our push to be more inclusive it sends a powerful message to the community and starts a ripple of further reforms. You just have to look at the work my Greens colleague Senator Lidia Thorpe began in this place to see how this can happen. She fought for better recognition of First Nations in the Victorian Parliament. She began the practice of standing for the acknowledgement of country in the Assembly, and the Council soon followed. I am pleased we continue this practice today. At that time, we did not do the acknowledgement daily, but thanks to that advocacy we have seen the flow-on effects. The Presiding Officers have now committed to the wider project of developing a reconciliation action plan, and we really look forward to seeing the outcomes of this process. Part of coming together and growing as a community involves abandoning the traditions and outdated beliefs that no longer make sense, and we have changed a lot about the Parliament since the first sitting back in 1856, as the Victorian community has changed too. Women can now vote and run for office, as can Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We now begin a sitting week with an acknowledgement of country and a recognition of the traditional owners of this land. It is time we left the daily prayer in the past and embraced a more inclusive opening to a sitting week. The ACT Parliament has already abandoned the tradition of opening a sitting day with a public prayer, instead beginning with a moment of silence in which members can pray or reflect on their responsibilities as members of Parliament. Other parliaments across the world have similar models in place, including some provinces in Canada and the European Parliament. We feel that a model such as the ACT’s is the best way to include all of us in the opening of a sitting week—all members in this chamber and the wider community. In the lead-up to this debate I received a number of emails about this issue from across the state. The vast majority have supported removing the Lord’s Prayer as the formal opening of the sitting day and instead starting a parliamentary day with a quiet moment of reflection. It is clear that my electorate and my community are ready for this change and, as a representative democracy, that this is the reform that people are asking for. I also wanted to note that the talk of heritage and tradition surrounding this debate completely ignores the heritage and traditions of this country’s First Peoples. Our state Parliament is essentially a tribute to our colonial history and ceremony, with very little recognition and inclusion of First Nations history or ceremony. Clinging onto the Lord’s Prayer is not just excluding many members of our multifaith community, it is an insult to Victoria’s First Nations communities and a reminder that this Parliament is not designed for them. I am sure we have heard a bit and we will hear more in this debate about upholding traditions and respecting other religions, but I will remind the house that some members of this chamber refuse to grant this respect to others, such as by refusing to stand up for the acknowledgement of country every single day. It is disappointing to see that the debate around this motion has become less about embracing the diversity of our community and respecting the many cultures and traditions we have and more about trying to entrench the position of one religion over the others and as a result alienating and othering all those who do not belong to that group. It is, however, typical of the reaction when power is challenged and threatened and often a sign that change is coming. Just in conclusion I note, to respond to a couple of matters that have been brought up in the debate and in terms of what the Leader of the Government said—that she suspects that most Victorians may not care—I would actually argue against that and say that if you are not excluded by something you might not notice it, but if you are excluded daily by a practice or a tradition you do notice it and you feel it very deeply. So for them, let us give this motion serious consideration. Let us move Parliament into the present day, and let us reform and modernise this place. And we hope that a whole set of other reforms follow. MOTIONS 2758 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (15:27): I rise to speak on notice of motion 601—the move to do away with the Lord’s Prayer in the parliamentary proceedings of this house. There are two questions I think that jump up at the very beginning. Firstly, why now? In the middle of a pandemic, at a time when a lot of people are very concerned about their health, a lot of people are very concerned about their economic future, if indeed they have one, and at a time when people are physically marching in the street about their civil liberties, there are so many things we should be worried about apart from ditching the Lord’s Prayer. One has to wonder what thought processes went into doing that right now. The other question that intrigues me is why we would want to remove a prayer or any form of words that promotes love, peace and forgiveness. I would have thought that is something that we should be embracing. I would have thought that is something we should be dying to hold on to. But instead we have this motion before the house today. Now, why, why, why? Well, the answer is very clear: that there are some people with an agenda that they have been pushing now for some years. And I am not just talking about Ms Patten; I am talking about the government and I am talking about a number of people about the place. It is an agenda that is anti-family, it is anti-faith and it is anti-freedom. And that is something that we have seen in a number of forums over recent years—something that we should all be very deeply concerned about. This motion is, despite what some may have said, an attack on Christians and it is an attack on Christianity. But make no mistake, Christians and Christianity are not the only targets of the people behind this motion, because once they have finished screwing over the Christians, they will go after the Jews, then they will go after the Muslims, then they will go after anybody and everybody who gets in the way of their agenda, because that is what this is about. They do not dislike Christianity because it is Christianity; they dislike Christianity because it stands for the things that they do not want. Ms Patten: On a point of order, Acting President, that was an extraordinary attack. It was an attack, and it was likening me to someone who would be against Jewish people and Muslim people. It was an insult. It was misleading and it was an insult, and I would ask that the member withdraw. Mr FINN: On the point of order, Acting President, I did not even mention Ms Patten’s name. I said ‘those behind this motion’. Members interjecting. Mr FINN: Look, I know Ms Patten is not the only one behind the motion. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Gepp): We are now debating. There is no point of order. Mr Finn did not refer to anyone in particular. Mr FINN: Thank you, Acting President. This agenda is very, very real, it is very, very dangerous and it is one that we should take very, very seriously. This motion today should be a call to arms not just to religious people throughout the state and not just to civil libertarians throughout the state but to everyone who cares about their faith, who cares about their families or indeed who cares about our future. That is something that is desperately needed. Ms Symes: On a point of order, Acting President, I just question the accuracy of Mr Finn’s comments about the validity of religion when they are coming out of the mouth of a man who used his religion to hide behind and claimed that he could not be here on Good Friday and then turned up. Mr Finn interjected. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Gepp): Mr Finn, there are procedures in this place, and if we all follow them— Mr FINN: Yes, and she is abusing them, and you are letting her. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Gepp): I will invite you to withdraw that remark—the reflection on the Chair—and then I will invite you to make a submission on the point of order. MOTIONS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2759

Mr FINN: On the point of order, Acting President, I withdraw any reflection on the Chair, of course. My 5 minutes is up, but I just say I can understand why the Leader of the Government is so upset, because her agenda is the same as Ms Patten’s agenda—and it has now been exposed. So I urge members to oppose this motion. I certainly will, and I thank and congratulate every single person who has put finger to keyboard over recent times to send a message to me and others opposing this motion. Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (15:32): In my inaugural speech I talked about the need for change. Change is inevitable. It happens naturally, organically, with the passage of time. It is important that parliaments reflect that change as well as being the mechanism that inspires and creates it. Ms Patten’s motion articulates, however, a very interesting paradigm in our society and our institutions: the fact that this place, whilst being the instrument of reform, is also the keeper of some old traditions. Curiously, it also holds some traditions that are out of step with the purposeful tenets of its creation—a contradiction in fact. We are all well aware of the phrase ‘separation of church and state’. It is an uncomplicated phrase that tells us that every person is free to worship whatever god they see fit but that these chambers are to be free of that influence for its members to make, change and pass laws unencumbered by any chains or shackles of a particular philosophy—a lawmaking device, secular in its approach, reflective of a secular society. All good in theory, of course, because such an altruistic approach does not and cannot either take into account or even understand that a particular person’s beliefs make up a vital, essential part of who they are. They influence their whole world view, their daily decisions. So it would be naive to think that they could cast those beliefs off when entering these halls. It is even perhaps insulting to them. Even though I personally do not believe in a god, I do not believe I have the right to ask any who enter here to cast off what makes up part of their fundamental character. But again that word ‘change’. We now have a chamber that has several religions present, and so it could be argued we should recite prayers for them all and add more and more and more in coming years as we see even more perhaps. But we are also witnessing the lessening of numbers who follow religion here. So isn’t it also a good argument to consign the prayers to history? So what to do? Compromise is something that the members of this house know well—all of us—and I firmly believe that Ms Patten’s motion does exactly that. By allowing that time of silent prayer, those of us who are religious may pray, those of us who are not may reflect in the way that we see fit—all of us in one place at the one time, as we should be by tradition and history, which brings me to my amendments. In our sessional orders we have an acknowledgement of country of our First Nations peoples, but the order of those orders adds those who came first last—a message sent to them that we see them second. The history of this Parliament is but the blink of an eye compared to the history of the longest continuous culture on earth. Acting President, I am happy for my amendments to be circulated now as you see fit. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Gepp): Thank you, Mr Meddick. We will get those circulated. Mr MEDDICK: I move:

1. In paragraph (1) in relation to the suspension of standing order 4.02, omit the words after ‘of Members is present,’ and insert ‘the President will make an Acknowledgement of Country after which Members will stand in silence and pray or reflect on their responsibilities to the people of Victoria.’. 2. In paragraph (1) in relation to the suspension of standing order 4.05(1), omit the words after ‘of Members is present,’ and insert ‘the President will make an Acknowledgement of Country after which Members will stand in silence and pray or reflect on their responsibilities to the people of Victoria.’. I am proposing that we recognise their history, their traditions that exceed ours by eons, by making the acknowledgement first and then proceeding with the time of reflection and silent prayer. This is an order of process that truly represents history and respects all beliefs. I sincerely hope that members MOTIONS 2760 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021 can pay that respect by supporting my amendments, much as there is support for the process of treaty here in Victoria and just as I will be supporting Ms Patten’s motion. Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (15:37):

Our Father, which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy Name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, As it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, The power, and the glory, For ever and ever. Amen. I read this for Ms Patten’s benefit because I think it is the very first time she has been in the chamber to hear this prayer. She today is trying to change the parliamentary procedure for an element of the parliamentary day that she is not even here for. So I just wonder if she is qualified to make a judgement about what happens at the start of the day when she is not even here for it. I do pick up Minister Symes’s comment: I wonder if anybody out there really cares or could care less about what happens at the start of the parliamentary day. If we accept that as a principle, and that may be so, then I wonder what the real reason for this motion is today. I think those who seek to support Ms Patten’s motion today, which I do not, should not be fooled by the reasons for this motion. This is all about Ms Patten’s self-promotion. I think she lives by the Oscar Wilde strategy that there is only one thing worse than being talked about and that is not being talked about. This is all about her promotion. She failed as the upper house member for Mildura. Well, that did not last very long; it did not go very well. She campaigned actively to put a drug-injecting room next to a primary school in a high-density residential area in North Richmond. Ms Symes: On a point of order, Acting President, I just take issue with the contribution that the member is making. It is not related to the motion. It is directed to a particular individual in a fairly personal manner. I think when we are trying to have a respectful debate about these issues that it would be great if he could stick to the motion that is on the paper rather than reflecting on the character of people in this chamber. Mr Finn: On the point of order, Acting President, I would just be interested to know which standing order the Leader of the Government is drawing your attention to. I just cannot see any basis for the point of order at all. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Gepp): There is no point of order under the standing orders, but I will encourage the member to come back to the substance of the motion before the house. Mr ONDARCHIE: Thank you, Acting President, and thank you for your ruling. The point I am making is in relation to what I believe is the driver behind this motion that is before us today. I make the point that Ms Patten was also the catalyst for ensuring Victoria’s lockdown laws were extended. But I pick up Ms Patten’s point about the number of people that have written to her and, she suspected, others in the chamber as well. A number of people have written to me about this, and can I tell the chamber that out of the total number of people that have written to me—and I have just got the data through from my office—near on 75 per cent have asked for the Lord’s Prayer to remain. So there you go. I do pick up the numbers that people talk about. This is all about her promotion and her profile. MOTIONS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2761

But I have to say Victorians have real problems. There are real problems right now in Victoria. There is a jobs crisis. There is an economic crisis. Family violence— Members interjecting. Mr ONDARCHIE: If you two want to have this outside the chamber, I am fine with that. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Gepp): Order! Please, Mr Ondarchie. Mr ONDARCHIE: We have real problems here in Victoria, Acting President. There is a jobs crisis. There is an economic crisis. Family violence numbers are increasing. I know because I was talking to one of the leaders of Victoria Police about what is happening in the family violence area. There are mental health problems. There are youth justice and youth suicide challenges, and there is homelessness. In my electorate and Ms Patten’s electorate there are challenges with families not having enough money for food and not having jobs, particularly since the downturn of manufacturing in Melbourne’s north. There are challenges with roads and road safety and people being able to get about their business in a timely manner. There are all these challenges we have in Victoria right now, and the number one priority for Ms Patten is to change the parliamentary procedure. I do not support it. Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (15:42): At the outset I would like to put on the record that I would prefer not to be debating this motion today. Our state is currently facing calamity, and I think that the idea that we are effectively debating our workplace conditions would be viewed dimly by many in the community regardless of their views on this motion. I would also like to thank all of the people who have contacted my office. I have received thousands of emails and several calls to my office, all of which have been very polite and courteous. I would also like to acknowledge that there are people within the community and sometimes in this place that appear to be hostile to Christianity. I would like to make it clear that I am not one of those people. Many of the great people of our civilisation who so skilfully articulated the principles of liberty, to which I subscribe, did so based on their religious convictions and the concept of free will. My party also has explicitly recognised the contributions of Christian thinking to the principles of liberty on our website. I take the defence of freedom of religion seriously. The very first public speaking that I did after being elected was at a mosque on Australia Day. I spoke about the importance of freedom of religion and speech. Last year when the ABC broadcast what I considered to be a disgusting smear attack on Falun Gong, I defended them. I spoke out to the media and submitted a complaint to the ABC, where they investigated themselves, and of course they found nothing wrong. For my efforts I was rewarded with being named on a Chinese government website and directly accused by the Communist Party of being a traitor to the Australian people for daring to question our honourable state media. When the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020 was put before this place I strongly defended the right to freedom of association and speech between consenting adults. Whilst it was primarily Christian groups that had concerns about this, many other religious communities were also affected. For my efforts here I was rewarded with an attempted social media pile-on by left-wing activist thugs attempting to smear me as a homophobe or biphobe. They ridiculed the questions that I asked during the committee stage of the bill. Unbeknownst to them I was asking questions on behalf of constituents who had concerns that they wanted clarified. When they attacked me, they were really attacking the people of Victoria. I have also spoken out many times about the persecution of Uighur Muslims and other minority religious groups by the Chinese Communist Party. But now we must consider the motion before us to remove the Lord’s Prayer from the daily ritual of the Legislative Council. In many other jurisdictions in Australia, this debate has been put forward by the Greens, which is not particularly surprising. Much of what is considered progressive politics in Australia is obsessed with gestures and virtue signalling. That said, even many supporters of the Lord’s MOTIONS 2762 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021

Prayer that have contacted me positioned it as a virtue—either the virtue of the members being guided by a higher purpose or the virtue of respecting our state’s religious traditions. In some of the background my team did for this motion, we read some blog posts written by Christian writers in Melbourne who, while not quite supporting the motion, did not exactly support reciting the Lord’s Prayer either. For many Christians this is a powerful prayer combined with a deeply held religious belief. It calls upon God to provide both forgiveness and salvation. Another writer wrote of an aversion to deeply held Christian truths being co-opted by the state, which defanged their power of prayer, whilst members go on to act in ways and enact laws that are inconsistent with these beliefs. But when we consider freedom of religion, we must also be mindful of freedom from religion. Sometimes it is helpful to consider the inverse of what we are presented with in Parliament. If there was no prayer and we were voting to insert the Lord’s Prayer into our day, would that be appropriate? Ultimately I came to the conclusion that it would not be. For me, I like the sense of peace and reflection of the morning prayer. I would not support a secular prayer replacing it though, as this simply elevates one world view and belief above another. I do support a brief moment of silence, however, because surely if there is one thing that the public could support, it is less talking from politicians, and on that note, I will resume my seat. Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (15:47): I am pleased to make my contribution on this debate, and from the outset, The Nationals will be opposing Ms Patten’s motion to remove the Lord’s Prayer from this house. We have heard Ms Patten speak of a very long list of faith leaders and public identities who are in agreement. She has been very busy over the last few weeks. She and her staff have been vigilantly contacting and canvassing people, writing, emailing and emailing again. It is a significant investment of time, and I believe it is time that could have been better spent. Rather than removing this aged tradition—since 1857—rather than doing that, I believe that she should be focusing on Victorians. Our state is confronting challenges of the like we have never seen before. Parliament needs to spend each and every day finding a path out of lockdown, not debating the removal of this traditional prayer. We have businesses going to the wall. We have young people missing out on schooling. We are in the midst of a mental health crisis. Many of my local constituents have contacted me, my office and my great staff. They are small business people. They are the local milk bar, who are desperate to stay open and who cannot cope with the overheads. They are cafe owners, dance studios, gyms, beauticians, sole traders, parents and teachers all being ground down by successive lockdowns. Pensioners are seeking support to find the finances to stay warm. I am not the only one who believes these priorities are wrongly directed in the midst of the world challenges of this global pandemic. Bishop Philip Huggins, who is the president of the National Council of Churches in Australia, has urged Parliament, including Ms Patten, to focus on the issues affecting the lives of all Victorians and, most importantly, the immediate challenges of containing this virus and lifting the vaccine rate, and he says:

A primary responsibility of Governments is to keep citizens safe. This involves … the continuing partnership of Governments with the Non-Government sector, including … Churches and both our domestic and international agencies of welfare and aid. He goes on:

These main concerns for the months ahead need our focused and undistracted concentration. … We urge our Parliaments to remain focused on these crucial tasks. They require our best efforts … We urge that Parliamentary business be re-scrutinised so that nothing unnecessary causes distraction. MOTIONS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2763

This is a sentiment that is backed up by others. Melbourne Catholic Archbishop the Most Reverend Peter Comensoli questioned the timing for Victorians as they went into the fifth lockdown. I am quoting from the Herald Sun on 30 July:

“The whole country is facing restrictions of one kind or another, and yet this is the moment to suggest removing one of the most longstanding traditions of our parliament?” … “There is a significant legacy of faith that has contributed to our democracy, and its institutions, that ought to be honoured and respected.” There are others that go on. In my opinion this is not a prayer that is exclusionary but is reflective of all major religions. It does not matter if you are atheist or the most devout Christian. Reflecting on the principles of forgiveness, of humility, of the need of one’s daily existence and of the vigilance to reject graft and corruption are lessons for us all to embrace every morning when we come in here. This has universality rather than exclusion. I thank the many Victorians, and importantly my constituents, who have shared their views. I sought no particular option when people supplied information to my inbox, but for the record I had 1700 opposing the motion and 105 in favour to date. Also, reflecting on my time in this place in the last 6½°years, this has not been an issue that anybody has canvassed with me, including multifaith leaders across the board; no-one has sought this. I believe that they want me to focus each day, reflect on the important things and perform my task at the most critical point in time and need. The Nationals will be opposing this motion. Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (15:52): I have been debating how to start my contribution off. First of all, I am going to say that I am an atheist or a nihilist; I have never been able to figure this out. I do not believe in God. In fact religion is not even a part of my life, I guess, other than my daughter is Jewish by virtue of custom. But I, personally, am nothing. Having said that, every morning when we come in here, we go through a prayer. It was read out before, but it starts with some religious stuff:

Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come; thy will be done; on earth as it is in heaven. Then we get to the stuff that I think we should all be reflecting on:

Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation— and then—

but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen. What that is saying is be a good person. Even as someone who has no interest in religion, I find that a great way to start. The majority of people that identify as religious are Christians. I understand that whilst the specifics of the words are Christian, it is not about being a Christian; it is about being a good person and resisting temptation. Ms Bath went through it a little bit. I think it is part of this place—it has been here since 1850 or so. I think there was a break from this building whilst federal Parliament stayed here, but it went off to the Royal Exhibition Building. I think, as Mr Meddick pointed out, things do change in this place—in this world—but sometimes things do not need to be changed, and Judaeo-Christian society is what we were based on. Yes, there were people here before we got here, but our laws are based on these principles. We cannot just ignore MOTIONS 2764 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021 that and we need to think about that. This is also part of an acknowledgement of the fact that we have come from there. I do not criticise Ms Patten for bringing this motion on right now for the simple reason that we have limited options to do what we want in this place as a crossbench. I completely disagree with it, but I think given we have all got three spots left before the next election, we must do what we must do. But we also should think about religion in general. People have run away from dictatorships, have left their homes, to be able to practise religion. China is a place where we see a lot of people escaping, for want of a better term, so they can practise their religion—and Christian religion. There is a very large underground religion there which, thanks to the powers of the so-called dark web, is possible. So I think this is misguided. I think it is actually—well, not exclusionary, but it is completely unnecessary. It also brings me to something I find rather hypocritical—and it goes towards Mr Meddick’s amendments too—that we want to remove this because there is a specificity to the Lord’s Prayer, but then we want to move forward something that is specifically about the Aboriginals. Now, I have no problems with the acknowledgement or whatever we call it. Originally when it was sprung on us I was a little bit uncomfortable because one day we were not doing it and the next day we were, but I have got quite comfortable with it. I have not got a problem with it, and I think it needs to be said. But you cannot on one hand say that we do not want to be exclusionary but that we want to keep this one. It is just not how it works, if you do not want to be like that. And who are the woke people, basically, to tell us what is right and what is wrong? Who made them the arbiters of what is moral? We do have this place and I guess we, as a chamber and as a building and as a function of society, do become the arbiters of what is right and what is wrong. I have no idea of how this will turn out, to be honest, in a vote. Most people are playing their cards very close to their chest. But there were other options or another option that came to my mind while I was waiting there that may have addressed an issue: keep the Lord’s Prayer and add a minute’s reflection for all the others. Then we would have had the best part of, what, 3 minutes instead of 2 minutes and no-one would have been offended. I am not supporting Mr Meddick’s motion. It is not because I have a problem with the welcome or the acknowledgement but I think it is just hypocritical to be acknowledging only one part of society whilst taking away something that acknowledges another part. Sitting suspended 3.58 pm until 4.19 pm. Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (16:19): I am opposing this motion. Ms Patten sees this as the most pressing issue facing the state after 130 days of lockdown and over 17 months of hardship for Victorians. Ms Patten is very much responsible for these dire circumstances, given she repeatedly votes to continue the state of emergency. Ms Patten and Dr Ratnam say the Lord’s Prayer imposes a particular view on people. Ironically they are always happy to impose their ideological views on Victorians. Surely instead of trying to remove an act that affects 40 MPs for a few dozen days of the year our time could be better served by seeking more accountable government and indeed getting government out of the lives of Victorians to better enable individual freedom and prosperity. Instead we are here attempting to tear down the traditions passed down to us by the founders and pioneers of the state, due to personal ideologies. Prayers have been said in the Victorian Parliament for more than 100 years, and in its progenitor, the Westminster Parliament, since the 16th century. The values upon which Western civilisation are founded—equality before the law, the rights and freedoms of the individual, private charity, indeed our educational institutions—are very much based on our Christian heritage. This does not mean that we have to force everyone to be a Christian; it simply means that we should respect and treasure the Christian traditions bequeathed to us. This motion is not just about the Lord’s Prayer, it is part of a broader concerted effort to dismantle the remaining attachments we have to our heritage and Western MOTIONS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2765 civilisation. Today we are getting rid of the Lord’s Prayer, but tomorrow it will be another tradition, another statue, and one day all traditions and remnants of our history will have been abolished. This is the tendency of totalitarian and communist regimes—abolishment or veneration of tradition, religion and history only to replace it with the worship of the state and its despots. Do Ms Patten and the other proponents of this motion believe we should tear up the tiles of the mosaic in the Parliament’s vestibule, on which a biblical line is inscribed, because it somehow discriminates against non- Christians or breaches the separation of church and state? The Lord’s Prayer is not divisive or discriminatory. People of all faiths, and even agnostics, can appreciate its very sensible petitions: hope to do good, asking for the daily necessities required to survive, preaching forgiveness and its reciprocity, and begging for the avoidance of bad motives. These are all notions that every parliamentarian should reflect on daily. For this very reason several non-Christians contacted me regarding this motion and expressed their preference for the Lord’s Prayer over any atheistic, nihilistic alternative. Jasmine wrote to me and said:

I’m sure the multicultural and multifaith community will appreciate that Christian heritage too and happy for the Lord’s Prayer being recited to continue the tradition. Being part of the multicultural community, I can testify that Ms Patten’s motion doesn’t speak for us. I believe that Jasmine’s view is representative of many Victorians, especially given over 90 per cent of correspondence that I have received supports the retention of the Lord’s Prayer. We may no longer be an exclusively Christian state, but the Lord’s Prayer is an important tradition that expresses many timeless values. The Lord’s Prayer may be gone today if Ms Patten has her way, but what will we see cancelled tomorrow? The butchering of this state’s history and tradition by ideologues will clearly continue, and one may well ask: at what price? Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (16:24): I will be brief. Removing the Lord’s Prayer is not the most pressing issue before the Parliament right now, and it is not the issue I would pick to put on the agenda, but here we are. Earlier this year the Liberal Democrats put a motion to remove payroll tax, the tax on jobs, to stimulate the economy. Ms Patten was very keen at the time to question our priorities, so allow me to return the favour today. In the middle of a pandemic, when Victorian small businesses are being ground into the dust by the emergency powers, when the people of Victoria are suffering, Ms Patten has decided that politicians’ working conditions are the most pressing issue she can think of to address. MPs who are morally opposed to prayer apparently should not have the inconvenience of waiting outside the chamber for a minute or two in the mornings. I do not think this is the best way to use her speaking slot, but then it is not my place to decide how she uses her time. I can understand and respect the tradition involved with the prayer but believe that religion and spirituality are a personal choice. The government does not represent any individual religion or culture, and I do not see a strong need to include any specific cultural or religious practice into the standing orders. Libertarians have a strong history of such secularism. We are not anti-religious in any sense, and we see that a separation of religion and state is good for both. I cannot see why anyone would want to taint religion by involving it with the government. Separation of church and state is generally an all-or-none affair; either we must recognise every group or no groups. I am in the none camp on this issue, otherwise we would be here all day. In my view offering the prayer each day is less about the Parliament saying that religion is important and more about politicians indicating their own importance. They see themselves as important people who do important things. Politicians use ritual and tradition to exaggerate that importance. Workplaces free from this exaggerated sense of ego do not have these observances first thing in the morning. Hairdressers, restaurateurs and retailers do not usually have a company prayer or other cultural ritual every morning; they leave the matter up to individual choice. MOTIONS 2766 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021

I am happy to see some in this place understand that whether they say the Lord’s Prayer is not important, because we are not that important. Now, some here will try to replace the prayer with their own version of cultural observance. I reject this as well for the same reasons. These are people who have failed to adopt an appropriate humility. They do not believe in secularism; they want their values to be reflected in institutions that they view as important while tearing down the values and institutions of others that they do not support. The separation between the state and religion is not widely codified in Australia, but it is a principle I believe in and one I will remain consistent on. I will support the removal of the prayer from the standing orders and will reject attempts to insert new cultural or religious observances in its place. Religion is a matter which lies solely between a man and his god; it is not a matter of state. Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (16:27): I rise in opposition to Ms Patten’s motion. As we have heard in this debate, on every sitting day since 1857 parliamentarians in this chamber have commenced the day by reciting the Lord’s Prayer. Now we have heard in this debate that the beliefs of the Lord’s Prayer are outdated. We have heard that reciting the Lord’s Prayer at the start of the day favours one religion over others. We are not a religious state, and yet we are a state whose foundations are founded upon Western traditions. It may not be widely recognised by the proponents of measures such as this and the proponents of a broader woke agenda and culture war against more conservative elements within society that the Bible is in fact the foundational document of all Western civilisation. So it is interesting to me that the proponents of measures such as this so often argue to diversity and inclusion. Mrs McArthur talked just now about one of her constituents. I spoke to a constituent of mine just yesterday who had come to Australia from China, and she wanted to impress upon me the fact that she and her family came to Australia and so many others like her came to Australia and came to our great state in particular specifically because of our adherence to Western norms and to Western values. If you happen to be a practising Christian, as I am, then the Lord’s Prayer has particular meaning. There is much wisdom in the Bible and much wisdom in the Lord’s Prayer. In fact the Bible itself represents the distillation of centuries—millennia—of inherited wisdom. To say that there is nothing there except for people who hold, as I do, that the Bible is the word of God is, in my view, deeply wrongheaded and deeply ahistorical. Mrs McArthur talked about a broader agenda—and I agree with her—to denigrate central tenets of Western civilisation. Now, there are elements of the radical left who believe that Western civilisation is nothing but a putrid blog of isms and phobias—racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia, for example. I disagree utterly with this narrative that sadly is becoming more and more powerful in Australia and in countries overseas as well. For me and for so many of my constituents, including perhaps in particular many constituents who came from other countries to move to Australia, Western civilisation is a beacon. As other members have said, before this debate came on I certainly had never been contacted by any of my constituents of any faith, or of no faith whatsoever, telling me that reciting a prayer at the start of a parliamentary day was a problem for them. And I do agree with members who have made the point that right now our priority must be on rebuilding our state after the devastation that has been wrought upon it as a result of the utter incompetence and mismanagement of the Andrews Labor government over the period of this pandemic. That must be our myopic focus, despite the fact—and I want to make this clear—that I would always oppose a measure such as this. On that note, I will end my contribution. Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (16:32): I rise to speak on Ms Patten’s motion today. I will be supporting this motion today. I believe this motion is about inclusiveness, respect and diversity. For 30 years as a taxi and hire car driver I drove throughout Victoria and met many people. I have seen Victoria grow and develop during that time, watching the streets and the communities change. The Victoria I see today is very different to when I started working. It is rich in cultural diversity. It is a better place today than it was all those years ago. I believe our Parliament should reflect that diversity. MOTIONS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2767

Everyone here has a different background, different traditions and different beliefs. This should be accommodated for all. This motion will not stop those who want to continue the Lord’s Prayer. However, it will provide everyone with the opportunity to reflect on their faith, their constituents and their reasons for being here. I do not know what lies in my future. I do not know if I am going to be here in a few months time. I do not know if I am going to be here at the next election. I do not know if I am going to be here beyond this election. But I know that among the people in my party who are going to follow me there are such rich and diverse views. We have Jewish people, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists—these are the people that will be following me. I am not a religious person, but I am leaving that door open for those people to reflect when they come into this workplace—so that they can do so. This is not a reflection or disrespect to any of the other faiths or people who want to follow this, but this is my view. Everyone in this place should be able to feel that their religious beliefs are equally respected. I will leave it there. Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (16:34): I understand the Reason Party’s thoughts behind this motion. We are a very diverse state, a multicultural state, one that has been made better by the contribution of people that have come from over 200 countries to call Australia home. Nearly half of Victoria’s population was born overseas or has at least one parent who was born overseas. Victorians follow more than 130 different faiths. I represent one of the most diverse communities in Victoria and have done so for the last 20 years. I also understand that this is a tradition but that sometimes change is needed. I was interested to see Ms Patten’s case for change. However, the figures quoted are a little misleading. Yes, 30 per cent of Victorians reported having no religion in the 2016 census. However, the following figures also came from the census: 52 per cent identified as Christian and 10 per cent did not respond to the question, so that leaves 8 per cent of the population that follows over 100 different religions. The Rationalist Society of Australia report is also quoted in the case for change, and I was interested to see that rather than conduct new research, the data from various sources, including data from a number of studies run by the Australian National University, was used. These data sources were statistically mined and analysed by the author of the report. This is a bit concerning, since there is a disclaimer that the ANU is not responsible for the results from its study data conveyed in this report. I think I would rather trust the data from the 2016 census, and that had a response rate of 95.1 per cent. Then there is the matter of the separation of church and state, and section 116 of the constitution is quoted—that is, section 116 of the Australian constitution, as the Victorian Constitution Act 1975 has no section 116. But let us look at section 116. It says:

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. Despite inclusion in the chapter ‘The States’, section 116 does not apply to states. Because of changes during the drafting, the states are free to establish their own religions. Importantly, there have been two referenda to extend section 116 to states. Both have failed. Although no state has ever introduced a state church, the legal bodies corresponding to many religious organisations are established by state legislation. In fact a search through our Victorian legislation found 37 acts relating to religious organisations, from the Church of England to the Church of Scotland, the Presbyterians, the Methodists, the Lutherans, the Hungarian Reformed Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Macedonian Orthodox Church. In addition to those 37, there are the college acts, the various acts for synods, the Melbourne College of Divinity Act 1910 and the Australian Catholic University (Victoria) Act 1991, just to name a few. There is no provision in the Victorian constitution which separates church from state. It is not a principle on which Victoria was founded. In fact when it came to celebrating the centenary of Melbourne in 1934, the Victorian government turned to the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, and the result was a 10-day national Eucharistic congress, presided over by the papal legate. This was BILLS 2768 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021 effectively Melbourne’s first major public event of any note since the opening of the Melbourne International Exhibition of 1880 and the opening of Federal Parliament in Melbourne in 1901. Now, Ms Patten is fully consistent with the long tradition of the church and state integration in Britain. The claimed separation of church and state in the Westminster system of government does not exist, has never existed and therefore was never inherited by Victoria. What we did inherit was the exact opposite: a legacy of ties to a range of Christian churches. In the United Kingdom the Church of England bishops still occupy 26 seats of the House of Lords. Former archbishops are also invariably given life peerages and are entitled to keep sitting in the House of Lords as Lords Temporal. Other leading religious figures appointed to the house have included two chief rabbis of the United Kingdom, an Anglican archbishop, an Anglican priest, a Methodist minister and several Church of Scotland clergies. I also do not see the reading of the Lord’s Prayer as impinging on human rights. No-one is forcing any member of this Council to say the Lord’s Prayer. No-one is asking every member of this Council to say the Lord’s Prayer. According to longstanding practice, participation in the parliamentary prayer remains voluntary. No parliamentarian is required to even be present in the chamber when the prayer is read each day. Ms Patten explained that she, out of respect to religious MPs, will often wait outside the chamber until the Lord’s Prayer is finished before she enters. I often attend ceremonies held by other faiths, including Hinduism and Buddhism and Islam, but do I wait outside the door when they say their prayers? After all, I was raised and educated a Roman Catholic. No, I stand there out of respect for their religion. I do not have to believe in their God, but I do respect that they follow their faith, whatever that is. I can spend time in private reflection, so I assume that Ms Patten must walk out during prayers at nearly every wedding or funeral. Or does she follow any religion? She has stated that she is an atheist. Does she also walk out of Indigenous smoking ceremonies as Indigenous spirituality is preferred? Now, the legislative chambers of each state and territory of Australia, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory, have standing orders that require the presiding officer or another officer to read the prayer to the chamber at the commencement of proceedings. The Lord’s Prayer reminds us of our dependence on each other and the greater responsibilities that we have to something higher. It reflects the greater purpose that we are called for. Now, it is no secret that every time I am in Parliament I pray for the Bulldogs, and I pray that I make the right decisions for my constituents in Western Metro and for the whole of Victoria and future generations. I will not be supporting this motion. Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (16:42): I move:

That debate on this motion be adjourned until later this day. Motion agreed to. Bills PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELLBEING AMENDMENT (GREATER TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY) BILL 2021 Second reading Debate resumed on motion of Ms CROZIER: That the bill be now read a second time. Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (16:43): I rise to speak on the bill brought to this place by Ms Crozier, who I think moved the bill, the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Greater Transparency and Accountability) Bill 2021. We are continuing to see around the globe communities battle with COVID-19, even those jurisdictions across the planet where vaccine rollout has been a little bit swifter than has occurred in this country. Of course economies the world over are dealing with BILLS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2769 the impacts on daily life of COVID-19, and if we are to believe the experts—and certainly there is no reason to doubt the medical experts—we will be dealing with this for quite some time to come. I have got to give the opposition points for perseverance. It seems like every Wednesday in this place we come back to debating this sort of motion or this sort of bill in some way, shape or form. I also urge those opposite to think about the politics behind the propositions that they move and support and have a look at what is happening in our own backyard. Of course the most obvious example of what we are confronting is not in this state right now because of the actions that we have taken. I want to commend all of our health experts—the health team that is giving guidance to all of Victoria—for the fantastic work that they are all doing. I will come back to some of the specific actions that we have taken in relation to the most recent outbreak of the delta variant of the COVID-19 virus. Of course the other example that we have got before us—the big example—is New South Wales. I think everybody in this chamber wishes all of our friends and fellow Australians in New South Wales, and indeed in Queensland where they have got their own new outbreaks, well in terms of their response to the virus. We hope they get on top of it very, very quickly. We do not want to see people in our emergency departments. We do not want to see them in our hospital beds. We do not particularly want to see them in our ICUs fighting for life and all the terrible things that go with somebody who is battling COVID-19. We have seen far too many examples around the world. In excess of 4 million of our global citizens have lost their lives to this hideous virus. We wish everybody, both domestically and internationally, all the very best in fighting this insidious virus that has enveloped our globe. It takes me back to a few weeks ago. I think somebody in a previous debate here today talked about the handles that have been given to lockdown 4 and lockdown 5. People want to recite that and refer back to those things, but of course what is often forgotten when they are flippantly throwing these sorts of things around the place is what has been the result of us taking the swift, decisive action that we have taken here in Victoria this year in response to the outbreaks. As you know, we have gotten on top of the testing, and the results speak for themselves. We have gotten on top of these outbreaks here in Victoria. Transgressions occurred for a variety of reasons. I am not going to make comment or point fingers at people or at other jurisdictions about those things. We acted swiftly on the best available medical advice, and that has been apparent to everybody, I think, in this state and indeed in this country. The medical professionals that are providing the advice are giving us a road map for how to deal with this insidious disease and providing us with the solutions and indeed the tools with which to deal with COVID-19. We have no-one better in the world than the people that we have got available to us here in Victoria and indeed here in Australia. All of those health professionals who are providing that guidance, who are providing that advice, deserve praise and deserve support from the Parliament and also of course from the people, and we are the representatives of the people here in this place. But what they should not be subjected to is ridicule. They should not be subjected to out-and-out political criticism that is just nothing more than suiting a political narrative of those opposite. We hear that again and again and again throughout this debate—that people such as Brett Sutton are doing something and are hiding information, that they are not being transparent. These are people who are standing next to the Premier, the Deputy Premier and a variety of ministers every single day, every single day, and fronting the Victorian media and being questioned and quizzed by the Victorian media every day and whose decisions are published on websites that are available for all and sundry to see. Yet the conspiracy theorists opposite keep bringing back to this place, to this chamber, suggestions that there is something untoward going on, that there is something hidden, that there is something just not right about the decisions that they are taking and the advice that they are providing to the government. People love in this place to make it up. You know, if there is not a problem, they try and invent one. How do they invent it? They keep putting out assertions—‘Perhaps there is something there. We’ll just go fishing. Perhaps we’ll just bait the hook and we’ll see. At the end of the day, if we can snare a little fingerling of truth’—you know, to discredit people. BILLS 2770 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021

Is it any wonder that people refer to this place often as cowards corner? Is it any wonder—when those opposite use a public pandemic, a global pandemic, to rise to their feet and sling mud at public officials who cannot defend themselves, who cannot respond to the rubbish that is hurled their way? But indeed they front the media every day and they look the Victorian people in the eye, down the lens of the camera, and using years and years and years of experience and training say, ‘We think this is the best way for our community to respond to the challenges that COVID-19 presents’. I actually think of everybody in the public health team who fronts the media every day and all the thousands of people that are behind the scenes that we do not see in front of the TV cameras every day but who have worked tirelessly for our community. For 18 months now they have fronted up day after day after day after day, trawling through data and giving the best advice that they can to the democratically elected government of the day and saying, ‘I actually think, we think, that this is the best way forward’. On what we should be doing in here, I wish we could have a list of the names of the thousands of people that have been working so hard to protect the community so that after we have read out all of their names we can stop, we can pause for a minute and perhaps we could actually give them a standing ovation—because that is what they deserve. That is what they deserve. They do not deserve the ridicule that is offered by those opposite in this debate. They do not deserve to have shadow spokespeople in the health portfolio put out tweets suggesting that, for example, things like breast-screening services are not on offer because we are in a lockdown. What an offensive proposition that was. How offensive. I can speak from personal experience. I lost my mother to breast cancer, and my mother was a second-generation breast cancer sufferer. I have got two sisters who have to regularly go and avail themselves of breast screening services because of the increased risk. For them to have to see—for those women like my sisters who have to see— propaganda from so-called political leaders in this state suggesting that those services have stopped and you need to reschedule your appointment is offensive. Those who are responsible ought to apologise. You ought to apologise to the hundreds and thousands of women in this state who deal with the insidious disease of breast cancer every year. They deserve better than our political leaders using a global pandemic to score a political point. It was cheap, it was nasty, it was wrong. It was an out and out lie, that is what it was. It is a disgrace that the leader of that party has not come out and publicly condemned that information that was so wrongly and loosely perpetrated out there in the community, and that of course is the motive behind the bill that we are dealing with today. If you want to go and find out all of the reasons that are put forward by the medical team in advising the government about their decisions around COVID-19, you do not have to go very far to find them, because they are published. If you do not want to trouble yourself to jump online and have a look at those decisions—and they are published every day—then just turn on your TV and listen to those public officials being questioned and quizzed by this state’s media every day, because they stand up in front of those TV cameras. Our public health officials are extraordinary individuals who rely on evidence, and the one thing that is not supported by this bill is evidence. There is no evidence. What they are trying to do is create a conspiracy theory. This QAnon crap that we have heard around the globe has now infiltrated Spring Street via the Liberal Party. They perpetuate this QAnon crap, these conspiracy theories, these lies, these untruths, and they want to direct people down a path of saying, ‘Well, guess what, there is something untoward here. There is something wrong’. I do not support this bill. I think it is a shameful piece of legislation brought before this Parliament by those opposite, and I hope that this house dispatches it as it should. Mr TARLAMIS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (16:59): I also rise to speak on the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Greater Transparency and Accountability) Bill 2021. That is a mouthful of a name for a bill, and it is not accurate at all in terms of what the bill proposes to do. It is groundhog day. We are back here again on a Wednesday dealing with another attempt by those opposite to engage in politicking and engage in trying to fight this virus with politics. I would have thought by now that they would have figured out that politics is no way to beat this virus. They have been trying it BILLS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2771 throughout the duration of this virus, and it has not worked, so I do not know why they have not got the message by now. But while they have been carping and using rhetoric and politicking to try and beat this virus, we have actually been getting on with trying to use real measures and real actions to battle this virus. We have been relying on experts who actually know what they are talking about, and we have been going out there and talking to people that actually have expertise in these fields and know what they are doing rather than basically reading the tea leaves and going out there and making it up on the fly, which is what their leader does every day when he gets out of bed and decides, ‘What’s my position going to be today? I’ll just make it up as I go along’. In case they have not noticed, the steps that we have been taking have actually been working. Maybe they should wake up and take a look around and try and figure out what is actually going on, because in case they have not noticed, while they have been preoccupied with their politicking, we have actually managed COVID here in Victoria. They may have missed the fact that we have managed to overcome a second delta outbreak this year. And if they are unsure whether these arrangements are actually fit for purpose and working in Victoria, they just have to look up north a little bit, basically, to see how our measures are working. Here in Victoria we have continuously been updating, keeping on top of and improving our response in how we manage our outbreaks, how we measure things and the steps that we are taking so we can continue to make improvements and look at what works and how we can continue to do things better, and that has aided us well. You only have to look at what we have been able to achieve in Victoria by comparison as proof of just how well we have done. Just yesterday the commonwealth released modelling by the Doherty Institute that supports the decisions that we have made here in Victoria. Again, forgive me—you are not going to hear this very often, because I do not actually like doing this—but the federal Treasurer, , said yesterday that ‘short, sharp lockdowns are the most cost-effective way to handle the virus’. You heard it here first: I just quoted Josh Frydenberg. Just mark that down in your calendar, because I reckon it is pretty likely that you are not going to hear me do that again. I mean, I am not feeling very well; I feel a bit ill having to actually read out that quote. But having said that, it just shows that we are actually leading in Victoria and that mob up there in Canberra are actually following our lead. It would not be the first time, and I have no doubt that it will not be the last. In addition, while we wait for the additional vaccine supply to come, which we will be ramping up over the coming months, the Doherty modelling makes it very clear that there is an ongoing need for public health measures, including the use of restrictions to manage the spread of COVID in the community. I would urge those opposite to actually read the Doherty report rather than QAnon websites. Maybe pick up the Doherty report and have a bit of a read if you can peel yourself away from those QAnon reports for a little bit, maybe 5 minutes. Maybe glance at it, maybe read the executive summary or something. I do not know. Give it a go. You might like it. You might learn something. You might decide that you want to read the whole thing. One could only hope. You might learn a little bit more. We have spoken about these issues at length, and I could go on quite a lot, but I will just make this point: that I do not know of any other government that has actually stood up and been as transparent as we have with regard to the reports, the documents, the tabling of the reports and the press conferences. I mean, the press conferences go for well over an hour. I do not know of any other press conferences where they stand up with the chief health officer, the deputy chief health officer, various other medical officers and the Premier and go through and deliver the brief update and then basically say ‘Now we will take any of your questions’ and do not leave until every question is answered. You can look at comparisons to every other state and the commonwealth press conferences, where they basically say ‘Five minutes is up; we’re out of here’ and do nothing. You can even compare them to Liberal Party press conferences. They go for 5 minutes because even the journos know that they are a joke and do not even bother asking them questions, because they know how pathetic their press BILLS 2772 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021 conferences are. They do not even bother asking them questions, because they know how much of a joke they are. This bill is a joke. It is another political attempt. It is more politicking from those on the other side of this chamber. It is contemptuous, and we are not going to support it, because it is nothing more than further politicking on this issue, which is basically all the Liberals have. Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (17:05): I will be brief. This bill requires greater transparency around the use of emergency powers. Specifically it requires the government to make public its human rights assessments as well as any supporting evidence relied upon when using the emergency powers. The move is a clear step towards a more honest government. It fits nicely with my own private members bill from a few weeks ago that would restrict government use of emergency powers and provide sanctions against the abuse of those powers. It has consistently baffled me that this government has told the public that it is all in the public’s interest that they be lied to and kept in the dark. I cannot see why any voters find it acceptable that their own government hides evidence that supports government policy and then pretends that doing so is a good thing. Let us be clear: the government is concealing the evidence behind the public health orders that it makes to lock us down and to close the state borders. Government MPs can twist their words this way and that, trying to weasel around this point, but the facts remain. The evidence is hidden; it is not revealed. The human rights assessments are hidden; they are not published. It would be misleading the house for any MP to stand up here and say the evidence is available. Regardless of whether you support or oppose lockdowns, everyone should support an open, honest and transparent government. There is no excuse for keeping this information secret. Information about why our human rights are being restricted is a matter of public interest that demands public release. The government has consistently avoided and dodged this problem and in doing so has encouraged conspiracy thinking and distrust of the COVID response. The truth is that this level of government secrecy is not normal. It may be common, but it is not normal. I am not surprised that people think the government is hiding something, because it is. Why not end the speculation and release the information? It cannot possibly be worse than the theories that are floating around. Put the rumours to bed; share the evidence and human rights assessments. It is not too much to ask to expect our government to be honest. The Liberal Democrats stand for honest government, and we support this legislation. Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (17:08): In summing up I want to thank those members that have spoken on this bill. I say that because this is the sort of debate that we need to have. This is what the Parliament needs to be doing. It is about discussing what is happening with government and putting new ideas forward, new issues to debate. This bill was certainly aimed at that—at having greater transparency and greater accountability to the Parliament, which ultimately represents the people of Victoria. As every speaker has mentioned, we all understand the serious nature of COVID-19 and the current pandemic situation we are in. No-one is denying that. But when citizens are having decisions made for them by government regarding what they can and cannot do, the freedoms that were once there and now are not, then for those decisions that are being made by government—as the government would argue, in the interests of us all—where is the advice that is behind making those decisions? I have heard the government argue that the advice is there. The government will get up every day and speak at a press conference. Yes, they do. They talk about case numbers and they talk about test numbers and they talk about other things, but they do not ever provide the reasoning. What is the advice behind why you can go and visit a brothel but you cannot visit your parents? Can somebody just provide that advice, the reasoning behind what is provided to government that is then putting these restrictions on every single Victorian? STATEMENTS ON REPORTS, PAPERS AND PETITIONS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2773

In terms of democracy, this is what democracy is about: open honesty, transparency and looking at what we are doing as governments and what governments are doing to their citizens. So this bill, I believe, is in the interests of every Victorian so that we have that transparency and we have that accountability. I heard government members say—in fact it was the final government member that said—this bill is a joke and is contemptuous, and I actually think that sums up exactly how this government operates. They are unwilling to have anybody have a contrary view to theirs, and if you do, you are shut down. Another member said that we were responsible for peddling conspiracy theories. This is very dangerous for our democracy when you have got a government who have got a lot of power, and they are talking about this in relation to exactly what is happening in our state as we speak. Victorians’ freedoms have been curtailed— A member interjected. Ms CROZIER: I hear an interjection: ‘No, they have not’. I cannot understand why government MPs continually seem to think that the freedoms of Victorians have not been curtailed. The interjection that just came up is either stunningly ignorant or stupid. I am speechless, because when you do not have the ability to do what you could do previously— Members interjecting. Ms CROZIER: As I was saying, this bill is incredibly important for openness, for transparency and for accountability, and I would just say that the government’s contributions, as I said, sum up their attitude towards the Victorian people, who are wanting and asking—and, quite frankly, have every right—to have that ability to understand the reasons and the advice behind the decisions. I urge all MPs to support this important bill. House divided on motion:

Ayes, 18 Atkinson, Mr Cumming, Dr Maxwell, Ms Bach, Dr Davis, Mr McArthur, Mrs Barton, Mr Grimley, Mr O’Donohue, Mr Bath, Ms Hayes, Mr Ondarchie, Mr Bourman, Mr Limbrick, Mr Quilty, Mr Crozier, Ms Lovell, Ms Rich-Phillips, Mr Noes, 19 Elasmar, Mr Melhem, Mr Symes, Ms Erdogan, Mr Patten, Ms Tarlamis, Mr Garrett, Ms Pulford, Ms Taylor, Ms Gepp, Mr Ratnam, Dr Terpstra, Ms Kieu, Dr Shing, Ms Tierney, Ms Leane, Mr Stitt, Ms Watt, Ms Meddick, Mr Motion negatived. Statements on reports, papers and petitions RECWEST FOOTSCRAY Petition Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (17:19): I rise today to speak to the petition around RecWest in Footscray. I might start my contribution with the response that I actually received from the Premier. I raised the matter on 17 October 2019, and the reply that I received from the Premier was this:

The Victorian Government acknowledges the City of Maribyrnong’s work underway to develop a West Footscray Community Facilities Plan and looks forward to receiving a completed report. STATEMENTS ON REPORTS, PAPERS AND PETITIONS 2774 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021

I encourage the City of Maribyrnong to work with relevant departments and through the Metropolitan Partnership to identify the support required to realise the Plan, including for the redevelopment of RecWest Footscray. The Victorian Government is committed to providing local communities with the facilities they need so more Victorians can play the sports they love. To boost participation and make local sports more accessible, the 2019/20 Victorian Budget included $175 million in Local Sports Grants for new and improved community sports infrastructure. The Victorian Government has also introduced a signature scheme that helps councils invest in the long-term needs of their communities by cutting the cost of borrowing. The $100 million Community Sports Infrastructure Loans Scheme can provide councils access to low interest finance, making significant community infrastructure projects more financially feasible. This is from the Honourable Daniel Andrews, MP, Premier. I speak today about one of my favourite topics, which is RecWest in Footscray. I have spoken before about the shocking state of the facility. RecWest is a community centre for all ages. It runs a wide range of programs for all ages. It offers multicultural activities, a range of indoor sport and fitness programs, mothers groups, social functions and much, much more. The new RecWest leisure centre and sporting precinct is a shovel-ready stimulus project that will have a significant impact on the health and wellbeing of the Maribyrnong community, which is predicted to have a 68 per cent population increase by 2040. The new facility includes a gymnasium, indoor and outdoor basketball courts, an oval, parkland and a playground. It will complement the state government’s recent investment in Footscray High School’s Barkly Campus, with open space and facilities being available to approximately 1600 students. The $25 million redevelopment would result in the creation of 85 jobs, $75 million worth of economic activity and the reduction of about $500 million in annual costs due to physical inactivity. The government needs to step up and fund this project. It is important to the community, and it could be part of the COVID recovery plan. I do hope that the Premier and this government actually revisit his response to my adjournment matter of October 2019. I do hope that this government as well as the Premier understand that this RecWest facility in Footscray is a much-needed project and that the community in that particular area does deserve this, and I would actually hope that as part of our COVID recovery this government actually looks at building those community centres that are needed within those communities. It has been highlighted with the last lockdown and other lockdowns that these facilities are much needed. Especially when we come out of COVID, these facilities are the areas that the community love and will go to. Now, the current facility I cannot describe more than to say it is probably one of the worst facilities in the western suburbs. It needs to be renewed, and I do hope that this government actually finds money in the budget to help the City of Maribyrnong to achieve this project on behalf of the community. BOX HILL INSTITUTE Report 2020 Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (17:24): I rise to speak on the Box Hill Institute annual report 2020, and the reason I want to speak on it is to highlight some of the fantastic things that have been happening in my region in regard to the Box Hill Institute of TAFE. As we know, the Andrews Labor government has made significant investments in regard to TAFE, and Box Hill is going from strength to strength under Labor. In particular we have invested in capital projects in 2020, and all of those projects are progressing well. Free TAFE continues to be a huge and welcome initiative in my region that has changed lives for locals in Box Hill and surrounding communities. In 2019 Box Hill had an 89 per cent increase in student commencements in free TAFE, and cybersecurity was the most popular course, so that is really interesting. Campuses are vibrant under Labor, and that is far from what we were left with when those opposite were in government. STATEMENTS ON REPORTS, PAPERS AND PETITIONS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2775

Just some of the other initiatives in terms of Box Hill’s vision—and they talk about this in their annual report—are to make a difference, to help people land a job and to help shape lives, and they are all very important things to people who live in my region and beyond. But certainly in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic Box Hill TAFE did an outstanding job. They moved a lot of classes online and continued to deliver high-quality training. They were able to pivot from those in-person classes, which a lot of learning institutions had to do. They pivoted and made sure that no student was left behind in making sure that they could continue their studies online. Teachers stepped up and supported students in that difficult situation, which was fantastic to see as well. Box Hill also ran a fantastic fashion show online, with students preparing materials for the show at home. It was live streamed and very well received, so it just goes to show how well people were able to pivot under the circumstances. It is a real credit to Box Hill Institute, to the students and to the teachers that they were able to pull that off, so it is fantastic. Additionally, in regard to the Lilydale campus bill, which I know my colleague Minister would have worked very hard on in the previous term of government to ensure that we were able to breathe life back into the Lilydale campus of TAFE, which we know was closed under those opposite, the building of the new Centre for Sustainable Construction Technologies started and progressed well during 2020. Minister Tierney did a virtual sod turn in July 2020, which was incredibly exciting. That was an election commitment that has now been delivered by the Andrews Labor government. It included a $10.2 million investment, and as I said, that was a campus which was previously closed by those opposite. In terms of upgrades to infrastructure, it was announced in July 2020 that Box Hill was provided funding to upgrade its hospitality school, including Fountains Restaurant and teaching spaces, and this means better facilities for hospitality students in the economic recovery. There was a $5 million investment in campus upgrades and hospitality facilities, meaning better TAFEs for locals. In terms of awards, Box Hill’s work in this space has been well recognised as well. They won the Cyber Security Educator of the Year award at the Australian Information Security Association awards as a leader in cybersecurity and were also a finalist at the Victorian Training Awards for Large Training Provider of the Year and Inclusive Training Provider of the Year. Importantly, in terms of jobs and apprenticeships for the region, in 2020 Box Hill’s apprenticeship support officers contacted 2117 apprentices throughout the year to provide support during the pandemic. In terms of the success of the skills and job centres, which were an Andrews Labor government initiative, 2039 participants registered. We had 84 job readiness workshops delivered, 115 engagements with employers and industry, 807 one-on-one career advice sessions and 618 course advice sessions. So we know that we are delivering a pipeline of apprentices, and of course this is going to dovetail nicely into the Andrews Labor government Big Build program, which we know is very ambitious. There has just been an announcement of 10 more level crossing removals, and some of those are in my region as well: Coolstore Road, Croydon, and also Ringwood. Also, for North East Link we are going to need a strong pipeline of apprentices to be able to work on these projects, and Box Hill Institute is definitely playing its part in being able to supply apprentices for those jobs. Also a significant focus was on getting more women into cybersecurity, and the 39 per cent female student enrolments in cybersecurity courses at Box Hill were well above the national average as well. When Box Hill first offered the certificate IV in cybersecurity there were no women enrolled, and there were 99 enrolled in 2020. So again we see free TAFE has been a very significant and important initiative in providing access for women. I just wanted to outline those achievements to the house. I welcome the achievements of Box Hill Institute. LEGAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES COMMITTEE Inquiry into the Closure of I Cook Foods Pty Ltd Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (17:29): I am going to make some more remarks on what I started in the last sitting week, and that was in relation to the report into the inquiry into the closure STATEMENTS ON REPORTS, PAPERS AND PETITIONS 2776 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021 of I Cook Foods. In the last sitting week, as you will probably recall, this house moved a motion to reopen the inquiry after certain bits of information became known through the public domain, through various media outlets in various formats, through people speaking out, and I refer to the Cooks— largely about their company and what has happened to them—and others who have bravely come forward as well. When I look back—and I make this point again—we are incredibly privileged to hold these positions as members of Parliament and to be undertaking inquiries such as the inquiries that are going on now that various committees are undertaking, but also this inquiry that I moved for last year. We have a responsibility as elected members of Parliament to really ensure that when we do inquiries like this the truth is told and that those recommendations that are made to government are based on evidence provided to committees that is very accurate. Well, now we see, after some of these issues that have been raised in the public domain, that that may not be the case. In fact evidence that was provided to this inquiry and that this report speaks about may not have actually occurred and certain witnesses may not have actually given factual evidence or accurate evidence. I think that is a really huge concern. If people think—and I say if that is the case— that they can come before an inquiry and try and spin or, worse, lie to an inquiry, then that is an incredibly concerning development in this state. We have just been speaking about my private members bill about greater accountability and transparency in decisions that are made by government on the citizens of this state through the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 and what we are living through through the COVID-19 pandemic and how our freedoms have been taken from us. Again, I was asking in that bill that the house support me in asking the government for greater transparency and accountability. Unfortunately that was voted down by the government and three independents: the Reason Party, Animal Justice and the Greens. They have a habit of siding with the government on really important matters when it comes to greater transparency and accountability. And this issue that I am talking about with I Cook is also about transparency and accountability, or it has become that. It has actually become about transparency and accountability and government decisions—decisions made within the Department of Health, decisions made at local council level. These issues that have been aired in the public domain, some of them are very serious in what they are calling for. Some of the witnesses that came before our inquiry are making some very, very significant statements in the public domain based on the evidence they heard given to the I Cook Foods closure inquiry. I have been told that some people think that it was very obvious that the evidence provided to this inquiry was not the same as was given to previous court proceedings. The Supreme Court heard one thing from one witness that came from the department, yet they provided completely different evidence to this inquiry. So this is why the I Cook Foods inquiry, which goes to the core of how this government is operating— about accountability, about justice, about truth and about transparency—is really important, because we are on a slippery slope in this state to losing our democracy and everything this great state stands for, and I am very pleased that public hearings will commence very soon with the reopening of this very important inquiry. COMMISSION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE Out of Sight: Systemic Inquiry into Children and Young People Who Are Absent or Missing from Residential Care Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (17:34): A key question that we in Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party ask a lot is: who is looking out for the children? Before I was here, as you all know, I worked at the sexual offences and child abuse investigation team in Victoria Police, otherwise known as SOCIT. Those that have worked in SOCIT are incredibly resilient people. The images we used to trawl through, the interviews we had to conduct, the prosecutions we needed to file—this was not an easy task. The victim-survivors we supported along their journey and the all-too-common disappointment in the justice system stay with you forever. That is why it makes me grateful for the job I have now. STATEMENTS ON REPORTS, PAPERS AND PETITIONS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2777

This role opens doors for me to work to prevent this abuse from happening so less investigations need to take place at all. One of the regular occurrences we would see in SOCIT was the abuse of children in state-run care. It makes me sick to say that residential care children were and still are constantly targeted by predators seeking to sexually abuse vulnerable kids. These children, who had rocky upbringings, who potentially did not have families that nurtured them, who faced addiction and disability in the home, were now being subjected to sexual violence. In this day and age it is simply mind blowing. As a police officer I would often be involved in bringing children back to residential care who had voluntarily left the home with older men to engage in sexual acts for drugs. I say ‘voluntarily’, but when you are 12, 13 or 15 years of age you cannot give consent to the sexual acts you engage in. It is scary stuff. This is just one of the many types of abuse I was tasked to investigate in my job as a SOCIT detective. This work will never leave me, but it does fuel my desire to change things for the better in this place. At the end of June the Commission for Children and Young People tabled the report Out of Sight: Systemic Inquiry into Children and Young People Who Are Absent or Missing from Residential Care. I recently read in a motion to this place asking the government to tell us how they have addressed this very issue I faced regularly in my SOCIT days—issues that continue to this very moment. This was based on the 2015 Commission for Children and Young People, or CCYP, report titled “… as a good parent would …”. This report explores the issues surrounding residential care, specifically those who have experienced sexual abuse whilst in residential care. Last year you may recall Ombudsman Deborah Glass also releasing a report focusing on five children in residential care who had allegedly been assaulted. She recognised that these incidents were not isolated and that the CCYP had been calling for changes to the system for over a decade. The delay in action in response to these reports is infuriating. The CCYP report was completed in 2015, and one of the main recommendations was to significantly reduce the number of children in residential care. Well, it is six years later, and I can tell you that this number has remained relatively stagnant. Like the outcomes of the CCYP and Ombudsman reports, budget paper 3 detailing service delivery says that the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing (DFFH) has a goal to reduce the number of children in out-of-home care who live in residential care. The same budget paper has an expected outcome of 446 kids in residential care in 2020–21, with a target in 2021–22 of 455 placements. Why is this number increasing, and how is this meeting the department’s own goal? On 4 March 2020 an online article titled ‘The lost kids’ written by Elise Kinsella was published through the ABC. This article stated that more than 600 children are running away from residential care homes each year. Again, I do not even blink an eyelid when I hear this; I have seen it with my own eyes. Even as a cop there was little we could do about it. It was just totally devastating. I do not discount the fact that these children in residential care have complex needs. I am not saying there is an easy fix to this. The more children we can get out of residential care and into stable, loving homes, the better. This means foster care agencies will need more money. There is no denying this, but if it comes down to money, I make the point that residential care is very expensive. According to DFFH figures, a complex residential care placement is $301 000 per year. Besides the financial benefits and obviously, more importantly, the outcomes for our children, it is obvious that these kids are better off in other care options. Our foster system needs more foster carers and more respite carers. I have said it before in this place and I will say it again: if we do not have enough respite carers ready to go, our foster carers will become fatigued and will withdraw. I do offer another solution as well, and I hope it is on the government’s radar. Kids Under Cover are a not-for-profit who build one- and two-bedroom studios for a range of purposes. One of these, relevant to my contribution today, is that they support kids in out-of-home care, including kids 12 to 25 years transitioning from residential care. Kids Under Cover was the only preventative care organisation named in the recent homelessness inquiry as specifically needing additional funding. These studios STATEMENTS ON REPORTS, PAPERS AND PETITIONS 2778 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021 cost $60 000 to build, and they can keep a child unified in the family or in a loving home with their grandparents or other friends or family, pending all necessary checks being done, obviously. I am running out of time, but I would reiterate my call to the government. As an outcome of this CCYP report, we need to expand foster care and invest in early intervention and primary prevention approaches. In this case and in the case of Kids Under Cover it is an innovative, proven way to keep families unified and kids on the right track. It is a no-brainer. AUDITOR-GENERAL Integrated Transport Planning Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (17:40): I am pleased to rise and talk about the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office Integrated Transport Planning report in the context of the state budget and the enormous spending on transport planning and transport infrastructure in our state budget. Now, this is an absolute doozy, this report, and I pay tribute to the work done by the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office. It looked at the need under the Transport Integration Act 2010 to see a transport plan, and it says:

DoT and its predecessors have not … demonstrably integrated transport planning and are yet to meet the Act’s requirements for the transport plan. It goes on:

Since DoT’s establishment in 2019 … it is evidently committed to realising these aims, and is making steady progress towards them. However, DoT’s assertion that its 40 separate plans and strategies presently meet the Act’s integrated transport plan requirements does not withstand scrutiny. The absence of a transport plan— the Auditor says—

as required by the Act, during a decade of unprecedented investment in transport infrastructure, creates risks of missed opportunities to sequence and optimise the benefits of these investments to best meet Victoria’s transport needs. It singles out the Department of Transport for its assertions to Parliament and to VAGO:

… that it meets the Act’s requirements through multiple plans and strategies taken together, rather than in a single transport plan. In advice to … (PAEC) in June 2019, DoT listed 11 published documents as evidence of its integrated transport planning work, and as part of the transport plan required by the Act. Of course this is absolutely bunk. This is a phantom. There is no transport plan in this state; there is a cobbled together dog’s breakfast of— Ms Crozier: Very expensive. Mr DAVIS: It is very expensive, and is it any wonder that projects career out of control? Is it any wonder that this is shambolic in almost every way? If you start the building of different things that are not connected in any sensible way because you have no plan—goodness—how surprising is it that things get out of control? The act’s decision-making principles are a significant point in the Auditor’s report:

The Act does not require the transport plan to be published and provides the minister with discretion over its publication. As such, DoT argues that its unpublished plans are part of an ‘internal transport plan for DoT’. However, as shown in Figure B, the Act includes decision-making principles that emphasise transparency, integration, coordination and stakeholder engagement. STATEMENTS ON REPORTS, PAPERS AND PETITIONS Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2779

The truth is that the word from the ministers and the bureaucrats is bunk. I mean, there is no plan. It is an absolute and utter circus, and that is what the Auditor’s report makes extremely clear. It says:

There is a lack of transparency around what the transport plan is. Most of the documents DoT refers to as forming part of the plan required by the Act are not available to the community. Nor are they accessible to other agencies and stakeholders involved in, reliant on, or affected by the transport system. This is an absolute circus, and this goes on. Looking at the different failures across DOT, is it any wonder that so much money is being squandered, that they cannot run the trains on time, that they cannot connect the trains to the buses? They cannot even get the basic planning right in a whole series of straightforward things. I just look at what they are doing with the Level Crossing Removal Project. I strongly support level crossing removal, but getting the right outcome would be about planning with local communities, about land use planning, about land focus and working with councils and communities. You cannot do that with your secret 40 plans; this is just absolutely hopeless. I look at what is going on in terms of Mont Albert and Surrey Hills. I just note the Zoom call the other night and the nasty intervention of Lance Wilson, a man who worked for Mr Shorten as a policy adviser and caucus liaison but was actually his campaign manager, built on a $40 000 donation from Unibilt— Ms Crozier: Another mate getting a job. Mr DAVIS: Another mate getting a job. And this goes back to the Heydon royal commission. He became a figure of some discussion at the Heydon royal commission, mentioned very negatively in dispatches, and yet he is now a stakeholder relations and communications manager at the Level Crossing Removal Project. Well, his role is to roll over communities. His role is not to listen to communities. His role is to steamroll them and ensure that they do not get heard and that the government’s approach is rolled over them. 1080 POISON Petition Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (17:45): Sodium fluoroacetate is the naturally occurring chemical that is found in plants of the gastrolobium species and is the defence mechanism to prevent animals from eating them. On the other hand, sodium monofluoroacetate, commonly known as compound 1080, is a completely synthesised, highly intensified Frankenstein’s monster version of it. It is not naturally occurring. It is banned in most countries in the world because of its abject cruelty, but not here in Australia. It is used on a massive scale across Australia to kill native species, especially our native dingo. Our apex land predator needs protection, not eradication. The dingo in fact preys upon the introduced species that we also use 1080 to kill. As for target species, hundreds of thousands of animals, both native and non-native species, are killed by 1080 through direct ingestion or secondary contamination or poisoning every year, giving the lie to the myth that 1080 can only kill a target species. The media is replete with stories of the family dog being poisoned by baits laid to kill other species. And raptors such as wedge-tailed eagles—Bunjil the creator spirit to our First Nations peoples—quolls and numerous carrion birds and native scavengers are killed by eating the carcasses of animals who have consumed the baits. Compound 1080 can stay dangerous at maximum toxicity for many months in a carcass under the right conditions. When an animal dies after eating compound 1080 it deprives its cells of oxygen, causing organs to fail and liquefy, resulting in full body seizures, excruciating pain and death. Domestic dogs and cats have been known to slam their bodies against trees, walls and even cars, screaming in agony. This can take hours or days and can certainly not be called humane. The use of compound 1080 is not safe. It is a schedule 7 poison, the highest rating available short of banning. It is listed on Australia’s list of chemicals of terrorist concern, because that is why this poison was developed—as a weapon of BILLS 2780 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021 chemical warfare. Let us take heed of those who have signed this petition. Next year I will bring this issue to a head in this house and invite members to join me in making the humane choice and supporting a ban on 1080 poison. Bills TRANSPORT LEGISLATION MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS BILL 2021 Council’s amendments The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman) (17:48): I have a message from the Assembly:

The Legislative Assembly informs the Legislative Council that, in relation to ‘A Bill for an Act to amend 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, the Transport Legislation Amendment Act 2020, the Victorian Fisheries Authority Act 2016 and to make related and miscellaneous amendments to other Acts and for other purposes’ the amendments made by the Council have been agreed to. Adjournment Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (17:49): I move:

That the house do now adjourn. COVID-19 Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (17:49): (1414) My matter that I would like to raise this evening is for the Minister for Health. As we see another positive case here in Victoria of COVID-19, I do not think anyone should be hugely surprised with that, because of the nature of the virus, and we are going to get these outbreaks from time to time. I do hope that that person is well and that those around them—I do not know who it is—are also well and not being too severely impacted by the disease itself. But I do want to raise the point that, I mean, we have had five lockdowns here in Victoria. Whilst we understand that lockdowns are required from time to time, the statewide lockdowns have been incredibly damaging to so many industries. For various reasons the government will say that they have got the advice, and we have just had that debate about releasing the advice, so we understand the reasoning behind why the government will do statewide lockdowns. But I want to go to the point about what we saw in the latest lockdown with the case in Mildura, because that case travelled from Melbourne to Mildura. Through a series of events, I am led to understand, because they came in contact with the local hospital up there, 45 staff needed to be furloughed. It took a whole lot of staff out of that regional health service, similar to what happened in the Bass area. The Bass hospital also had staff that needed to be furloughed. We saw it in the second lockdown with Frankston, which had dozens and dozens of staff being furloughed. So it really puts huge pressure on our health system—I understand that—and that is partly the reason why the government would argue that we need to lock down, to preserve the health system. But they were not huge numbers in lockdown 5. We did not have big numbers like the 700 cases we had in Victoria last year and hundreds of cases every day thereafter. These are smaller numbers, yet we are having statewide lockdowns and we are having our health services’ capacity really being affected. Now, last year the health minister said they had surge capacity and they were able to cope with this. I have been asking about this since 6 February last year, 2020, and my question again goes to this very point: what surge capacity is in the system for when the breakouts occur, or is it the government’s policy that a statewide lockdown is to prevent the health system from deteriorating because there is no surge capacity? ADJOURNMENT Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2781

COVID-19 Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (17:52): (1415) My adjournment debate item is for the attention of the Minister for Health. I have been contacted by a children’s dance studio owner who is currently frustrated at the ongoing neglect of their industry by the government. They are frustrated they are faced with the same 4-square-metre rule as adults in a pub setting, which is higher in terms of risk of transmission compared with children’s dance studios. They are frustrated that they are being limited to 10 in a group as children are missing out on more of their dance education, and they are frustrated that in these staged restrictions they have been continuously lumped in as a physical recreation and sports category, which they believe they are not. My request to the minister is to look at categorising the industry more appropriately in line with performing arts education and to review the restrictions on density limits and group number limits for these particular activities. TRARALGON MEN’S SHED Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (17:53): (1416) My adjournment matter is for Minister Donnellan in the other place. I was out at Traralgon’s men shed just before the latest lockdown, and they had a lot of damage to their buildings after the floods that they had there. Also they have to move on because now their insurance will not cover them or pretty well anyone else in that flood plain. But in amongst all that there was a problem with their defibrillator. Their defibrillator got—well, let us call it—washed, but it was non-functional, and my matter is to ask the minister to organise, if not a defibrillator, enough funding for them to get a defibrillator as soon as possible. GLENROY ROADS Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (17:54): (1417) My adjournment matter this evening is for the Minister for Roads and Road Safety. Glenroy residents are concerned about traffic and congestion and the time it takes to get to work and to get home. My office has recently conducted a community survey in Glenroy, and I am very grateful to all those residents who responded. Every morning Glenroy residents experience choked roads and frustration as the traffic is banked up. Residents have told me that it is a nightmare trying to get to work on time in the morning peak hour and that in the evening it is extremely difficult for people trying to get home to their families. Besides the main feedback we received on the need for duplication of Somerton and Mickleham roads, a little further north of Glenroy, which I will continue to fight for, there are a number of other issues about roads that were raised by the residents of Glenroy. The action I seek from the minister, by way of directing the Department of Transport, is to investigate the light sequencing and the safety at the intersections of Sydney and Box Forest roads and Glenroy and Pascoe Vale roads so my residents can spend less time in traffic and more time with their families. WORKPLACE MENTAL HEALTH Ms WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (17:55): (1418) My adjournment matter is directed to the Minister for Workplace Safety and Minister for Early Childhood, Ingrid Stitt, MP. My question relates to her portfolio responsibility of workplace safety. Our frontline workers have worked tirelessly throughout the pandemic, and our healthcare workers are especially feeling the stress of the important work that they are doing right now in the face of the coronavirus pandemic. It is why we need to make sure that these workers, like many in the Northern Metropolitan Region, are equipped to know when a colleague is experiencing symptoms of work-related stress. The level of support offered can prevent psychological injury and keep them at work for longer, providing vital services to our community. The action I seek is for the minister to update me on the Andrews Labor government’s work on helping to reduce psychosocial hazards in Victorian workplaces. GEELONG PROJECT Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (17:56): (1419) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Housing, and that seems very appropriate seeing that it is Homelessness Week. It concerns the really successful Geelong Project. I can see Ms Lovell here in the chamber, and Ms Maxwell. We met ADJOURNMENT 2782 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021 the Geelong Project during our inquiry into homelessness. In fact we were so impressed by the early intervention work that they did and the way that they could actually prevent homelessness amongst young people, and they did this through this really innovative work of working with schools and communities. We were so impressed that we made a recommendation for them. Recommendation 19 relates to the expansion of the community of schools and services model, better known as the Geelong Project or the COSS model. We know that this actually has achieved a 40 per cent reduction in adolescent homelessness at the same time as a 20 per cent reduction in early school leaving. It is quite an extraordinary program that does not take a lot of money, that just takes a bit of commitment from schools and government. Positive outcomes like these are just rarely achieved, and it really again—which is what we learned in the report—highlighted the impact that early intervention can have. We know that if someone becomes homeless when they are young there is a great likelihood that that will go with them for the rest of their lives. There are seven new community sites waiting to implement this model right here, right now. I would like to call it shovel ready, but I am not sure they use a shovel. So the action I am seeking is really straightforward: that the Minister for Housing acts on this recommendation forthwith and takes immediate steps to expand the community of schools and services model to these additional seven community sites. FRANKSTON LINE ELEVATED RAIL Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (17:58): (1420) I raise a matter tonight for the attention of the Minister for Transport Infrastructure in the other place, and it relates to the announcement the government quietly dropped last Thursday that it would construct an elevated sky rail all the way from Parkdale station to Mentone station, half of which is in my electorate, half of which is in the adjoining electorate. This has come as an unwelcome announcement to the community in Parkdale and an unwelcome announcement to businesses in Parkdale, who over the last 18 months have been subjected to impost after impost from this government. They have been subjected to multiple shutdowns which have decimated their businesses, they have been subjected this year to increased land tax, they have been subjected to increased payroll tax and now their businesses are going to be hit even more with the imposition of a sky rail to run all the way, as a continuous elevated road, from Parkdale to Mentone. This has been dropped, without any prior notice, on those communities. In fact the Minister for Transport Infrastructure in 2016 tweeted that there would be no elevated rail on that section of line in Frankston, and that was retweeted by , the federal member there. So the community had an expectation that there would not be sky rail along the Frankston line at Parkdale, and now they have been quietly told, in a sentence at the bottom of a press release, that they are getting sky rail. This has had a very significant impact on that community, who have not been consulted about the best way to remove level crossings, and on those businesses, who have not been consulted and who will be very directly impacted by this announcement from the government. So the action I seek from the Minister for Transport Infrastructure is that she meets with residents, that she meets with traders and with me on site, that she undertakes the consultation in relation to those level crossing removals at Parkdale along Como Parade and in the area of Parkers Road and that she has the consultation she should have had before the government announced a massive elevated sky rail so that those local residents and those local traders can have a project that delivers on their needs in terms of level crossing removal, rather than simply a project which is expedient for the government. COVID-19 Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (18:01): (1421) My adjournment matter is to the Minister for Health in the other place, and the action that I seek is the release of a date that will be our freedom day as part of a plan that does not include lockdowns. We have just finished our fifth lockdown. We have spent nearly half of the past year locked in our homes. Our children have been locked out of their schools, out of sport, out of playgrounds and out of libraries. We have been separated from our ADJOURNMENT Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2783 families, and our elderly relatives have spent most of their time in isolation. We have had to mourn loved ones from a distance, and we have had elective surgery stopped and now have a backlog that will take heaven knows how long to catch up. We have seen businesses and shops that we have loved close up for good. We have seen mental health in our community decline. We have seen the number of suicides go up. We have seen an increase in domestic violence. And we cannot keep living in lockdown. Economically we cannot take it anymore. Mentally we cannot take it anymore. We keep being told that vaccination is the way out of this, but at this time only a million Victorians have been fully vaccinated. That is just 25 per cent of our working population, and that is 25 per cent of everyone over the age of 15. So when do we have our freedom day? Being vaccinated may stop us from dying or being hospitalised, but being vaccinated does not stop us from getting COVID. Being vaccinated does not stop us from transmitting COVID. We have to live with COVID. We have to go back to leading our lives and taking measures as adults that will keep us healthy and strong. We cannot continue to lock up the vaccinated. Give Victorians some hope. Victorians need some certainty so that they can open their doors again and begin living their lives again. Let Victorians know when we will have no more lockdowns. Government, set a freedom date. FRANKSTON LINE ELEVATED RAIL Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (18:03): (1422) My matter for the adjournment tonight is for the attention of the Minister for Transport Infrastructure in the other place, and it relates to the same structure that Mr Rich-Phillips talked about a moment ago, the elevated sky rail between Parkdale and Mentone. It crosses over the boundary of our mutual electorates. As he outlined correctly, this has been a great shock to the local community in Mentone and indeed, as he said, in Parkdale, just outside my electorate. I should note that at the last election the coalition, in the form of Brad Rowswell, our candidate for Sandringham, and Geoff Gledhill, our candidate for Mordialloc, called for the removal of the Warrigal Road, Mentone, level crossing with a rail-under- road solution. The government did not match that at that time. What has surprised people, though, is this shock announcement by and the Premier that they are going to build an elevated rail in this area. They have done this without any consultation, and my request tonight is for the minister to actually listen to the community. There is tremendous correspondence coming forward. I am sure some of it—and I have seen some of it—is copied to her. So I am asking for her to listen to the community and listen to the cry from the community that they not proceed with this. Again, as I say, this was a shock. The local member in the neighbouring seat to mine, in Mordialloc, Tim Richardson, said at a public meeting I was at—and I am quoting here directly from the video footage that I have been provided with in recent days—‘not an elevated structure running through Parkdale’. He said there will not be an elevated structure running through Parkdale. That is the end of the story. That is what he said—end of story. So he was quite clear in the commitment provided, and people saw that. Labor people, Liberal people, others saw that he was making an assurance that there would not be an elevated rail through this section, through Parkdale into Mentone, over Warrigal Road. Warrigal Road is an important road to have that crossing removed from, because there are a number of schools there and there is a clear need to actually allow freer movement. But again, this can be done with a rail-under-road solution. Now, Richardson trumpeted that he would get a rail-under-road solution through Edithvale and so forth, but now he is deserting the people in this area, and I know Brad Rowswell, the local member in Sandringham, is determined to see a better outcome for the community. He wants the community listened to. I know Mr Rich-Phillips also wants the community listened to on this important matter. So, you know, remove level crossings—we all support that—but by all means be honest with the community, listen to the community and do not steamroll the community without proper consultation. ADJOURNMENT 2784 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021

AMBULANCE RESPONSE TIMES Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (18:06): (1423) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Health in the other place, and the action I seek is for the minister to detail how the government intends to address the persistent ramping issues that are affecting hospital admissions and creating further delays in ambulance responses. The latest report, of last month, of a patient with a spinal injury who was in a corridor of for 14 hours, is simply desperate. This patient was ramped outside the hospital for hours and then waited and waited for a bed. The Victorian Ambulance Union reports that patients are regularly waiting for 12 hours in ambulances outside hospitals or being treated by paramedics in corridors while they wait. I have spoken numerous times in this Parliament about the pressure on ambulance services in northern Victoria, including a very sad case recently in my electorate where an aged-care resident waited 90 minutes for an ambulance, a delay which was attributed directly to hospital ramping. These bottlenecks are placing enormous strain on our health workforce. When speaking with healthcare workers they convey the challenges of staff shortages and trying to find ways to discharge more patients safely to free up beds. They do an incredible job in an already pressured environment. The AMA warned in July that our hospital systems cannot cope with a flu epidemic, let alone a COVID epidemic, in what was described as an ‘acute public health disaster’. Yet the point of lockdown 1 was to prepare our health system to cope, and 18 months later we seem in no better a position. Now, this is not just a state hospital matter, nor an issue isolated to Victoria. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners has called for a whole-health-system approach across both state and federal governments, including utilising general practice and community health. Other states are rolling out policy to take pressure off emergency departments, such as Tasmania, with extended care centres through general practices including a Medicare match scheme, extending access to GP hours and weekend operation. I expect such a prospect would be welcome in many regional centres also— if you could indeed resource them, given the wait time to see a GP. The latest ambulance response time data is due for release, and I do not expect to be happily surprised by it, but I hope—I sincerely hope—I am wrong. I thank our healthcare workers, and I encourage the government to share with our communities what work they are doing in Victoria and with other levels of government to address these concerns. WILD HORSE CONTROL Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (18:09): (1424) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change and concerns the implementation in Victorian national parks of the so-called feral horse management program, aka shooting horses. I have argued many times before that this cull is misguided and damaging and that it should not happen, but I want to look now at the actual detail of the shooting, at the cruel reality of the procedure itself. Talking about a ‘management plan’ makes it sound inoffensive, surgical at worst. The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning website claims it is ‘safe, effective and humane’ and will ‘meet obligations of all relevant legislation’. But what is the reality? An aerial cull in the terrain in question, with mountain slopes and tree cover, can surely never guarantee the level of accuracy necessary to avoid animal suffering. Even on the ground, with stationary targets and at close quarters, it takes great skill to humanely dispatch animals, let alone from a moving helicopter in the terrain in question. At great height and with running horses it is impossibly harder. The management plan references standard operating procedures, so let us look at some. On-ground culling and aerial operations, firstly:

Ground shooting is best suited to accessible and relatively flat areas where there are low numbers of horses. Well, that is not the eastern alps or Bogong. Then:

Ground shooting is time consuming and labour intensive … ADJOURNMENT Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2785 and is not effective—

… for largescale control. We are talking here about 500 animals. Are we saying ground shooting should not therefore be attempted? Finally:

Ground shooting … is not suitable in inaccessible, wooded or rough terrain where sighting of target animals and accurate shooting is difficult, or when wounded animals cannot easily be followed up and killed. Most staggeringly, in the SOPs on ground shooting we find this gem:

Horses must NOT be shot from a moving vehicle or other moving platform, as this can significantly detract from the shooter’s accuracy. Yet, Minister, you approve aerial culling. How do you justify this, Minister? It would be ludicrous if it were not so shameful. The SOPs state that horses should only be shot when stationary, clearly identifiable and within close range and when a humane kill is likely so no nearby animals can be injured by shots passing through the target, and shooting should stop when the herd’s flight response kicks in. My point is: following these SOPs, designed to guarantee humane dispatch, is simply not possible. The action I seek, Minister, is for you to show in full the expert evidence from vets, consultants—whoever you like—that management plans which require adherence to these SOPs can realistically be achieved. PRIVACY AND DATA PROTECTION Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (18:12): (1425) My adjournment tonight is for Minister Carroll, the Minister for Public Transport. On 23 July this year the Australian Information Commissioner and Privacy Commissioner determined that Uber interfered with the privacy of an estimated 1.2 million Australians. It was found that Uber companies failed to appropriately protect the personal data of Australian customers and drivers, which was accessed in a cyber attack in October and November 2016. Uber breached the Privacy Act 1988 by not taking reasonable steps to protect Australians’ personal information from unauthorised access. They also failed to take reasonable steps to comply with the Australian Privacy Principles. Now, what makes this worse is that Uber chose to pay the attackers a reward through a bug bounty program. They did not conduct a full assessment of the personal information that may have been accessed, nor did they publicly disclose the breach until over a year later. Uber has tried to argue that it is not subject to Australia’s Privacy Act, as Australians’ personal information is being indirectly transferred to overseas-based companies and their services. How could this be? Uber is attempting to circumvent our laws and regulations that protect the public and their right to privacy. We are letting Uber take our personal information overseas, only to have it stolen, with no breach of personal information publicly declared for over one year. When our personal information is not protected, we are vulnerable to exploitation and at risk of serious harm. Who is to hold Uber accountable for their management of our personal information when the regulator themselves could be engaging in data overreach? Earlier this year Uber was approved by Commercial Passenger Vehicles Victoria to take part in the multipurpose taxi program. This is a government scheme which subsidises commercial passenger vehicle fares for people with accessibility or mobility needs, and as an authorised booking service provider within the multipurpose taxi program Uber collects and stores information about MPTP members, the trips they have undertaken and their credit card details. Given Uber sends and stores its data outside of Victoria and Australia, I am concerned that this may contravene government data standards. This is a government program, and it must adhere to the state and federal laws for data standards. Therefore the action I seek is for the minister to investigate that the personal details of those vulnerable multipurpose taxi program users are collected and protected in keeping with state and federal laws for data standards which the government program must adhere to. ADJOURNMENT 2786 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021

COVID-19 Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (18:15): (1426) My adjournment matter is directed to the Premier, and it concerns the current restrictions on Victorians travelling through New South Wales while returning home. The action I seek from the Premier is to immediately increase the maximum transit time for Victorians travelling through New South Wales to return home from 24 hours to 36 hours to allow Victorians, many of whom are older Victorians, to plan their journey without haste so that they can arrive home safely. The travel permit system implemented by the Andrews Labor government is creating confusion and has become an unwelcome burden on Victorians attempting to travel home from Queensland and the Northern Territory via New South Wales. Currently all of New South Wales has been classified as an extreme risk zone, while 11 Queensland local government areas have been declared red zones by the Victorian chief health officer. Under the current travel permit system Victorians travelling home from Queensland or the Northern Territory may transit through New South Wales, but in doing so they are subject to specific restrictions on their travel. Some of these conditions include avoiding stopping in areas of high community transmission of the virus, keeping detailed records of each place they stop and avoiding spending time indoors wherever possible. The most onerous condition placed on Victorians travelling through New South Wales on their journey home is that they must transit through New South Wales within a 24-hour period. A lot of those returning home are older Victorians, affectionately known as grey nomads, who despite the pandemic have enjoyed their annual pilgrimage to the warmer climate during the winter months. The 24-hour maximum transit time to travel through New South Wales, or any other red zone area or extreme risk zone, is not practical for older people. Many of them do not feel comfortable travelling for long days or at dusk or night, which is required to meet the government’s 24-hour transit limit. I have been contacted by several constituents towing large and heavy caravans who do not feel safe on the roads when forced to rush their trip and drive excessive hours in the day. These drivers are towing up to 3 tonnes, so they want to be able to travel at a lower speed and avoid long driving stretches for safety reasons. Another simple amendment the government could implement to make the transit through New South Wales easier is to identify Victorian government approved safer routes. These safer routes would identify routes home through areas with no COVID-19 cases, and by complying with only travelling on approved safer routes together with adhering to other travel conditions imposed on them, travellers would be at no additional risk of contracting COVID-19 by extending the allowable transit time through New South Wales by 12 hours, to 36 hours. I call on the Premier to implement this change immediately. WILDLIFE RESCUE AND CARE Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (18:18): (1427) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change. Now, there are not a lot of issues that come up in this place where the Liberal Democrats find themselves on a unity ticket with the Animal Justice Party. We just might have one such situation tonight, so hang onto your hat. Interstate anomalies are something that we border residents are very used to, but sometimes we come across one that makes us raise our eyebrows. Recently when meeting with constituents in Moira shire—indeed one particular feisty and strong-willed constituent, Deb; we had a great chat—I learned that there are cross-border anomalies that impact on wildlife rescue. It seems that not only ducks know where our state border is but our other native wildlife does as well. It turns out that if a Victorian wildlife rescuer is called to attend a sick or injured animal across the New South Wales border, it is illegal to bring the animal back to Victoria. And this also works in reverse: if an injured Victorian native animal is carried across the border into New South Wales, our heroic animal rescuers suddenly become evil native wildlife smugglers. Laws such as this mean that if there is nowhere within the state they can transport the animal to for treatment, the rescuers must leave the animal to die rather than ADJOURNMENT Wednesday, 4 August 2021 Legislative Council 2787 taking it back to a cross-border shelter or sanctuary for care. Of course our intrepid animal rescuers break those rules. Trawling the Wildlife Act 1975 provides very little clarity on whether the transport of injured wildlife across state borders is prohibited or carries a fine. Now, having grown up on a farm, I am not noted for my overly compassionate view towards our native animals. Let us say I will not be running an animal rescue shelter any time soon, though as a libertarian I support other people’s right to do so if they think that is a valuable use of their time. But even I can see this is crazy. People rescuing injured wildlife are not criminals. They should not have to live in fear of government persecution, make up stories about the origin of their animals or operate elaborate underground railways with collaborators to smuggle the animals safely across the river. Minister, you need to fix this, and it is even an issue that you can feel warm and fuzzy about as you solve it. The action I seek is for the minister to make clear by regulation, directive or legislative change that it is permissible for rescuers to bring injured native wildlife across state borders. Native wildlife in our border communities matters just as much as it does in other parts of our state. SEVERE WEATHER EVENT Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (18:21): (1428) My adjournment matter this evening is for the acting Minister for Police and Emergency Services, and it relates to the response, or rather poor response, to a constituent of mine during the floods and storms back at the very start of June. Beef cattle breeder Vicki Gilbert lives on the wrong side of the Morwell River. She lives at a fantastic property in the Grand Ridge Road area, but during the floods the Morwell River rose to such an extent that she was cut off. Now, she was cut off for nine days, without power, without telephone and with whatever provisions she had in her home. The startling thing is that no-one contacted her—no-one knew, we will say—and she was literally stranded. The Latrobe City Council used to be responsible for flood warnings, flood responses and the whole flood management plan, but now it is under the jurisdiction of Emergency Management Victoria. She was incredibly distressed. She was certainly more worried about her animals—her horses and her prize cattle—than herself. But to be cut off from society—the world—for nine days in 2021 I find quite astounding. We will always commend and support our local volunteer CFA and SES responses. But my office sits below the SES, and there were a number of people sitting upstairs who I believe, having come from Melbourne, did not know how to respond to this emergency situation. I believe that not the locals but the suits from Melbourne were giving the wrong directions, and I believe there is a massive problem in communications. Clearly this person should not have been cut off. There are also issues around warning responses, data information—it all needs to be tidied up. So my request, my action, for the minister is to review the emergency management processes to make sure that someone cannot be isolated only kilometres up the road from a major town for nine days in the future. PET FOOD INDUSTRY Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (18:23): (1429) My adjournment matter today is for the Minister for Agriculture, and the action I seek is for her to implement regulations around the pet food industry. In recent weeks at least 61 dogs in Victoria have been seriously affected by toxins in pet food. At least 21 beloved family pets have died. Agriculture Victoria have published their view that the cause is indospicine, a toxin found across Australia in particular native plants. Pet owners have been cautioned about feeding animals in their care raw kangaroo meat from Gippsland. We then hear that horsemeat sourced from the Northern Territory has emerged as the focus of the investigation. Pet owners are warned against feeding their animals kangaroo, horse and beef due to the blending of pet meats. Raw foods for pets are not properly labelled. Owners think that they are buying meat from cows when they are actually buying meat from horses and kangaroos. Consumers expect that food they buy from commercial suppliers is not poisonous, and yet there is little to no regulation to ensure that. The labelling of dog food is far too loose, with apparently no standards to prevent lies about what animals have been killed to create that food. This industry is a dog’s breakfast literally and figuratively. ADJOURNMENT 2788 Legislative Council Wednesday, 4 August 2021

I should add at this point that I think plant-based and lab-grown meats are the likely future for this industry. Society does not need to kill some animals to feed other animals. In any case, it is time for the government to take control of this industry and impose some minimum standards for pet foods. Our companion animals are not disposable. I hope the minister will oversee a thorough investigation into the current spate of deaths, keep the Parliament informed and subsequently implement regulatory arrangements, ensuring the healthfulness of pet food in Victoria. ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER CHILDREN Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (18:26): (1430) My adjournment matter tonight is for the Minister for Child Protection. Today, as we have heard in this house already, is National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children’s Day. It is an important day as we first and foremost celebrate Indigenous cultures and also all that Indigenous children bring to our state and at the same time think about the huge amount of work we need to do to close the gap in so many important areas as we seek to ensure finally that Victoria is a state in which we can say that all children have the same chances no matter which community they are born into. Of course at the moment that is not the case for so many Indigenous Victorian kids. For so many of these kids they are born behind the eight ball and not given the chances that other children are given. Tonight, for example, one in 10 Indigenous kids in our state of Victoria, of which we are so proud, is in out-of-home care, removed from their families—one in 10. That is the worst ratio of any Australian jurisdiction—worse than the Northern Territory, where we have seen dreadful problems in recent years, and worse than every single other state or territory. Today three in 10 Indigenous children are known to child protection—almost 30 per cent. These statistics are greater than the statistics for non- Indigenous children by factors of 20 and more. But they are not just statistics, of course, because they represent real kids with real hopes and aspirations, just like all other Victorian children, but those hopes and aspirations are being stolen from them. Before the budget I joined with the CEO of the peak body for child protection and family welfare services here in Victoria, Deb Tsorbaris, in calling for a radical overhaul of the government’s approach to child protection. Back in 2017 independent research by Social Ventures Australia said that unless the government embarked upon a radical overhaul of its approach, its crisis-driven approach, we would see Indigenous kids increasingly forced into child protection. Indeed we would see 24 per cent more Indigenous kids in child protection every single year. Well, despite the fact that Minister Donnellan continues to say that he is prioritising early intervention, that is not the case. The sector agrees with me. Indeed the sector has joined with me in calling for radical reform. Just two months ago we saw a major report from the children’s commissioner, Our Youth, Our Way, again highlighting shocking issues in child protection for Indigenous children. We have had discussion of the over-representation of Indigenous children in the justice system. So much of that is because of the fact that Indigenous children are in child protection in dreadful numbers. The action that I seek from the minister is for him to heed my calls and the calls of the sector for a radical overhaul of his approach to child protection. RESPONSES Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (18:29): This evening there have been adjournment matters from 17 MLCs in our chamber. Those matters were directed to 12 different ministers, and those matters will be directed to those 12 ministers for responses. The PRESIDENT: On that basis, the house stands adjourned. House adjourned 6.30 pm.