3 - PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)

PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

(HANSARD)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

FIFTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT

FIRST SESSION

TUESDAY, 3 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 Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. J Symes, MLC

Minister for Transport Infrastructure and Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. JM Allan, MP

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

Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development and Minister for Industrial Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. TH Pallas, MP

Minister for Public Transport and Minister for Roads and Road Safety . The Hon. BA Carroll, MP

Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change and Minister for Solar Homes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. L D’Ambrosio, MP

Minister for Child Protection and Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. LA Donnellan, MP

Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services and Minister for Equality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. MP Foley, MP

Minister for Ports and Freight, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation and Minister for Fishing and Boating . . . . . . .

The Hon. MM Horne, MP

Minister for Crime Prevention, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice and Minister for Victim Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. NM Hutchins, MP

Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development and Minister for Veterans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. SL Leane, MLC

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

Minister for Industry Support and Recovery, Minister for Trade, Minister for Business Precincts, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events and Minister for Racing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. MP Pakula, MP

Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Regulatory Reform, Minister for Government Services and Minister for Creative Industries . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. DJ Pearson, MP

Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy and Minister for Small Business . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. JL Pulford, MLC

Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Community Sport and Minister for Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. RL Spence, MP

Minister for Workplace Safety and Minister for Early Childhood . . . . . . The Hon. I Stitt, MLC

Minister for Agriculture and Minister for Regional Development . . . . . . The Hon. M Thomas, MP

Minister for Prevention of Family Violence, Minister for Women and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. G Williams, MP

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

Cabinet Secretary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ms S Kilkenny, MP

Legislative Council committees

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

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

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

Privileges Committee Mr Atkinson, Mr Bourman, 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—Animal Justice Party; ALP—Labor Party; DHJP—Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party;

FPRP—Fiona Patten’s Reason Party; Greens—Australian Greens; Ind—Independent;

LDP—Liberal Democratic Party; LP—Liberal Party; Nats—The Nationals;

SAP—Sustainable Australia Party; SFFP—Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party; TMP—Transport Matters Party

CONTENTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Acknowledgement of country .................................................................................................................................... 2625 CONDOLENCES

John Francis McGrath, OAM ..................................................................................................................................... 2625 Hon. Richard John Long ............................................................................................................................................. 2625

BILLS Child Wellbeing and Safety (Child Safe Standards Compliance and Enforcement) Amendment Bill

2021 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 2625 Education and Training Reform Amendment (Protection of School Communities) Bill 2021 .......................... 2625 Mutual Recognition (Victoria) Amendment Bill 2021 ............................................................................................ 2625 Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Cross-boundary Greenhouse Gas Titles and Other

Matters) Amendment Bill 2021 ................................................................................................................................. 2625 Royal assent ............................................................................................................................................................ 2625

ANNOUNCEMENTS COVID-19 .................................................................................................................................................................... 2626

RULINGS BY THE CHAIR Business of the house .................................................................................................................................................. 2626

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Government performance ........................................................................................................................................... 2627 Rural and regional housing ......................................................................................................................................... 2628 Ministers statements: COVID-19 .............................................................................................................................. 2628 Government performance ........................................................................................................................................... 2628 Western Highway traffic congestion ......................................................................................................................... 2629 Ministers statements: Altona foreshore revitalisation .............................................................................................. 2630 Government performance ........................................................................................................................................... 2630 COVID-19 .................................................................................................................................................................... 2631 Ministers statements: Victorian Women in Resources Awards .............................................................................. 2632 Swim schools support ................................................................................................................................................. 2632 Open courts legislation ................................................................................................................................................ 2633 Ministers statements: secure work pilot scheme ...................................................................................................... 2635 Written responses ........................................................................................................................................................ 2635

CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Eastern Victoria Region .............................................................................................................................................. 2635 Western Victoria Region ............................................................................................................................................ 2636 Northern Metropolitan Region ................................................................................................................................... 2636 Northern Victoria Region ........................................................................................................................................... 2636 Northern Victoria Region ........................................................................................................................................... 2636 Western Metropolitan Region .................................................................................................................................... 2637 Western Metropolitan Region .................................................................................................................................... 2637 Northern Metropolitan Region ................................................................................................................................... 2637 Eastern Victoria Region .............................................................................................................................................. 2637 Northern Metropolitan Region ................................................................................................................................... 2637 Southern Metropolitan Region ................................................................................................................................... 2638 Eastern Metropolitan Region...................................................................................................................................... 2638 Western Victoria Region ............................................................................................................................................ 2638

PETITIONS 1080 poison .................................................................................................................................................................. 2639 Local government funding.......................................................................................................................................... 2639 Newspaper digitisation ................................................................................................................................................ 2640 Breast screening ........................................................................................................................................................... 2640

BILLS Members of Parliament (Standards) Amendment Bill 2021 ................................................................................... 2640

Introduction and first reading ................................................................................................................................ 2640 COMMITTEES

Economy and Infrastructure Committee ................................................................................................................... 2641 Inquiry into the Impact of the COVID‑19 Pandemic on the Tourism and Events Sectors ............................. 2641

Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee .......................................................................................................... 2644 Alert Digest No. 9 ................................................................................................................................................... 2644

PAPERS Ombudsman ................................................................................................................................................................. 2644

Annual Plan 2021–22 ............................................................................................................................................. 2644 Investigation into Good Practice when Conducting Prison Disciplinary Hearings ......................................... 2644

Department of Health .................................................................................................................................................. 2645 16th Report to Parliament on the State of Emergency ........................................................................................ 2645

Ombudsman ................................................................................................................................................................. 2645 Councils and Complaints: A Good Practice Guide ............................................................................................. 2645

COMMITTEES Public Accounts and Estimates Committee .............................................................................................................. 2645

Inquiry into the Victorian Government’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic .......................................... 2645 PAPERS

Papers ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2645 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Notices .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2648 MOTIONS

General business .......................................................................................................................................................... 2648 PAPERS

Commercial Passenger Vehicles Victoria ................................................................................................................. 2649 Fare Monitoring Report ......................................................................................................................................... 2649

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Hong Kong resident visa applications ....................................................................................................................... 2649 NAIDOC Week ........................................................................................................................................................... 2649 COVID-19 .................................................................................................................................................................... 2650 Aunty Geraldine Atkinson .......................................................................................................................................... 2650 COVID-19 .................................................................................................................................................................... 2650 Camping regulation ..................................................................................................................................................... 2651 Public housing .............................................................................................................................................................. 2651 Eastern Metropolitan Region community organisations ......................................................................................... 2651 Government performance ........................................................................................................................................... 2652 COVID-19 .................................................................................................................................................................... 2652 Early childhood education .......................................................................................................................................... 2652 Homelessness Week .................................................................................................................................................... 2653

BILLS Energy Legislation Amendment (Energy Fairness) Bill 2021 ................................................................................ 2653

Second reading ........................................................................................................................................................ 2653 Committee ............................................................................................................................................................... 2677 Third reading ........................................................................................................................................................... 2680

Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and Other Acts Amendment (Federal Jurisdiction and

Other Matters) Bill 2021 ............................................................................................................................................. 2681 Second reading ........................................................................................................................................................ 2681 Third reading ........................................................................................................................................................... 2692

ADJOURNMENT Mornington Garden Supplies ..................................................................................................................................... 2692 Western Victoria passenger rail services ................................................................................................................... 2693 Government procurement policy ............................................................................................................................... 2694 Wyndham child disability services ............................................................................................................................ 2695 Point Cook Road .......................................................................................................................................................... 2695 COVID-19 .................................................................................................................................................................... 2696 Western Victoria Transmission Network Project ..................................................................................................... 2696 Government procurement policy ............................................................................................................................... 2697 Mont Albert and Surrey Hills train stations .............................................................................................................. 2698 Dalton Road infrastructure ......................................................................................................................................... 2698 COVID-19 .................................................................................................................................................................... 2699 Responses ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2699

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Written responses ........................................................................................................................................................ 2700

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Tuesday, 3 August 2021 Legislative Council 2625

Tuesday, 3 August 2021

The PRESIDENT (Hon. N Elasmar) took the chair at 11.34 am and read the prayer.

Announcements

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

The PRESIDENT (11:34): 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.

Condolences

JOHN FRANCIS MCGRATH, OAM

HON. RICHARD JOHN LONG

The PRESIDENT (11:35): I advise the house of the death on 4 July 2021 of Mr John Francis

McGrath, OAM, member of the Legislative Assembly for the electorate district of Warrnambool from

1985 to 1999.

I advise the house of the death on 28 July 2021 of the Honourable Richard John Long, member of the

Legislative Council for Gippsland Province from 1973 to 1992.

Therefore I ask members to rise in their places as a mark of respect to the memory of the deceased.

Members stood in their places.

Bills

CHILD WELLBEING AND SAFETY (CHILD SAFE STANDARDS COMPLIANCE AND

ENFORCEMENT) AMENDMENT BILL 2021

EDUCATION AND TRAINING REFORM AMENDMENT (PROTECTION OF SCHOOL

COMMUNITIES) BILL 2021

MUTUAL RECOGNITION (VICTORIA) AMENDMENT BILL 2021

OFFSHORE PETROLEUM AND GREENHOUSE GAS STORAGE (CROSS-BOUNDARY

GREENHOUSE GAS TITLES AND OTHER MATTERS) AMENDMENT BILL 2021

Royal assent

The PRESIDENT (11:37): I have a message from the Governor, dated 28 June:

The Governor informs the Legislative Council that she has, on this day, given the Royal Assent to the

undermentioned Act of the present Session presented to her by the Clerk of the Parliaments:

23/2021 Child Wellbeing and Safety (Child Safe Standards Compliance and Enforcement) Amendment

Act 2021

24/2021 Education and Training Reform Amendment (Protection of School Communities) Act 2021

25/2021 Mutual Recognition (Victoria) Amendment Act 2021

26/2021 Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Cross-boundary Greenhouse Gas Titles and

Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

2626 Legislative Council Tuesday, 3 August 2021

Announcements

COVID-19

The PRESIDENT (11:38): Members, there are no changes to the special arrangements for the

operation of the chamber that we had in place in the last sitting week in June. It is mandatory to wear

masks, and members should only remove their mask when they have the call to speak. The two doors

behind me remain the entrance, and the door opposite is the exit. The public gallery upstairs will be

accessible by staff and any guests of members who have been signed in at reception.

The temporary orders agreed to on 8 June 2021 remain in place. These include an expanded definition

of the chamber to include the lower public galleries and the President’s lower galleries; discretion in

ringing the bells to form a quorum; incorporation of second-reading speeches on any bills considered

in the house into Hansard—members should email their contribution to the table office by the time

the house adjourns; the house will break at approximately 4.00 pm each day for about 15 minutes so

the chamber can be cleaned; and divisions will continue to operate under the temporary orders agreed

to by the house on 23 April 2020 and therefore members will be asked to stand in their place during a

division.

Rulings by the Chair

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The PRESIDENT (11:39): Members, our return from the winter break gives me the opportunity

to remind you of some of the rules of the house. In particular there are areas where our recent practice

has moved away from the rules.

First, constituency questions. I gave a ruling to the chamber on constituency questions on 16 March

this year. Members should remember that a constituency question must, one, be clearly directed to a

minister; two, fall within state jurisdiction; three, ask a question seeking information; and, four, relate

to a specific matter in your region. The first two points are clear. In relation to the third point, it must

be a question. I remind members you have the adjournment debate to seek an action from a minister,

so if you are seeking an action, the adjournment debate is the proper time to raise it.

The fourth point is where many are having difficulty. As I understand it, constituency questions are an

opportunity to ask a minister questions about local matters. It is not enough to briefly mention your

region and then use the remaining time to discuss a statewide issue or policy. It is also not enough that

a matter was raised by a constituent. If the matter refers to statewide policy or issues, then it does not

become a constituency question just because a constituent raised it with you. A constituency question

must have a direct link to your region, and you must make the direct link clear in the question. This

does not prevent the matter from also being relevant to other regions, but the matter should not be so

general as to have only incidental relevance to a member’s region.

Second, notices of motion. Standing order 6.01(2) states:

Every Member giving notice of a motion will read it aloud and deliver to the Table a copy of such notice

signed by him or her or on his or her behalf, and stating the day proposed for moving such motion.

Unfortunately at times the table office has to decipher illegible notices. Sometimes the table office

does not receive a written notice at all. I advise that all notices of motion must be provided in writing

at or before the time they are given, and they must be legible. If not, I will order them to be omitted

from the notice paper under standing order 6.01(5). While it is not compulsory, it is normal practice

that members submit their notices of motion to the table office for checking prior to giving notice in

the chamber. In fact I am aware that in the other place and in other chambers, notices of motion can

only be submitted in writing to appear on the notice paper. They are not read out in the chamber at all.

The house might be interested in that different practice.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS


Third, directing matters to multiple portfolios. Where a matter is directed to a minister for response, I

ask that members take care to direct matters to a single portfolio, rather than several.

Finally, using quotes. I remind members that if you use quotes from individuals or documents as part

of debate, questions, adjournment matters or other contributions, it is established practice in this house

that you should attribute the quotation to a source. This is to allow others to check the quotation’s

context and validity. A number of Chairs have ruled on this. If the member indicates that they are

paraphrasing someone and not directly quoting, then the Chair may choose not to insist that the source

be cited. I stress that does not mean members should give the full name and street address of a

constituent. In fact they should avoid doing so out of respect for constituency privacy. There is also a

requirement for a member to make a document they are quoting from available to the house.

A copy of this ruling will be made available to all members.

Mr Davis: On a point of order, President, just on your ruling, it is the practice of the lower house

that notices of motion are submitted in writing. It is not the practice of this house and never has been

the practice that they are required to be submitted beforehand. Many do because they wish to have

matters and technical details sorted out ahead of time, but I do want to just be clear that it is not the

case that people need to submit those ahead of time. Further, I also was just trying to be quite clear

that there are occasions in the chamber here where notices of motion are being read when people do

respond to other notices of motion and actually put on a new notice of motion in a more free-flowing

way. It is the practice, as I understand it, that members would then submit a written version. I accept

your point about legibility, but it is not the case that members cannot proceed in that way. I am just

trying to be clear for members’ benefit.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Davis. I understand standing order 6.01(2). I read that just

before, and I said it is just a notice to members. I did not say it is the practice.

Questions without notice and ministers statements

GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (11:46): My question is to the

Leader of the Government. Minister, did you ever tune in online or watch a recording of a focus or

research group undertaken by the Qdos polling company, owned by Labor apparatchik John Armitage

and funded by Victorian taxpayers?

Mr Leane interjected.

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for

Resources) (11:46): I am very happy to accept the advice from Minister Leane and confirm that the

answer to Mr Davis’s question is no.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (11:46): I have a further question

relating to the Qdos polling company and Mr Armitage, and I ask: were you, Minister, a part of a crisis

cabinet or other cabinet meeting addressed by John Armitage or other representatives of the Qdos

polling group?


Resources) (11:47): Mr Davis, no, I have not been involved in conversations that align with the

description that you have put to the house, but I would say that all governments around Australia, both

federal and state, seek community feedback and gauge opinions on how services are delivered. It is an

appropriate way to govern—to ask questions about government performance, data and evidence—and

certainly is a good platform and good practice to inform good government decisions.



RURAL AND REGIONAL HOUSING

Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (11:47): My question is for the minister representing Minister

Wynne in the other place in his capacity as Minister for Housing. Cann River has been in the thick of

things with the disasters that have befallen East Gippsland of late, yet they are still so short of

emergency accommodation that people are still living in tents or, even worse, their cars. So my

question is: will the minister urgently have the appropriate bureaucrat get onto the housing problem to

ensure people are not living in their cars and tents?

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood)

(11:48): I thank Mr Bourman for his question and his interest in this important matter, and I will

certainly seek a written response from Minister Wynne in accordance with the standing orders.

Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (11:48): I thank the minister for her answer. I will get straight

to it: will Minister Wynne urgently conduct a review of emergency housing, focusing on regional and

rural locations, to ensure that we do not have people homeless just because of the lack of emergency

housing?


(11:48): I thank Mr Bourman for his supplementary question, and I will seek a response in writing

from the minister.

MINISTERS STATEMENTS: COVID-19

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical

Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (11:49): It is lovely to be back and

to see everyone again. Last week the Andrews government announced further support for Victorian

small and medium businesses to help them as we continue to deal with the consequences of the

COVID-19 pandemic. There is a new jointly funded package of $400 million, contributed to in equal

share by the Victorian government and the commonwealth government, that will deliver vital support

to thousands of businesses doing it tough. This is in addition to the very significant earlier allocations

made in response to the May–June lockdown and the July lockdown. I take the opportunity to

acknowledge the support and cooperation of the federal government in putting together and finalising

this package and of course their $200 million contribution.

The package has five key components: a $156 million Business Continuity Fund to help more than

30 000 businesses in some of our hardest hit industries, particularly those in the CBD; an $85 million

Small Business COVID Hardship Fund, which will provide grants of up to $5000 to small businesses

that have experienced a reduction greater than 70 per cent in turnover but are not eligible for other

support; a $70 million top-up to the Licensed Hospitality Venue Fund; and a $9.8 million top-up to

the alpine support program to assist those who are particularly impacted by restrictions at this time of

their very short season. Rent is also a significant burden for businesses that are doing it tough, so we

are reintroducing the commercial tenancy relief scheme to alleviate financial hardship faced by tenants

and indeed landlords as a result of the pandemic. The house will have an opportunity to discuss that

in more detail later in the week.

In addition to these five new programs, we have introduced a concierge service for microbusinesses

and sole traders, assisting them to access the commonwealth COVID-19 disaster support payment.

This extra support will ensure that our wonderful small businesses have every opportunity to emerge

in decent shape so that they continue to play their role in our community. (Time expired)


Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (11:51): My question is to the Leader of the Government.

Minister, I also refer you to the recently reported revelation of yet another example of the Victorian

Labor Party rorting the Victorian taxpayer, this time involving multimillion-dollar taxpayer-funded

polling research commissioned for the Andrews Labor government undertaken by the Labor-affiliated



Mr John Armitage and his company Qdos. The reported research included partisan political

questioning of politically important target groups of Victorians regarding the effects of the COVID

pandemic on the popularity of the Premier and how he should best communicate with Victorians.

Minister, can you advise what benefits, if any, Victorians gained from this blatantly political research

paid for by rorted Victorian taxpayer funds?


Resources) (11:52): Whilst I do not agree with any of the assertions put by Mr O’Donohue, what he

has asked is whether it is appropriate for government to respond to community sentiment. Using

research, using organisations and indeed using the public service to seek the opinions of the

community is good government and good practice, and we make no apology for speaking to the

community about their priorities and what is important to them and adjusting our policy settings

accordingly.

Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (11:52): Minister, I again refer you to the Victorian Labor

Party’s rorting of taxpayers money involving the Andrews Labor government commissioning of

multimillion-dollar politically partisan polling research by Mr John Armitage and his company Qdos.

Minister, how was this multimillion-dollar taxpayer-funded contract for politically partisan polling

research awarded without tender?


Resources) (11:53): Lots of adjectives in that question, which I will choose to ignore and respond to

the direct question, and that is that I am not a minister that has been engaged in commissioning this

research and so I am not in a position to answer in the context of my portfolio responsibilities.

WESTERN HIGHWAY TRAFFIC CONGESTION

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (11:53): My question is to the Minister for Roads and

Road Safety in the other place. When will the Western Highway be upgraded to handle the growth in

traffic that is now engulfing it from all of the people that have moved to the west with the promises of

better living and convenience to the CBD? If you were to take a drive on the Western Freeway and

the Deer Park bypass from around 3.30 pm every weekday, you would see that it is basically a car

park from the M80 ring-road right up to Melton. The state government has spent millions of dollars

on putting in safety barriers along the freeway, but the unprecedented congestion has brought the

freeway to a crawl such that it makes those barriers absolutely useless.


Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (11:54): I thank Dr Cumming for

her question. It is a stretch of road I am very, very familiar with, and whilst it has been a bit too quiet

of late with lockdowns, it is also obviously very frustrating for people if it is too congested as well. I

thank Dr Cumming for her advocacy on behalf of people in Melbourne’s west, and I will seek a written

response from Minister Carroll for her.

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (11:55): I look forward to the minister’s response. When

will a full diamond interchange on either Mount Cottrell Road or Paynes Road be constructed that

would allow convenient access to the Western Freeway? Residents have been promised a full diamond

interchange on either Mount Cottrell Road or Paynes Road. Instead, all access to these roads is blocked

with safety barriers that force every resident of Thornhill Park to drive to Ferris Road, Melton, in order

to turn around and head to the city. They also require a drive to Leakes Road, Rockbank, in order to

turn around and come back to Paynes Road to get into their residential estate. This is simply not good

enough.


Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (11:56): I thank Dr Cumming for

her question. As some members will appreciate, our government is investing in record infrastructure

to respond to a strong history of population growth, and of course in our outer suburbs and growth



areas ensuring that infrastructure keeps up with the needs of residents in new estates is an important

part of the work of government. In relation to timing and planning for particular interchanges in those

areas that Dr Cumming is referring to, with which I am also familiar, I will seek a written response

from Minister Carroll for her.

MINISTERS STATEMENTS: ALTONA FORESHORE REVITALISATION

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban

Development, Minister for Veterans) (11:56): I am really happy to update the house on a suburban

revitalisation project, which is the Victorian government investing $5.8 million into the Altona

foreshore revitalisation program. The Altona foreshore revitalisation project will deliver a new main

beach entrance, a promenade, shared bike and walking trails, a raised seawall, two beach access ramps,

and new viewing and resting spots. The foreshore works are part of the larger Altona Beach precinct

redevelopment, which is being led by Hobsons Bay City Council and will include a redevelopment of

Pier Street to host outdoor markets, festivals and community events and the redevelopment of Altona

Pier by Parks Victoria.

The suburban revitalisation program empowers local stakeholders to plan and deliver infrastructure

and community development initiatives and improve the livability of local areas. Recently I was lucky

enough to visit this part of Altona with the local member, Jill Hennessy. She is a fantastic MP, I have

got to say, for that area. I was lucky enough to be accompanied by the mayor of Hobsons Bay, Jonathon

Marsden, at the Altona surf club, and some really great traders that are really excited about this project.

This project will be starting this month. I am really looking forward to getting back down to Altona. I

will give a shout-out also to Minister Lily D’Ambrosio, who as part of her ministry is putting some

contribution into this fantastic project, and of course to the contribution by Hobsons Bay City Council.

As I said, this is a fantastic project in a beautiful part of Melbourne. It is just a fantastic part of

Melbourne, and I really look forward to getting back down there.


Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (11:58): My question is to the Leader of the Government.

Minister, I again refer you to the Victorian Labor Party’s rorting of Victorian taxpayers involving the

Andrews Labor government commissioning multimillion-dollar politically partisan polling research

by Mr John Armitage and his company Qdos. Will you now apologise to Victorians on behalf of the

Andrews Labor government for this latest episode of blatant rorting of taxpayer funds, and will the

Labor Party pay back the rorted expenditure to the state’s coffers, as it had to do when it was previously

caught out by the now infamous red shirts rort affair?


Resources) (11:59): Say that 10 times fast, Mr O’Donohue. That is probably the most political

statement that you have made in this house. You do not care what my answer is; you just wanted to

get out as many comments as you could about your thoughts on us, and we really are not impacted by

your thoughts on us. What we are interested in are the thoughts, desires and interests of Victorians. It

is our job to communicate with them, talk to them about their interests and govern for them, and we

will not be distracted by your pathetic politics.

Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (12:00): It is unfortunate that the minister is being so

dismissive of such a serious issue and failed to actually answer the question. By way of supplementary,

I ask: Minister, at a time of pandemic crisis for Victorians why was the Andrews Labor government

so focused on spending millions of dollars of taxpayers funds for partisan political research to establish

the level of the Premier’s political popularity rather than investing in the systems to fight the pandemic,

including critical hotel quarantine and contact-tracing programs?




Resources) (12:00): Asked and answered, President. It is the same question; four times I have

answered it.

Mr Davis: On a point of order, President, it is quite a different question. It is a question about a

counterposing of government priorities in this case.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you.

COVID-19

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (12:01): My question is for the minister representing the Minister

for Health. Minister, how many COVID cases are there in the border bubble communities in New

South Wales? Yesterday a tightening of the border bubble rules was announced, limiting crossing in

both directions to only six reasons. During the last 18 months there has not been a single case in the

border bubble, except for cases that came out of Melbourne, and they have been quickly suppressed.

The regions have just suffered through a two-week lockdown that we know was not necessary for us.

We know this because none of the towns on the New South Wales side locked down and none of them

saw any infections at all. Every lockdown we have asked to see the supporting evidence, and every

time we have been denied. It is clear these restrictions are ultimately political, not medical. The

government will do anything to the regions to look good in Melbourne. You have blamed this decision

on Gladys not implementing a ring of steel; despite no ring, there is still no threat in regional New

South Wales. You are willing to up-end border economies again just to try to justify the decisions you

made to lock us down in Victoria.


Resources) (12:02): Despite the length of Mr Quilty’s question, I think his only question was in

relation to how many active cases in New South Wales—in the southern part of that region—there

are, and it is not particularly within the remit of the Minister for Health to respond to that question. It

is quite easily obtainable information. If Mr Quilty would like more information in relation to the

government following health advice in relation to our decisions around the border bubble, then maybe

that is coming in a supplementary question. There was a lot in your commentary which I could respond

to, but your only question was in relation to the amount of cases, and I would suggest that you could

find that information yourself.

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (12:03): Minister, why are we subjecting our border bubble

communities to ineffective and needless COVID restrictions? At least three-quarters of border bubble

travel is work related and will be exempt from the new restrictions, making these new rules just

symbolic, or shambolic, with regard to controlling COVID, though the lockdowns will still wreak

havoc on the lives of border residents and the border economy. The government continues to

implement a policy of COVID theatre in the regions to appeal to Melbourne voters, pretend the

situation is more dangerous than it is, take unnecessary action that appears to solve it and then take

credit for saving us all. Our hotel quarantine failed multiple times, our ring of steel leaked like a sieve,

our statewide lockdowns have been excessive and our border rules have been draconian and

authoritarian. The government’s management of COVID is not an example worth following. This

COVID theatre needs to end. Implement proportionate restrictions if we get cases, otherwise leave the

border bubble areas alone.


Resources) (12:04): I thank Mr Quilty for his question and indeed his advocacy for the border area

communities, and I know that he lives and experiences this every day. As the former Minister for

Regional Development I indeed was the minister responsible for responding to the initial lockdowns

from New South Wales closing their border to Victoria and therefore am all too familiar with the

arguments that we put up to establish the border bubble, and indeed that has been enduring for about

12 months now.



The threat to Victorians’ health is predominantly from New South Wales at the moment, and we do

wish them well in their fight against suppressing their cases there, but until that is the case we have to

follow the health advice to protect the people that live here. The Burnet Institute modelling is showing

that our biggest threat to Victoria is from New South Wales, and we will not apologise for taking

measures that can cause inconvenience but are—

The PRESIDENT: Thank you.

Ms SYMES: I am happy to talk to Mr Quilty in detail about this issue.

Mr Davis: On a point of order, President, the Leader of the Government has referred to health

advice regarding the border controls in response to the question. I wonder if she would make that

advice available to the house.

MINISTERS STATEMENTS: VICTORIAN WOMEN IN RESOURCES AWARDS


Resources) (12:05): I would like to take the opportunity to update members regarding some of the

amazing people working in our ever-growing resources sector. I recently had the honour of presenting

the Victorian Women in Resources Awards. Unfortunately it could not be in person, but I did get to

do it in my ugg boots. The awards are a key part of the industry’s approach to celebrate the success of

women and increase female representation at all levels. I am proud to work with the industry on

increasing workforce diversity, and promoting the Victorian Women in Resources Awards is a key

part of this.

Laura Chibnall, director and principal consultant at Ensolve, won the Exceptional Woman in

Resources award. Laura has worked extensively in the exploration and mining industry across

Australia, and she now calls Victoria home and is a great role model for people in this industry. I was

really impressed with the winner of the Exceptional Young Woman in Resources award, Yan Lim,

from Stawell Gold Mines. Her leadership role includes responsibility for the mine’s bioreactor, which

contributes to the company’s rehabilitation activities. She is just a fantastic young woman who I would

love to roll out to speak to kids at school just about the opportunities in resources, because she is a

fantastic advocate.

I certainly could go on and on about the winners and the nominees, but I would take the opportunity

to say well done to all women that are working in this industry. Only 17 per cent of the workforce in

the sector are women, and a lot of them are doing fantastic things. I would love to see more women in

this sector, and with these exceptional leaders I am sure that more women will take up the opportunity

to consider a career pathway into the mining sector.

SWIM SCHOOLS SUPPORT

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:07): My question is to the Minister for Small

Business. Minister, just a few months ago I asked you if you would meet with Pasquale Di Iorio from

Learn to Swim Victoria, which you did, and I thank you for doing so. Your adviser provided

introductions to the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions to assist with business support at the

time. Despite the introductions, DJPR have still not contacted Mr Di Iorio, so my question is: how do

you expect any small business in Victoria to have any confidence in the support that you and the

Andrews government continue to say is there when clearly that support is failing at so many levels?


Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:08): I thank Ms Crozier for her

question. I am pleased that we did not quite get to the end of question time without a question around

small business issues from the coalition. It felt for a while like we were going to. In relation to the

specific request and the specific matter Ms Crozier refers to, as I recall—and it was a couple of months

ago—we resolved that the peak body for swimming lesson organisations would be connected to the

department, because they were not previously. One of their challenges was that their usual, typical



contact with government was less as businesses and more as providers of sport and rec services and

facilities, and so we facilitated a connection between the peak organisation and the department.

Ms Crozier might be aware that in the most recent set of restrictions the easing of indoor exercise

venues occurred at the first instance rather than some weeks later, as has been the case with every other

instance of coming out of restrictions. I am sure that is in no small part due to the advocacy of people

running gyms and swimming lessons and dance classes and yoga studios and the like. They were all

together in a category, and they have now I think demonstrated through my department to the

Department of Health their ability to maintain very good COVID-safe practices, so it was good to see

that recognised in the most recent opening up. Of course all restrictions are based on the best

information and advice that the public health team give the government at the time. Circumstances

change—and they are changing rapidly—and that is why we are providing support.

If Ms Crozier’s constituent is having difficulty accessing any of the business support payments

through rounds 4 or 5—and overwhelmingly these have been automatic payments, but there are some

businesses where there are some discrepancies that are still being worked through—or indeed if they

are perhaps not eligible for some reason or another, then of course we will consider them as we finalise

the guidelines for the Small Business COVID Hardship Fund. But if there are any specific matters and

grant applications that that business is having difficulty with, I might ask Ms Crozier to provide those

details to me and I will follow that up as a matter of urgency for that business.

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:11): Minister, Mr Di Iorio and the business have been

involved for many, many decades, and so they are pretty familiar with the peak body, I would suggest,

so they did not need that connection that you suggested. But there were four specific issues that they

raised with you in that meeting and that your advisers said they would look into. This industry, like so

many, are on their knees. In fact there are instructors leaving the industry to go off and seek other

opportunities, and that is going to put this industry at risk and, importantly, children’s lives will be at

risk because they will not be getting the swim lessons that they require. So I ask: what have you done

to address the four issues specifically raised with you in that meeting that address the decline of the

industry and that will save lives? They were around concessions on taxes on utilities, introducing a

voucher system, financial assistance to provide recognised teacher courses, and there were other

things. Clearly you did not take much on board, because you were unable to answer that peak body,

so I ask: what did you do?


Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:12): I thank Ms Crozier for her

further question. Now, we would not want children’s safety to be at risk, much as we would not want

women’s safety to be at risk, by people being provided with false information about health directions.

I think we are all still waiting for an apology on that.

In relation to my earlier response, I was not connecting Mr Di Iorio with the peak body; I was

connecting the peak body with my department. That has occurred. As is the case in all interactions

with small businesses, their feedback and their suggestions form part of our thinking as we develop

business support programs. For instance, exhibit A perhaps is the most recent business support

package, which is the very first one that we have done for businesses coming out of restrictions in

addition to those supporting businesses going into restrictions, so that is very specifically about

recognising business support costs. I also connected the industry to people in Jobs Victoria to deal

with their workforce shortage issue.

OPEN COURTS LEGISLATION

Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (12:13): My question is to the Attorney-General. The Vincent

review, as it is commonly referred to, was a review of the Open Courts Act 2013 and the way that

Victoria suppresses information pertaining to court proceedings. We are after all often termed the

‘suppression state’. Figures just out today reveal that we are home to more than half of the country’s

suppression orders. The report and its 18 recommendations were handed down in September 2017,



with Premier Andrews saying that 17 of the 18 recommendations from the independent review would

be fully implemented in this term of government. Your government surprisingly remain guarded about

the last recommendation, a Public Interest Monitor or, as I like to refer to it, an open justice advocate.

Attorney, is this commitment to implement 17 of the 18 Vincent review recommendations before the

next election still the government’s current position?


Resources) (12:14): I thank Mr Grimley for his question in relation to the Open Courts Act review—

indeed, as it is termed, one of the Vincent reviews. There have been significant reforms in response to

that report into making our justice system more open and transparent whilst of course safeguarding

the privacy and rights of victims. In relation to your comments in relation to the Public Interest

Monitor, this recommendation was marked as ‘for further consideration’ in the government response

to that review, reflecting that it is a novel and complex recommendation and would create a role for

the Public Interest Monitor not seen in any other Australian jurisdiction and quite separate from the

PIM’s existing functions. The Department of Justice and Community Safety is continuing to consult

on this recommendation about whether it could be implemented, but these issues are certainly not

straightforward.

I am hoping to have more to say in due course, Mr Grimley. In the six months that I have been in this

role I have been very keen on talking about justice issues. The bill that has been introduced into the

lower house today aims to do exactly that, particularly encouraging victims of sexual offending to be

able to talk about that to destigmatise the issue and encourage victims to be able to come forward and

report these issues. So these are important matters. But in relation to this report, Mr Grimley, it has not

been at the top of my priorities in the six months that I have been in the role. However, thank you for

your question, and I will endeavour to provide an update in due course.

Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (12:16): Thank you, Attorney. Last year the government

rectified mistakes it unintentionally made regarding sexual assault survivors being able to name

themselves in the context of being a survivor. Amendments passed in this place that ensured the next

set of Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958 changes in regard to deceased sexual assault victims will

be finalised before the repeal of section 4B. Recommendation 100 of the 2020 Victorian Law Reform

Commission report was further reinforced in case law by Judge McInerney’s decision in Jaime-lee

Page’s case last year. Judge McInerney said Ms Page did not need his permission to name Carol as

naming deceased victims of sexual assault had always been lawful. I understand, according to a media

release this morning on the Judicial Proceedings Reports Amendment Bill 2021, that this establishes

a victim privacy order. Attorney, can you update the chamber on how this bill will conform with our

open justice principles and can you ensure that the latest amendments will ensure that families of

victims will continue to have a voice should they wish it to be heard?


Resources) (12:16): That is a really big question for a 1-minute response, and I am sure we can go

through these issues in great detail when the bill comes to the upper house. The purposes of the

amendments that are going through the Parliament in the next couple of weeks are about enabling

family members to speak openly about their deceased loved ones who have been victims of sexual

assault. I have consulted extensively with families that are great advocates in this space, and it is

heartbreaking that they are in that situation. The bill seeks to balance the interests of those who wish

to speak publicly about these events, as I have said, to destigmatise, to talk about the issues and to

encourage reporting of other victims, but also balancing the interests of those families that may find it

particularly distressing to have those details in the public, which is why there is the victim privacy

order avenue for that small amount of people. But, again, I am very happy to take this offline and have

conversations, and indeed the bill will be in the upper house next sitting week.

CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS


MINISTERS STATEMENTS: SECURE WORK PILOT SCHEME


(12:18): I rise to update the house on steps the Andrews Labor government is taking to improve the

health and safety and economic security of Victorians in casual and insecure work. The pandemic has

brought into sharp focus that we can no longer ignore the risks of insecure work. It is unacceptable

and dangerous that a worker should have to choose between feeding their family and keeping their

workmates and community safe. I am pleased to update the house that beginning next year a new

Australian-first secure work pilot scheme will provide up to five days of sick or carers pay at the

national minimum wage for casual and insecure workers in priority industries. Victorian workers in

sectors with high levels of insecurity, such as aged care, cleaning, hospitality, security and

supermarkets, will be among the first to benefit from the pilot.

The government has already provided more than $141 million in payments to workers throughout the

pandemic who do not have access to sick leave so they can get tested and isolate. This will help to

keep the Victorian community safe by reducing the financial pressure on workers to return to work

when they are unwell and risk spreading illness, but we know that there is so much more that we can

do to support insecure workers. To help shape the design of the secure work pilot scheme, the

government is calling for submissions from workers, industry, unions and the community. I encourage

any Victorian to have their say about the secure work pilot by making their contribution via the Engage

Victoria website.

The PRESIDENT: I see Mr Patrick Boribon in the chamber, and I would like to wish him, on

behalf of all of us, a happy birthday.

WRITTEN RESPONSES

The PRESIDENT (12:20): Regarding questions and answers today, Mr Bourman to the Minister

for Housing, represented by Ms Stitt, both question and supplementary, two days; and Dr Cumming

to the minister for roads, two days, question and supplementary.

Mr O’Donohue: President, on a point of order, in my first question to Minister Symes she failed

to respond to the supplementary question about awarding the contract without tender, and, I would

submit, she failed to answer both the substantive and supplementary to my second question.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr O’Donohue. I was listening very carefully to Ms Symes, and

my understanding is that she did respond to your questions, but I am happy to check Hansard.

Constituency questions

EASTERN VICTORIA REGION

Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (12:21): (1281) Following the notice of motion moved by

Streeton ward councillor Cathrine Burnett-Wake, in recent days the Shire of Yarra Ranges has written

to the Prime Minister and the Premier calling for specific additional support following the storm

damage that caused so much destruction across the Dandenong Ranges in June. As members know

the damage affected the infrastructure of the Dandenong Ranges—the roads and other infrastructure

and telecommunication services—and of course local businesses were not only hit by the storms but

then the shutdown with COVID. So local businesses in the Dandenong Ranges and Yarra Ranges have

had months of very little economic activity. It is clear that the response required is beyond the scope

of the services that the Yarra Ranges shire can provide and that important, critical funding is urgently

needed so that the council can get this infrastructure back on track. The question I have for the Premier

is: will he engage with the Shire of Yarra Ranges in good faith to deal with these issues?



WESTERN VICTORIA REGION

Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (12:22): (1282) My question is for Minister Stitt on behalf of

the Minister for Housing. On my electorate trip recently I heard from a number of councils that were

struggling to overcome the red tape to access the Big Housing Build. It is National Homelessness

Week, so it is only fitting that we highlight that the Big Housing Build has a purpose to reduce

homelessness. However, given regional areas have such low vacancy rates, including just one rental

available in Ararat recently, we are seeing more and more people shifted to the streets or unstable

housing. This problem could be partly fixed by making the Big Housing Build more accessible to

regional Victorian councils, not just metropolitan Melbourne. Can the minister explain what barriers

exist for regional councils such as the Ararat shire, Buloke, Yarriambiack and others in my electorate

in accessing the Big Housing Build to build social housing?

NORTHERN METROPOLITAN REGION

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (12:23): (1283) My constituency question is for the

Minister for Police and Emergency Services. The people of Meadow Heights, in my electorate of

Northern Metropolitan Region, are concerned about hooning and speeding motorists in their

neighbourhood. Recently I invited the Meadow Heights locals to complete my community survey,

and I thank those people who replied to my survey. Meadow Heights is such a diverse and wonderful

community. They have reported several concerns to me regarding pedestrian and child safety near the

local mosque and near the Meadow Heights shops and the neighbouring schools. My question for the

minister is: will the minister commit to extra police patrols in Meadow Heights to better deter hoon

driving near the Meadow Heights shops and surrounding streets, Pascoe Vale Road and Malmsbury

Drive to better protect pedestrians and road users? Meadow Heights residents care for their community

and they want a safer suburb in which to raise their families.

NORTHERN VICTORIA REGION

Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (12:24): (1284) My question is to the Treasurer regarding

place-based initiatives in my electorate to address homelessness. It is National Homelessness Week

and nearly six months since the Legal and Social Issues Committee inquiry into homelessness in

Victoria report was tabled. I look forward to the government’s formal response to this report and

particularly note recommendation 7, which asks the government to prioritise early intervention

initiatives. Place-based models have proven very effective, and I have had productive engagement

with organisations and constituents including Junction Support Services regarding the Wodonga

project and with GOTAFE and Wodonga TAFE as well on their proposed youth foyers. I have

previously written to the Treasurer and met with him about these projects. These projects are shovel

ready, and I ask the Treasurer if he will confirm funding for these important ventures in the next budget

for those constituents in my electorate of Northern Victoria.

NORTHERN VICTORIA REGION

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (12:25): (1285) My question is for the Minister for Education.

On two previous occasions this year I have brought to the minister’s attention the ongoing bullying

and harassment experienced at Greater Shepparton Secondary College by a year 7 student. The

school’s response to the problem was to punish the victim, who was only allowed on school grounds

for 2 hours a day, four days a week, and until 1.00 pm on the other day but confined alone in a

classroom. Upon alerting the minister to this disgraceful action, the minister responded to me that he

had requested regular updates on the situation and the actions undertaken by both the school and the

department in the matter. This undertaking has not improved communication between the school and

the department, with the mother recently informed by the regional office that they had no knowledge

of the punitive action taken by the school against the victim to manage the situation. Will the minister

speak with the mother regarding the issue personally, by phone or by teleconference to ensure the

ongoing bullying of her child ends once and for all?



WESTERN METROPOLITAN REGION

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (12:26): (1286) My question is to the Minister for

Transport Infrastructure from a resident, Anthony Zammit, from Keilor. Will the government

investigate constructing a railway station in Keilor East as part of the Melbourne Airport rail link? The

nearest railway station to the centre of Keilor is either Essendon, a 40-minute bus trip away, or

Watergardens, a 30-minute bus trip away. Using public transport it takes three buses and between 1½

and 2 hours to travel from Keilor Village to the airport. Now as part of the airport rail link it is a great

opportunity for a station to be built near the trestle bridge in Keilor East. This could cater for

commuters in the Keilor, Keilor East, Keilor Park, Niddrie and Avondale Heights areas.

WESTERN METROPOLITAN REGION

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (12:27): (1287) My constituency question is to the Minister for

Roads and Road Safety. Point Cook Road is a disaster area for many thousands of local residents on

a daily basis. It can take an hour or more to travel the length of Point Cook Road during peak hour, a

trip that otherwise takes less than 10 minutes. Point Cook Road has not been improved since the days

when Point Cook was largely populated by sheep in paddocks. Thousands of families now rely on

Point Cook Road to get to work, school, recreation and just about everything else. Point Cook Road

is currently making their lives a misery. Indeed I know some who have sold up and moved because

they could no longer cope with Point Cook Road. Minister, what plans do you have to improve traffic

on Point Cook Road, and when can we expect to see action on this important matter?


Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (12:28): (1288) My constituency question is for the

Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Jacinta Allan. The Shirley Robertson childcare centre, just

behind my electorate office in Brunswick, have had their sunlight badly affected by the Level Crossing

Removal Project. Children need sunlight, while the solar panels they recently acquired will be useless

in the shade. To rectify the issue they need to raise $200 000 to move the panels and the verandas into

the sun. Businesses are eligible for compensation from the LXRP, but the children’s centre was denied.

Will the minister step in to make sure children do not have to play in the dark?

EASTERN VICTORIA REGION

Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (12:29): (1289) My constituency question is for the Minister for

Agriculture. Last October the Andrews government announced that a eucalypt seedling nursery would

be established at Nowa Nowa, with the promise of 30 jobs and commencement, as the government’s

media release stated, ‘in the coming months’. However, I visited the town last week, spoke with

constituents and stood at the proposed site. Clearly there are no works done, there is no removal of the

old infrastructure and there is no sign of the nursery being constructed. So, Minister, is it true that the

former site of the Adams sawmill is actually on Department of Environment, Land, Water and

Planning land, DELWP is refusing to lease the land to the government and therefore you are being

forced to look for another location? And is it then true that you have failed to keep your promise to the

people of Nowa Nowa and create 30 new jobs?


Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (12:30): (1290) My constituency question is for the

Minister for Planning. Salta Properties is planning to redevelop the Preston Market site. Many local

residents have expressed deep concern at the draft plan presented by the Victorian Planning Authority

in recent months, which includes a very high density development—up to 20 storeys high with

2200 apartments—overshadowing the Preston City Oval and completely inappropriate for the

neighbourhood character. Further, no legal guarantee for the continuation of protection of the Preston

Market and its wonderful traders has been secured. Instead, the proposed plan is to demolish 80 per

cent of the market site, losing much of its heritage and open-air atmosphere. Minister, as the final

decision rests with you, will you ensure that the development is an appropriate medium scale and that



no development occurs at the site without a legal agreement with Salta Properties to retain the Preston

Market as an open-air, affordable fresh food market for the lifetime of the development?

SOUTHERN METROPOLITAN REGION

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:30): (1291) My question is to the Minister for

Education, and it relates to the Albert Park College, a vertical school with a large school population in

Albert Park. My question is around the ventilation in the school in the current climate as we are dealing

with COVID. As we know, ventilation has become a big issue. There was an audit commissioned by

the government into isolation wards in hospitals that was never released. They kept that secret. And

as we have so many children that have not had face-to-face learning in Victoria over the last

18 months, it has had a massive impact on their mental health and their ability in their schooling

attainment, so it is a very serious issue. So my question is around the ventilation aspects of the vertical

school, and I would like to ask the minister if he could provide the advice as to the satisfactory aspects

around ventilation in the Albert Park College, as it is a vertical school and we have seen so many issues

with hotel quarantine and other buildings where ventilation has been such a problem.

EASTERN METROPOLITAN REGION

Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:32): (1292) My constituency question is for the Minister for

Transport Infrastructure. When will the government release its plan for the revitalisation of Box Hill

Central? After seven years of heel dragging from this government, who promised to fix the issue years

ago, we are still yet to see any kind of plan for this important precinct right in the heart of Melbourne’s

eastern suburbs. The facilities at Box Hill Central—in particular the rail and bus stations, which are so

well utilised—are under massive strain, and they are not fit for purpose. But there is no plan. How will

any new station with the Suburban Rail Loop integrate with the old station? Will the upgrades being

undertaken by Vicinity Centres be rendered pointless if the whole precinct is to eventually be

demolished? Will the long-mooted redevelopments of the station not take place until stage 1 of the

Suburban Rail Loop is complete, meaning residents could be waiting for another 30 years? Residents

are concerned. I tabled a petition on their behalf in this place just recently. When will we have a plan?

WESTERN VICTORIA REGION

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (12:33): (1293) My question is for the Minister for Roads

and Road Safety. Since entering this place the Lismore-Scarsdale Road has had its speed limit reduced

from 100 kilometres per hour to 80, to 60, and as I drove on it recently I discovered that parts of it

have now been reduced to 40 kilometres per hour. This is not due to accidents or an increased road

toll, I might tell you; it is because there are potholes so deep as to wreck your wheels and even cause

a serious accident. This sort of neglect would never be allowed to happen inside the tram tracks of

Melbourne, so, Minister, why is this acceptable in western Victoria and why should western Victorian

motorists have to wear your total failure in road maintenance? When will the Lismore-Scarsdale Road

be properly and permanently repaired?

Ms Maxwell: On a point of order, President, under standing orders constituency questions require

a response within 14 days. I would just like to outline question 1273, which was due on 8 July;

question 1262, which was due on 7 July; question 1179, which was due on 8 June; question 1163,

which was due on 19 May; question 1109, which was due on 31 March; and question 890, which was

due on 24 November.

The PRESIDENT: There is no requirement to call the minister to follow up these responses for

you, Ms Maxwell. You might have to chase them yourself. I will leave it at this stage.

PETITIONS


Petitions

Following petitions presented to house:

1080 POISON

Legislative Council Electronic Petition

This Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council the

need to prohibit the use of sodium monofluoroacetate (1080) poison.

1080 is an indiscriminate and non-selective, schedule 7 poison which adversely affects the environment and

is potentially dangerous to human beings. 1080 is a chemical of security concern to Australia and is banned

in nearly every country except Australia and New Zealand.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency state that “aerial application of 1080 is banned in the US

due to the extreme hazard to human health and to the environment” whilst the World Health Organisation

defines it as a Class 1A pesticide (extremely hazardous).

1080 is used to kill so called ‘pest’ species such as foxes, pigs, rabbits, cats, deer and ‘wild dogs’. Dingoes

are often erroneously described as “wild dogs” by pest control companies and subsequently killed. 1080 kills

inhumanely by either primary poisoning (eating bait) or secondary poisoning (eating a poisoned animal);

routinely killing non-target and threatened native species and has been used in the deliberate killing of

protected species in agricultural environments.

1080 kills by depriving the cells of oxygen causing farm animals and native wildlife who consume it to die

prolonged and agonising deaths. 1080 causes the heinous death of hundreds of working and pet dogs leaving

their families distraught. There is no antidote.

Viable alternatives include exclusion fencing, fox lights, guard animals, immunocontraception and predator

friendly farming initiatives demonstrated by the Eureka award winning study ‘Team Dingo’ at Evelyn

Downs.

The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council call on the Government to amend the Wildlife

Act 1975, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 and any relevant subordinate legislation to ban the

use of 1080 poison in Victoria on public or private land, and protect dingoes from baiting, trapping, shooting

or any other form of lethal control.

By Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (2491 signatures).

Laid on table.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING


The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council that

the Government has created municipal councils to service the needs of their communities. Despite the rigour

and precision applied in determining councils and their boundaries, substantial geographic, demographic, and

economic differences exist, and will always exist, between them. These inherent structural characteristics

such as population size, population density and community income levels are externally imposed and virtually

beyond Council control.

These factors determine capacity to raise revenue and contain costs (sustainable capacity) and have a

substantial impact on council financial sustainability.

It is widely acknowledged that metropolitan and large regional councils have greater financial capacity to

meet their service needs because they possess the geographic and economic capacities and community income

levels to support them.

Conversely most rural municipalities, particularly the smaller, more remote, rural councils experience the

greatest difficulty in doing so. They have been forced to cope in two ways: by greatly increasing rate levels

of communities less able to afford them, and by reducing service standards because of the much higher costs

they incur to deliver them.

The result is that ratepayers in rural municipalities pay substantially more for properties that are worth

substantially less than their metropolitan counterparts. This is a major economic injustice. Long term,

recurrent grants are required to assist in flattening this imbalance.

BILLS


The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council call on the Government to take action to address

the imbalance in the capacity of rural councils to service the needs of their communities, thereby lessening

the difference in sustainable capacity between rural and metropolitan councils.

By Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (1255 signatures).

Laid on table.

NEWSPAPER DIGITISATION


The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council that

the digitisation of Victorian historical newspapers to Trove is underfunded, limiting the accessibility of

historical newspapers to the public. Greater funding should be made available so more newspapers from

communities all across Victoria can be digitised.

During the COVID-19 lockdown community groups, students, genealogists and researchers were unable to

access the vital information contained in non-digitised newspapers. Digitising more newspapers provides

broader access to information on community heritage, irrespective of time, geographical or physical

constraints. By allocating funds towards digitising historical newspapers, they can be made accessible online.

Funding for digitisation is granted on an individual case-by-case basis, leaving thousands of Victorian

newspapers yet to be funded. In the past, collective funding was available for all communities, however,

financing digitisation of newspapers has become the responsibility of the people in the communities,

disadvantaging those areas with limited funds.

Victoria has more than the equivalent of 10,000 years’ worth of out-of-copyright microfilmed newspapers

yet to be digitised. It would take nearly 180 years to digitise at the process rate of 2018–19, but with reasonable

funding, mass-digitisation can be achieved between 2021–2024. This will allow the first wave of currently

in-copyright newspapers to be freshly digitised in 2025. New South Wales and Western Australia run

programs that support mass-scale digitising of newspapers. Programs like these need to be adopted by the

Victorian Government.

The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council call on the Government to prioritise funding for

Trove digitisation of historical newspapers to ensure that more of Victoria’s heritage and community

information can be searchable and accessible online.

By Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (1266 signatures).

Laid on table.

BREAST SCREENING

TO THE HONOURABLE THE PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

ASSEMBLED IN PARLIAMENT

We, the undersigned Citizens of Victoria, draw to the attention of the Legislative Council that 61,000 eligible

Victorian women who would ordinarily be scheduled for a breast screening have not received it.

Victorians know that preventative measures such as breast screenings are vital and potentially lifesaving.

We therefore request that the Legislative Council call on the Andrews Government and the Minister for

Health to reverse their cuts to delivered breast screening services in Victoria and fully fund the program so all

eligible women have proper access to this essential, life-saving program.

By Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (977 signatures).

Laid on table

Bills

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (STANDARDS) AMENDMENT BILL 2021

Introduction and first reading

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (12:38): I move to introduce a bill for an act to amend the

Members of Parliament (Standards) Act 1978 to prevent members of Parliament from employing

COMMITTEES


family members and other persons in certain positions, to require members of Parliament to reimburse

the state for such employment and for other purposes, and I move:

That the bill be now read a first time.

Motion agreed to.

Read first time.

Dr CUMMING: I move:

That the second reading be made an order of the day for the next day of meeting.

Motion agreed to.

Committees

ECONOMY AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE

Inquiry into the Impact of the COVID‑19 Pandemic on the Tourism and Events Sectors

Mr ERDOGAN (Southern Metropolitan) (12:39): Pursuant to standing order 23.29, I lay on the

table a report from the Economy and Infrastructure Committee on the inquiry into the impact of the

COVID-19 pandemic on the tourism and events sectors, including appendices, extracts of proceedings

and a minority report. I further present transcripts of evidence, and I move:

That the transcripts of evidence lie on the table and the report be published.

Motion agreed to.

Mr ERDOGAN: I move:

That the Council take note of the report.

I am pleased to present the Economy and Infrastructure Committee’s report on the impact of the

COVID-19 pandemic on the tourism and events sectors. It is now 18 months since the first COVID

case was recorded in Australia. We have all been affected in some way by the global pandemic and

the unprecedented challenges it has brought. Victoria’s tourism and events sectors are among the

industries most affected by the impacts of this virus. The tourism industry relies on people being able

to move about freely, and the events sector cannot exist without people being able to come together

safely—both of these have been difficult and at times impossible during this pandemic.

The government-led effort to keep people safe during 2020 meant making significant sacrifices,

particularly for those in the tourism and events sectors. Fortunately the tourism sector in Victoria began

seeing the green shoots of recovery at the beginning of 2021, although it must be noted that the

recovery is not uniform across our state and Melbourne still faces significant challenges. Unfortunately

the events sector is taking longer to recover. Victoria has long been the capital of events in Australia.

A remarkable range of skilled operators and technicians help the economy stay strong and bring joy

not just to Victorians but, as the committee learned, to people across the globe. Just how important

events are can be measured by how much we miss them in our lives. It is a sector we are rightfully

proud of and one that deserves our support. With that support I am convinced that our tourism and

events sectors will bounce back strongly from the global pandemic and thrive once more.

I note that it has been a very difficult inquiry for many people to participate in. On behalf of the

committee, I would like to say thank you to everyone who shared their experiences with us. Your

courage in speaking up was greatly appreciated by every member of the committee. We also heard

inspirational stories of hope from both the tourism and events sectors—businesses and workers who

are determined to keep going. This determination makes me optimistic that the many talented people

we are lucky enough to have in our state, working in collaboration with the government and a public

eager to support them, will see our state recover strongly from the COVID-19 pandemic.

COMMITTEES


During this inquiry the committee had the opportunity to hold public hearings in Bright, Camperdown

and Anglesea. I was very grateful for both the opportunity to hear from witnesses in these regions and

also the opportunity to visit these beautiful parts of our state. Unfortunately our plans to visit Gippsland

and Echuca were disrupted by the pandemic and these hearings ultimately proceeded via

videoconference. I would like to particularly thank the witnesses at those hearings for their flexibility

and cooperation under the circumstances.

In conclusion, I would like to acknowledge the work of my fellow committee members throughout

the inquiry: Lee Tarlamis, Mark Gepp, Wendy Lovell, Rod Barton, Tim Quilty, David Davis, Bev

McArthur, Andy Meddick, Sheena Watt and Melina Bath. Of course there were the expected

differences of opinion, but the whole committee worked diligently and collaboratively within the short

time frame of this reference. Thank you also to the staff of the Economy and Infrastructure Committee

secretariat: Christianne Andonovski, Cat Smith, Katie Helme, Holly McLean, Alice Petrie and of

course Patrick O’Brien. I would also like to thank my office staff, Chris Jervis and Amo Chakravarthy,

for their support. It is a strong report and makes very important findings and recommendations for all

levels of government to consider. I commend the report to this Parliament.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:43): I am pleased to rise and

make a contribution on this inquiry into the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the tourism and

events sectors and to particularly congratulate the committee secretariat for what has been a very

difficult and challenging inquiry in very short order. It truly was a crisis for both sectors and that

continues, and I think that we should mark that and note that the secretariat responded to that

significant challenge with hearings in a wide number of places with a number of different sectors.

I also note the generally collaborative way that the committee worked, although there were points of

difference and I want to note those significantly. The findings around the events sector are significant.

The events sector has been misunderstood by government, I think it is fair to say, and not treated

appropriately, and I think that is absolutely critical. As Mr Erdogan also said, in terms of the tourism

sector there have been incentives put in place and support in some areas, but they are not truthfully

adequate as yet, particularly in central Melbourne, which has suffered particularly severely. You know,

you only need to take a walk out the front of this building today to see the significant impact on so

many small businesses.

Now, it is also true that state government support has been inadequate in a number of other ways. The

business support money has not been sufficient. Sole traders, particularly in the events sector, have

been really smashed, and the support groups in the tourism sector have not been supported adequately

by government. We are particularly concerned that the chief health officer again would not provide

health information, particularly as it related to the public events framework and the background

briefings that are behind many of the orders that related to that order and many of the other things that

have closed down both tourism and events. That is a cover-up. It is wrong. We have said so in the

minority report. I also note the public events framework has significant tables attached in that report.

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (12:45): I rise to speak on the committee report from the inquiry

into the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the tourism and events sectors. I would also like to

thank the secretariat for their hard work, which has been done over a very short period of time to

produce a very substantial report. I would also like to thank the tourism and events sectors in Victoria

for participating in this inquiry. They gave freely of their time because this is such an important issue

for them.

We heard strongly from the tourism and events sectors that they have been particularly impacted by

the effects of Labor’s long lockdowns here in Victoria. They have felt deserted by the government.

There was very little in the way of business support. In fact, as Mr Davis said, business support has

been completely inadequate in this state. For the events sector in particular the costs of establishing

large events only to have them cancelled within hours of them beginning or even in the middle of them

has been particularly hard on that sector, and they have been unable to get insurance through

COMMITTEES


mainstream insurers. They do need support from this government and for the government to come up

with an insurance scheme that will assist them to have the confidence to plan events in this state.

In my own electorate we heard about the effects of the border closures on border towns and the tourism

there. We heard from the tourism sector in Bright and the effects of not being able to keep staff because

of the lockdowns and people returning overseas and also the effect that the lack of affordable rental

properties in country Victoria is having on our tourism and events sectors in the regional areas. This

has been a very interesting report. I totally support the minority report, and I would encourage the

government to not only look at the recommendations that are in the main report but also at the minority

report.

Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (12:47): I too rise to speak on the inquiry into the impact of the

COVID-19 pandemic on the tourism and events sectors. I also want to thank the committee secretariat,

who did an outstanding job in very, very difficult times. There were times when we had to be very

nimble and very agile in terms of the inquiry and holding particular hearings, and they did a

magnificent job, as did the chair of the committee, and should be commended for their fantastic work.

Of course all praise must be given to the people who came before the committee and outlined some of

the challenges that they are experiencing right across the tourism and events sectors. I do not think

there is any part of our economy that has not been touched during the pandemic and will continue to

be challenged over the months—and let us hope it is only months—ahead. Some of the bigger

challenges of course that people pointed to were staffing, and Ms Lovell just touched on that briefly

in her contribution. But that was a theme that came through again and again and again wherever we

went, either in online meetings or when we were visiting particular parts of Victoria. We did not

manage to get up to northern Victoria. We had some hearings planned, but unfortunately events

transpired to prevent us doing so. But we heard again and again and again from many in both the

tourism and events sectors that staffing is a problem and that the insecure nature, the seasonal nature,

of the sectors present them with challenges in a normal setting but will continue to present challenges

for them moving ahead. I too want to thank everybody who came before the committee and gave of

their time and shared their experiences with passion, with emotion. It was always heartfelt and very

well directed.

Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (12:50): I rise to make mention of the inquiry into the impact of the

COVID-19 pandemic on the tourism and events sectors, and I do this through the lens of my own

electorate, Eastern Victoria Region, and certainly thank all those individuals and organisations that

contributed submissions and also to the inquiry.

If we look specifically at East Gippsland, we know that that most beautiful region has been so terribly

hit over time—first drought, then the fires of 2019–20 and then the flow-on effect of the lockdown of

the state of Victoria in terms of the COVID pandemic. I would like to sincerely thank Destination

Gippsland, Captains Cove and the Paynesville Business and Tourism Association for coming to the

inquiry via Zoom and Walhalla’s Star Hotel, Latrobe city councillor Darren Howe and the South

Gippsland Shire Council for all providing very worthwhile input into this inquiry. I know a number of

their contributions are incorporated into the bulk of the report.

Very much so in our region tourism is a driver and it is a very important area, but also so are those

events sectors that were absolutely smashed because of the COVID pandemic and the lockdown of

Victoria. Those people have been on their knees and continue to struggle to survive, and it is absolutely

of the utmost importance that this government focuses on them, pays attention to them and supports

them to get back up with their skyrockets, with their lovely events, to bring community together. I

thank the inquiry. I was a participating member and certainly really felt that there were some

worthwhile contributions.

PAPERS


Mr TARLAMIS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (12:52): I also rise to make a contribution on the

Economy and Infrastructure Committee’s report on the inquiry into the impact of the COVID-19

pandemic on the tourism and events sectors. I also want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the

unprecedented challenges that the events and tourism sectors have endured and continue to endure as

a result of this pandemic. No-one can dispute the fact that it has been and continues to be extremely

challenging for them.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all those who either wrote a submission or took the time to

come and present to the public hearings, to come along and talk to us. I think the passion and the

determination with which they came and poured their hearts out to us was inspiring and educative and

taught us a lot about the circumstances that they were going through. I think it certainly changed the

perceptions of a lot of the people who may have gone into those hearings with predetermined ideas

about what they thought were the circumstances. We did hear a lot about a lot of the issues that were

pre-existing prior to COVID that had been exacerbated because of COVID. They had been

longstanding issues that had been around but they had only been made worse by this pandemic, and

we heard about how we need to look at ways in which we can address those. We also heard, in addition

to the challenges and difficulties that many of these businesses were facing, stories of inspiration, hope,

perseverance and innovation, and we cannot lose sight of those sorts of things because we need to

harness those opportunities as well and look at how we take those forward and build on those also.

This report is very comprehensive. There are 26 findings and 22 recommendations, which are very

important. I encourage people to read those and look at how they can take us forward in terms of

assisting these sectors going forward to make improvements to the system as we come out of this

pandemic. I would also like to thank my committee members, led by the chair, Mr Erdogan, for the

fantastic job they did and of course the secretariat, without whom we would be lost. It was very difficult

to conduct this inquiry under the circumstances with the pandemic, but they did an amazing job, as

they always do, aiding us and assisting us. I thank them for all the work that they did.

Motion agreed to.

SCRUTINY OF ACTS AND REGULATIONS COMMITTEE

Alert Digest No. 9

Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (12:54): Pursuant to section 35 of the Parliamentary Committees

Act 2003, I lay on the table Alert Digest No. 9 of 2021 from the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations

Committee, including appendices. I move:

That the report be published.

Motion agreed to.

Papers

OMBUDSMAN

Annual Plan 2021–22

The Clerk: Pursuant to section 24C(4)(c) of the Ombudsman Act 1973, and following the

transmission of the report on 1 July 2021, I lay on the table a copy of the Ombudsman’s Annual Plan

2021–22.

Investigation into Good Practice when Conducting Prison Disciplinary Hearings

The Clerk: Pursuant to section 25AA(4)(c) of the Ombudsman Act 1973, and following the

transmission of the report on 7 July 2021, I lay on the table a copy of the Ombudsman’s report

Investigation into Good Practice when Conducting Prison Disciplinary Hearings.

COMMITTEES


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

16th Report to Parliament on the State of Emergency

The Clerk: Pursuant to section 198(8B)(b) of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, and

following the transmission of the report on 9 July 2021, I lay on the table a copy of the 16th Report to

Parliament on the State of Emergency.

OMBUDSMAN

Councils and Complaints: A Good Practice Guide

The Clerk: Pursuant to section 25AA(4)(c) of the Ombudsman Act 1973, and following the

transmission of the report on 22 July 2021, I lay on the table a copy of the Ombudsman’s report

Councils and Complaints: A Good Practice Guide, second edition.

Committees

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES COMMITTEE

Inquiry into the Victorian Government’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic

The Clerk: Pursuant to section 36(2) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003, and following

the transmission of the report on 2 August 2021, I lay on the table a copy of the government response

to the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee’s final report on the inquiry into the Victorian

government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Papers

PAPERS

Tabled by Clerk:

Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978—

Ministerial Order of 9 May 2021 giving approval to the granting of a licence at Alexandra Gardens Reserve.

Ministerial Order of 1 June 2021 giving approval to the granting of a licence at Alexandra Gardens Reserve.

Ministerial Order of 1 June 2021 giving approval to the granting of a licence at Alexandra Park Reserve.

Ministerial Order of 3 June 2021 giving approval to the granting of a lease at Sandringham Beach Park

Reserve.

Education and Care Services National Law Act 2010—Education and Care Services National Amendment

Regulations 2021, under section 303 of the Act.

Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984—Notices under section 32(3) in relation to—

Environment Reference Standard (Gazette No. G26, 1 July 2021).

Statutory Rule No. 47 (Gazette No. G26, 1 July 2021).

Melbourne Cricket Ground Trust—Report year ended 31 March 2021.

National Parks Act 1975—Minister’s notice of consent of 11 July 2021 to undertake petroleum operations

within Port Campbell National Park, under section 40 of the Act.

Planning and Environment Act 1987—Notices of Approval of the following amendments to planning

schemes—

Alpine Planning Scheme—Amendment C61.

Alpine, Ararat, Baw Baw, Benalla, Buloke, Central Goldfields, Colac Otway, Corangamite, East

Gippsland, Gannawarra, Golden Plains, Greater Shepparton, Hepburn, Latrobe, Moira, Moorabool,

Mount Alexander, Murrindindi, Northern Grampians, Strathbogie, Swan Hill and Yarriambiack

Planning Schemes—Amendment GC161.

Ararat Planning Scheme—Amendment C45.

Bass Coast Planning Scheme—Amendments C157 and C160.

Benalla Planning Scheme—Amendment C32.

PAPERS


Boroondara Planning Scheme—Amendment C356.

Brimbank Planning Scheme—Amendment C211.

Cardinia Planning Scheme—Amendment C272.

Casey Planning Scheme—Amendments C269 and C282.

Colac Otway Planning Scheme—Amendments C90 and C109.

Colac Otway, Golden Plains, and Moonee Valley Planning Schemes—Amendment GC191.

Glen Eira Planning Scheme—Amendments C225 and C226.

Golden Plains Planning Scheme—Amendments C83 and C96.

Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme—Amendment C255.

Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme—Amendment C227.

Greater Geelong Planning Scheme—Amendments C363, C409 and C423.

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme—Amendment C218.

Hindmarsh Planning Scheme—Amendment C17.

Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme—Amendment C127.

Horsham Planning Scheme—Amendment C80.

Kingston Planning Scheme—Amendment C190.

Knox Planning Scheme—Amendment C190.

Mansfield Planning Scheme—Amendment C43.

Maribyrnong Planning Scheme—Amendment C167.

Maroondah Planning Scheme—Amendment C145.

Melbourne Planning Scheme—Amendment C412.

Melton Planning Scheme—Amendments C210 and C225.

Mitchell Planning Scheme—Amendments C145 and C159.

Moira Planning Scheme—Amendment C90.

Monash Planning Scheme—Amendment C159.

Moonee Valley Planning Scheme—Amendments C202, C205 and C221.

Moorabool Planning Scheme—Amendment C92.

Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme—Amendments C237, C255 and C279.

Nillumbik Planning Scheme—Amendments C135 and C136.

Port of Melbourne Planning Scheme—Amendment C3.

Port Phillip Planning Scheme—Amendment C162.

Victoria Planning Provisions—Amendment VC203.

Wangaratta Planning Scheme—Amendment C78.

Warrnambool Planning Scheme—Amendment C208.

Whitehorse Planning Scheme—Amendment C235.

Wodonga Planning Scheme—Amendment C133.

Wyndham Planning Scheme—Amendment C259.

Yarra Planning Scheme—Amendments C290 and C292.

Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme—Amendment C189.

Statutory Rules under the following Acts of Parliament—

Agricultural Industry Development Act 1990—No. 57.

Building Act 1993—Nos. 72 and 73.

Child Wellbeing and Safety Act 2005—No. 62.

Children, Youth and Families Act 2005—No. 90.

Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987—No. 91.

PAPERS


Corporations (Ancillary Provisions) Act 2001—No. 80.

Country Fire Authority Act 1958—No. 86.

Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978—No. 64.

Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995—No. 63.

Environment Protection Act 1970—No. 59.

Environment Protection Act 2017—Nos. 60, 82, 83 and 92.

Forests Act 1958—No. 65.

Funerals Act 2006—No. 77.

Juries Act 2000—No. 81.

Land Act 1958—No. 66.

Local Government Act 1989—No. 71.

Local Government Act 2020—Nos. 69 and 70.

Magistrates’ Court Act 1989—No. 89.

Marine Safety Act 2010—Nos. 78 and 79.

National Parks Act 1975—No. 67.

Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004—Nos. 88 and 93.

Professional Engineers Registration Act 2019—No. 58.

Road Safety Act 1986—No. 75.

Service Victoria Act 2018—No. 84.

Subordinate Legislation Act 1994—No. 61.

Tobacco Act 1987—No. 85.

Transfer of Land Act 1958—No. 74.

Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983—No. 87.

Wildlife Act 1975—No. 68.

Zero and Low Emission Vehicle Distance-based Charge Act 2021—No. 76.

Subordinate Legislation Act 1994—

Documents under section 15 in respect of Statutory Rule Nos. 53, 55, 57, 58, 62, 64 to 71, 74, 75, 78,

79, 81, 84 to 86, 88 to 91 and 93.

Legislative instruments and related documents under section 16B in respect of—

Environment Protection Act 2017—

EPA Designation—classification of agricultural and veterinary chemical waste for the

purposes of the ChemClear program of 28 May 2021.

EPA Designation—classification of architectural and decorative waste paint for the purposes

of the Paintback stewardship scheme of 9 June 2021.

EPA Designation—classification of arsenic-contaminated waste from the City of Greater

Bendigo of 9 June 2021.

EPA Designation—classification of pharmaceutical waste for the purposes of the return

unwanted medicines (RUM) project of 28 May 2021.

EPA Determination—discharges or emissions to the atmosphere from prescribed activities of

28 May 2021.

EPA Determination—discharges to land or surface water from prescribed activities of 28 May

2021.

EPA Determination—exemption from requirement to hold permission—temporary storage

and containment of waste oils, paints and chemicals generated at another site at a council

transfer station of 28 May 2021.

EPA Determination—permission exemption for modifications to a sewage treatment plant of

28 May 2021.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


EPA Determination—Specifications Acceptable to the Authority for receiving fill material of

9 June 2021.

EPA Determination—Specifications Acceptable to the Authority for receiving processed

organics of 9 June 2021.

EPA Determination—Specifications acceptable to the Authority for Receiving Recycled

Aggregates of 9 June 2021.

EPA Determination—Specifications for receiving livestock manure and effluent of 9 June 2021.

Minister’s Interim Order of 24 June 2021 for Amendment of the Trading Rules for Declared Water

Systems (Revised Goulburn to Murray Trade Rule), under the Water Act 1989.

Minister’s Order of 28 June 2021 on the Advanced Metering Infrastructure (Retail and Network

Tariffs) Order 2021, under the National Electricity (Victoria) Act 2005.

Minister’s Order of 23 June 2021 remaking of the Child Safe Standards, under the Child Wellbeing

and Safety Act 2005.

Victorian Independent Remuneration Tribunal and Improving Parliamentary Standards Act 2019—Members

of Parliament (Victoria) Annual Adjustment Determination 2021, under section 26 of the Act.

Wrongs Act 1958—Notice of scale of fees and costs for referrals of medical questions to medical panels

under part VBA (Gazette No. S339, 28 June 2021).

Proclamations of the Governor in Council fixing operative dates in respect of the following acts:

Marine Safety Amendment (Better Boating Fund) Act 2020—Whole Act—1 July 2021 (Gazette No. S347,

29 June 2021).

Mutual Recognition (Victoria) Amendment Act 2021—Whole Act—1 July 2021 (Gazette No. S346, 29 June

2021).

Planning and Environment Amendment Act 2021—Remaining Provisions—7 July 2021 (Gazette No. S372,

6 July 2021).

Business of the house

NOTICES

Notices of motion given.

Notices of intention to make a statement given.

Motions

GENERAL BUSINESS

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (13:08): I move, by leave:

That precedence be given to the following general business on Wednesday, 4 August 2021:

(1) order of the day made this day, second reading of the Members of Parliament (Standards) Amendment

Bill 2021;

(2) the notice of motion given this day by Mr Davis referring a matter relating to polling contracts to the

Ombudsman;

(3) the notice of motion given this day by Mr O’Donohue on Crown Casino;

(4) order of the day 1, resumption of debate on the second reading of the Public Health and Wellbeing

Amendment (Greater Transparency and Accountability) Bill 2021; and

(5) the notice of motion given this day by Ms Patten on sessional orders to make changes to the

commencement of sitting day proceedings.

Motion agreed to.

PAPERS


Papers

COMMERCIAL PASSENGER VEHICLES VICTORIA

Fare Monitoring Report

Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (13:09): I move, by leave:

That there be laid before this house a copy of the Commercial Passenger Vehicles Victoria Fare Monitoring

Report, 2019–20.

Motion agreed to.

Members statements

HONG KONG RESIDENT VISA APPLICATIONS

Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (13:09): I want to congratulate the federal Morrison

coalition government for its recent action to fast-track visa applications for Hong Kong residents. As

co-chair of the Victorian Parliamentary Friends of Hong Kong, it is particularly pleasing to hear this

welcome news which offsets somewhat the disappointment of having to again postpone this week’s

planned visit to Parliament by Mr Ted Hui, a hero and Hong Kong democratic freedom fighter who

first escaped into exile in the UK. However, with the assistance of the federal government, he now

resides safely in South Australia with his family. I particularly acknowledge the work of Senator James

Paterson, chair of the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, for his continued advocacy on

behalf of Hong Kongers for Australia to open up a range of migration avenues for people of Hong

Kong. Hong Kongers who find themselves oppressed under the dictatorial weight of the Chinese

Communist Party, with their previously enshrined democratic rights and freedoms now denied, are

seeking safe sanctuary in democratically friendly nations, including Australia, the UK, Canada and

the US.

Hong Kongers, renowned for their entrepreneurship and business skills and belief in democratic

values, have much to offer Australia, particularly in terms of new business investment and potential

jobs growth. The Victorian government and the Parliament should support the commonwealth in the

introduction of any proposed Magnitsky legislation to take action against individuals or entities who

have been complicit in assisting the Chinese Communist Party in its abuse of human rights. As part of

the support for such legislation, the Victorian government should proactively boycott any such

identified individuals or corporations in any business dealings. The ruthless application of the national

security law to extinguish the voice of dissent in Hong Kong is an absolute disgrace.

NAIDOC WEEK

Ms WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (13:11): In early July we celebrated NAIDOC Week, a chance

to celebrate the history, culture and achievements of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples,

and for me it was an opportunity to visit some important groups in the Northern Metropolitan Region

and to celebrate the fantastic work they do in supporting the community. There was no better way to

start NAIDOC Week than celebrating with a visit to Clothing the Gaps. Laura and the team have

launched the Shades of Deadly campaign, celebrating the diversity within Aboriginal communities

and looking at our connection to culture, land and peoples that shape us and our identity.

I then dropped into the Victorian Aboriginal Health Service up in Epping to meet with my good friend

Michael Graham and see firsthand the great work their clinics do for mob. The rate of vaccination for

Indigenous peoples in Victoria is the highest in the country. It is fantastic and is in no small part due

to organisations such as VAHS and their hardworking teams.

I was also lucky enough to join the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Gabrielle Williams, and the

member for Thomastown, Bronwyn Halfpenny, to celebrate the upgrades this government has made

to the Bubup Wilam child and family centre. It is a truly special place that enables the social,

emotional, educational and cultural wellbeing of our young ones. And of course what better way to

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


finish NAIDOC week than watching the mighty Ash Barty do us all proud at Wimbledon by bringing

home the win in the ladies singles. It was just deadly. So, happy NAIDOC.

COVID-19

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (13:12): Freedom is precious and easily lost. A few weeks to

flatten the curve has grown into ongoing government control and regular lockdowns. We have had

police checkpoints and been asked to report our neighbours. Protest has been made illegal, and

ordinary behaviour has been criminalised. We become more of a police state every day. But there is

finally light at the end of the tunnel: vaccines are slowly becoming available, and increasingly people

have reached the limit of what they will tolerate. One way or another COVID control will end soon.

We have had enough time to deal with COVID—more than enough, more than was ever expected.

The Liberal Democrats are calling for a day of freedom. On this day lockdowns would end.

Restrictions would be removed, mask mandates would be lifted and we would be allowed to go back

to life as normal—COVID or no COVID. Freedom day is the deadline that puts the government on

notice to get the vaccine supply sorted and find a way to move on. It is also a deadline for the vaccine

hesitant to get their shots or make a choice to live with, and die with, the risks of the disease. Freedom

day cannot depend on vaccination targets. They just enable vaccine hesitancy. Once everyone has had

a chance and made a choice to get their shot or not, this must end. We have chosen Melbourne Cup

Day, 2 November, as the day to set this deadline. But forcing governments to set a deadline is more

important than picking the day. It is time to tell governments we have had enough. It is time to end the

lockdowns and restore our freedom. It is time for freedom day.

AUNTY GERALDINE ATKINSON

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (13:14): I rise to express my concern at the appalling treatment

of highly respected Aboriginal elder Aunty Geraldine Atkinson by Victorian Greens senator Lidia

Thorpe in a recent meeting in Canberra, as reported in the Age on 29 June. Geraldine is chair of the

First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria and met with the senator in this capacity to discuss Victoria’s

treaty process. The verbal attack by Senator Thorpe left Geraldine in such a state that she needed

medical attention from a nurse at Parliament House, who believed Geraldine was suffering trauma

following the meeting.

Geraldine Atkinson is a wonderful Victorian and a passionate and respected leader for all Aboriginal

Victorians. For many years Geraldine has worked tirelessly for her people, particularly in increasing

the opportunities available for the Aboriginal community through education in Victoria. She has done

so with grace, humility and respect and was inducted into the Victorian Aboriginal Honour Roll in

2018. As co-chair of the First Peoples’ Assembly, Geraldine is leading this elected body in

representing Aboriginal people on the road to treaty.

Senator Thorpe’s contribution to improving the lives of Aboriginal Victorians pales in comparison to

Geraldine’s work delivered over many decades. As a result of the senator’s behaviour on this occasion,

Geraldine forwarded a letter of complaint to the Senate President and the Leader of the Greens seeking

a formal apology from Senator Thorpe. Senator Thorpe should unreservedly apologise to Geraldine

immediately, and I call on the leader of the Victorian Greens, Samantha Ratnam, to denounce the

actions of her party colleague— (Time expired)

COVID-19

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher

Education) (13:16): Barwon Heads has shown how a local community can pull together to help each

other through the challenges of COVID-19. This small Bellarine village, best known as a holiday

destination, showed us the best of community spirit. When a family contracted COVID-19, many

primary school students, a junior footy side and their families had to isolate to protect themselves and

their community. This of course had an impact on this small and vibrant village, but the people of

Barwon Heads organised themselves as only small and close-knit communities can, from good-

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


spirited patients queueing up at the pop-up testing site through to supporting all the families isolating.

People came to the fore to support those in isolation by shopping, delivering food and even dog

walking. Feed Me Bellarine played a key role in providing food, and they were supported by many

Bellarine businesses. A special shout-out goes to the Barwon Heads Football and Netball Club

members, led by president Tim Goddard, who ran a virtual Friday night pie night one week and a fish

and chip night the next, funded by local donations. People also prepared hampers of food and goods

for the family who contracted COVID.

I am just so impressed by this family. With one family member still in hospital, they are doing their

best to inform everyone just what COVID-19 is like. They are urging everyone to get vaccinated and

would like to thank the public health teams for their dedication and fantastic work. We wish all the

affected families— (Time expired)

CAMPING REGULATION

Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (13:17): Labor has backed down on camping on river frontages to

instigate 25 pilot sites along licensed river frontages. However, farmers, traditional owners and

Landcare groups have the right to be part of this planning of the 25 sites. Stakeholders deserve to have

input in relation to selection criteria, who and how camping sites will be monitored, what resources

will be allocated and the monitoring and enforcement of these sites.

The Andrews government has admitted it failed to provide any additional funding in the state budget

this year for the monitoring and enforcement of these camping regulations. On top of that the Minister

for Energy, Environment and Climate Change has cut 15 per cent from the environment and

biodiversity budget. The government has no plan to support the 10 000 farmers who hold licences to

manage the land and who cannot get adequate insurance to cover the increases in pollution, fire risk

and biosecurity hazards relating to these new laws. They are rightly concerned about the irrevocable

damage to waterways and the environment. Farmers, traditional owners and landowners deserve to be

part of the decision-making process on these pilot sites, and with only a few weeks until 1 September

I call on the Andrews government to delay the start of camping on river frontages until there is proper

consultation in relation to these 25 pilot sites.

PUBLIC HOUSING

Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (13:19): Last week I was invited by Dr Catherine Cumming

to spend a few hours looking over the 750 or so houses owned by the state government in Braybrook.

I thank Dr Cumming for the invitation to see these publicly owned homes and learn about the area. I

was quite shocked to see how many of these houses were either vacant or in a state of serious disrepair.

We came across many homes that were just boarded up, with overgrown gardens and dumped rubbish

and some in what appeared to be terminal stages of neglect.

Now, everyone agrees we need more public housing and better public housing, and I am left

wondering why the government is completely ignoring the potential to renovate or even rebuild these

dilapidated properties to current-day standards and create more housing stock. It seems a no-brainer.

Given the scarcity of public housing, we should be using these valuable assets instead of selling them

off to developers. This part of Braybrook is close to accessible transport and infrastructure. I join

Dr Cumming’s call to revitalise the area, repair these houses and re-use these vacant properties for

their original purpose—low-cost public housing.

EASTERN METROPOLITAN REGION COMMUNITY ORGANISATIONS

Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (13:20): This winter break has been very busy out in my

electorate, where I have been meeting with community leaders and organisations. I met with Stacey

and Kim from the St Kilda Gatehouse, who run the young women’s project. This program works with

young women between the ages of 12 and 25 who are at risk of sexual exploitation. This is such

important work. I also met with Pauline and Lydia from the Park Orchards community house. Not

only do they offer child care but they also offer TAFE training courses, pre-accredited training and

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


free art, craft and exercise workshops. I learned that many community members enrol in courses and

enrol their children at the child care at the same time. These are wraparound services at their best. This

past Friday I visited Box Hill Community Information and Support. This is a volunteer-led

organisation that provides emergency relief to those in need. They provide groceries, supermarket

vouchers, premade meals and bills assistance. I learned that when JobKeeper was in place last year,

they had a reduced demand for their services. Since the commonwealth removed JobKeeper, demand

has risen once again. These organisations are often not seen for the work they do, yet without them

our community would be at a loss. Thank you for the selfless work you do.


Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (13:22): Since the last sitting of the Parliament the Premier, as

we know, has returned from sick leave. Now, he immediately gave millions of Victorians hope that

he had changed by announcing that lockdowns would be from here on in only used as a last resort. All

very well and good, we thought, but he had Victoria back in lockdown within days—yet another Labor

lie. Little wonder that people in this state have such a low opinion of their government. It is a bit like

when the then Leader of the Opposition said before the 2014 election that the ripping up of the east–

west link contract would cost taxpayers not a cent; $1.3 billion later we discovered what an expensive

lie that was. The same opposition leader at the time told us that an Andrews Labor government would

introduce no new or extra taxes. Well, that whopper has cost Victorians a fortune. At that time

Mr Andrews was promising a $550 million western distributor publicly, while at the same time he was

negotiating privately the current West Gate Tunnel debacle with his shonky mates at Transurban.

Victorians have well and truly had enough. They are entitled to have had enough. We have all had

enough. Victorians have had enough of a dishonest and entirely dishonourable Andrews Labor

government.

COVID-19

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (13:23): As Victoria emerges from the latest COVID

outbreak, I want to thank all of our frontline workers, from our healthcare workers to our contact

tracers, our teachers, those working to ensure access to food and other essential services and so many

more for supporting the rest of us. As the pandemic resurges across the world, we have been reminded

over the last few weeks that we remain vulnerable until we achieve high levels of vaccination. So

while the movement in and out of restrictions remains likely, it is becoming more and more important

that we ensure that Victorians are able to access the support they need in these difficult times.

The Greens have been concerned that renters continue to miss out on ongoing support despite many

losing work during the last lockdown while not being able to access rent relief support or being

safeguarded by a moratorium on evictions. We have seen the federal government fail to justify why

things like JobSeeker and JobKeeper cannot be accessed now despite being available when we faced

the same conditions last year. The same goes for the Victorian government when it comes to residential

renters. In fact with many people now having exhausted their savings and any personal safety nets

they had, the need for rental support is even more crucial if we are going to prevent people from losing

their homes and becoming homeless.

Unfortunately we have seen more and more people missing out on crucial support because of the

fraught state of national leadership across the country, with states often pitted against each other and

states and the federal government more often than not at odds with each other. We need politics of

care and compassion now more than ever if we are going to get through this pandemic. We need

constructiveness and we need collaboration, and that begins right here.

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (13:25): Victoria’s early childhood education and care services

are facing a dire workforce crisis. Currently the government—quite rightly, because it is bereft of its

own ideas—is seeking ideas from the sector and, wow, has it got some. Submissions are flooding in

BILLS


from a whole variety of different groups, and they are all clear that currently we face a crisis and the

government must finally act. I have with me the submission from the peak body, the Early Learning

Association Australia, and it is damning. It says there is an urgency for action, that members are

regularly reporting that they cannot fill vacant positions and that if a staff member feels ill there are

many cases in which rooms and/or whole services have to close.

We already knew that under Labor participation in kinder fell from 98 per cent under the coalition to

only 89 per cent—the most precipitous fall in the entire country. COVID has made matters worse. In

the document submitted to the government from the peak body there is discussion of priority

vaccinations for teachers and educators in the early childhood sector, and I think that is a proposition

worth considering. For early childhood educators, it is about respect. So often throughout the pandemic

people have thanked health workers—we have heard it today—and teachers, quite rightly; I used to

be a teacher. What about the thanks and the gratitude for kindergarten teachers and other teachers and

educators in the early childhood sector, which has remained open throughout the whole pandemic?

Why don’t we give them priority access to vaccines?

HOMELESSNESS WEEK

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (13:27): This week is Homelessness Week.

Homelessness is not just not having a roof over your head; homelessness means missing any of the

elements that represent home and elements that many of us take for granted, such as a sense of stability,

security, privacy, safety or a living space that you can control. Homelessness can be sleeping rough or

just couch surfing. The last census found that approximately 24 800 Victorians were homeless. Of

these, at least 1100 were sleeping rough, and that is considered to be an underestimate. Nearly half

have mental health issues, two-thirds are male, one-third have problematic drug or alcohol use issues

and nearly a quarter have experienced domestic violence. This year’s theme is ‘Everybody needs a

home’. Homelessness Week aims to raise awareness of the impact of homelessness in Australia

through national and local community events, by providing information on the importance of housing

as a solution and by educating communities on how they can make a difference. We all need to play

our part in breaking the cycle of homelessness in Victoria, and I hope the government takes their part

in breaking the cycle.

Sitting suspended 1.28 pm until 2.04 pm.

Bills

ENERGY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (ENERGY FAIRNESS) BILL 2021

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Mr LEANE:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (14:04): The bill before the house this

afternoon gives me another opportunity to talk about what has been and what continues to be an

absolute debacle for this government and regrettably a debacle for the state of Victoria, and that is

energy policy over the last six years, because we have seen over that period of time a suite of policy

positions taken by this government which has turned this state from one which enjoyed cheap, reliable

and stable energy, both electricity and gas, to one which has some of the most expensive energy in

Australia, some of the most expensive energy at times in the world, a lack of stable supply and a lack

of reliability. That, regrettably, we have seen in the electricity market in this state where the power

goes out in summer and where power supply is now unstable because we have had this government

seeking firstly to destroy the traditional energy source in this state in the Latrobe Valley with the

shutdown of generators, with policy positions which have made the ongoing operation of generators

down there unviable, and substituting a range of random renewable sources throughout the state, which

BILLS


have had the effect of destabilising the grid and creating a whole raft of issues for the management of

electricity supply in this state.

And now of course we are seeing it with gas. We have the energy market operator reporting on the

looming shortage of gas for Victoria—the rapidly looming shortage of gas—so within two to three

years we will be seeing gas shortages in Victoria in the winter peak and electricity shortages in the

summer peak. So as the legacy of six years of this government’s approach to energy we have seen the

destruction of the energy sector in the Latrobe Valley, which I suppose can be added to the destruction

of the timber industry in Gippsland by this government; we are seeing lack of reliability in electricity

supply, particularly through summer peaks; and we are going to see a lack of reliability of gas supply

through the winter peaks. So it is not surprising that we have yet more legislation coming forward

today which is going to do more harm to Victoria in a different way, because the bill that is before the

house today is a piece of legislation that arises from an ALP thought bubble. It is something that was

taken to the election in 2018 under the title of ‘Labor’s energy fairness plan’—the usual spin, the usual

posturing leading up to an election—and what we now have is the government attempting to create

some sort of framework for what was a thought bubble leading into the election. Of course it is

reflected in the title of the bill, which is the Energy Legislation Amendment (Energy Fairness)

Bill 2021.

The basic premise of this bill is that energy retailers are evil and that consumers need additional

protections from them. The problem is when you unpack this bill and what it claims to be doing you

in fact find that there are already consumer protections in place in respect of the relationship between

energy retailers and energy consumers, and those protections and those mechanisms have not actually

been engaged—they have not actually been used—yet we have a bill before the house now which is

seeking to in some cases dramatically increase penalties where existing penalties have not even been

used and action has not even been taken under the existing framework. Most significantly we have the

thought bubble from the government of seeking to outlaw door-to-door sales activity on energy—

electricity and gas; it affects both acts—and outlaw telemarketing sales of energy, ignoring the fact

that this is going to have a very significant impact on employment in Victoria. The latest estimate from

the Australian Energy Council is that it will see around 1000 people—typically low-paid people who

are working in call centres, who are working door-to-door selling energy products—lose their jobs. At

a time when tens of thousands of Victorians have lost their jobs and tens of thousands of Victorian

businesses have been destroyed by the actions and decisions of this government we are going to see

that compounded by this government’s decision to try and legislate its thought bubble election

commitment from 2018.

So there are four elements to what is a relatively short bill which seeks to firstly introduce a prohibition

on save and win-back offers. This provision seeks to prevent an energy retailer that has been notified

that a customer has decided to transfer their energy supply, their gas or electricity, to another retailer

from subsequently contacting and making a new offer to the departing customer. The retailer will be

able to obviously continue with billing and end-of-account activities, but under this provision they will

not be able to make an unsolicited approach to their departing customer with a better offer to entice

them to stay with their old retailer.

The second key provision of the bill seeks to address what the government refers to as high-pressure

sales tactics, and this is the issue of door-to-door sales, it is the issue of telemarketing sales. The bill

introduces a prohibition on those sales techniques, notwithstanding the fact that that is going to lead

to the loss of at least 1000 jobs in the current environment—that is in the COVID environment—with

estimates of up to 6000 people involved in those activities pre COVID. So the employment impact of

this bill is going to be very significant, and the government has not justified through the second-reading

speech or elsewhere why these measures are needed. We are not seeing through the Energy and Water

Ombudsman Victoria figures that suggest door-to-door sales activities or telephone sales activities are

creating vast problems for Victorian consumers. Victorian consumers—all Victorian consumers no

doubt—hear from door-to-door salespeople, hear from telemarketing people in particular, around

BILLS


energy products weekly in many cases, but there is no evidence that that has led to a vast problem for

energy consumers that would require this government to legislate to abolish these jobs, to knock

1000 people out of work at a time when pressure on employment, pressure on jobs, is very, very

significant.

The third element of the bill is to create what the bill describes, what the government describes, as an

offence of knowingly or recklessly arranging the wrongful disconnection of energy customers for

operators who knowingly or recklessly disconnect or arrange a disconnection of a household in a way

that endangers a customer who is on life support equipment. Of course under the existing regulatory

requirements retailers are required to keep registers of customers who have life support equipment,

and obviously they are not subject to disconnection—and should not be subject to disconnection—

that other customers may be.

Now, the bill creates this new offence of knowingly or recklessly arranging a wrongful disconnection

without providing any parameters around what ‘knowingly’ or ‘recklessly’ is in this context. It seeks

to dramatically increase the penalties—and this was the headline of the government: ‘We’re going to

increase penalties to $1 million for retailers that incorrectly disconnect a customer’—without having

any regard to the fact that there are already provisions in legislation which prevent wrongful

disconnection and that those provisions have not been used. The Essential Services Commission

already has the power to take action on retailers that wrongfully disconnect, and they have not done

so. In fact my advice is that the only way in which the Essential Services Commission becomes aware

of wrongful disconnection is retailers self-reporting to the ESC, and the ESC has not elected to take

action against retailers for wrongful disconnections. Wrongful disconnections are a very, very small

number in the context of the millions of consumers who are customers of gas and electricity retailers

in this state. So there is already a mechanism. It has not been used, but in order to deliver on the thought

bubble, the election commitment, we are now seeing a new expanded offence introduced with a

penalty of $1 million. It looked good in the press release—completely ridiculous to be introducing it

when there is already a framework that has not been given appropriate effect to.

The fourth element of the bill relates to criminalisation and providing false or misleading information

to the Essential Services Commission as the regulator of energy and gas retailers in Victoria. So what

we have with this bill is basically a government wanting to be seen to be doing something. The

Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change has made it very clear she does not support

the structure of the energy industry in Victoria. She has made that very clear through her

pronouncements over the period of time she has been energy minister, constantly seeking to undermine

the structure we have in Victoria—a structure which, I might add, has worked very effectively for

Victoria, as indeed have the east coast energy and gas markets worked for other states. As a

consequence of this minister and her apathy towards the energy structure we have had in Victoria for

25 years, we have seen increasing regulation imposed in Victoria—not in other states—which makes

it harder for retailers to operate in Victoria and makes it more difficult for energy suppliers to operate

in Victoria. And as a consequence, as I said at the outset, we have an energy market in Victoria now

which is in the worst state it has been for more than 25 years. It is unreliable, it is unstable and it is

costly—all things which were never an attribute of the Victorian energy market prior to the

interference of this government from 2014. I mean, we have a government that does not understand

the difference between generation and storage. It does not understand the most basic fundamentals of

the energy market and of the energy system and what is required, and that is why we have seen this

government support and push the random introduction of renewables all over the state in places where

their input to the grid is inefficient and their input to the grid is destabilising the grid.

We now have the need for the new western Victoria distributor, and I am sure Mrs McArthur will

speak about that: a project which is causing enormous disquiet through the Western District for

farmers, for landowners—even for airports. I have been in contact with a number of people in the

aviation industry who are concerned about the impact that project is going to have, particularly in the

Melton area, where that connector is proposed to come to Melbourne. And that is only required as a

BILLS


consequence of this government’s distorted approach to managing energy supply in Victoria with, as

I said, the random addition of solar and the random addition of wind capacity into a grid which was

not designed to be operated in the way this government has now sought to upset it.

So we believe this bill is badly conceived. We believe what the government claims it is trying to do

with consumer protection is going to do more harm than good in terms of eliminating those jobs in

direct door-to-door sales, eliminating those jobs in telesales of energy products without delivering any

benefit beyond that which currently exists in the consumer protection framework for consumers of

energy retailers. So the position of the coalition is that we will oppose this bill when it gets to the

second reading. We will also, if it moves beyond the second reading, seek to amend it, and I would

ask that those amendments be circulated, please.

Opposition amendments circulated by Mr RICH-PHILLIPS pursuant to standing orders.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: We will seek to amend this bill if it gets to the committee stage because

this bill is nothing more than the government seeking to deliver on a press release, on a thought bubble.

It reminds me of the TV series Yes Minister, where the proposition is put: ‘The government must do

something. This is something. Therefore we must do this’. And that is what we have before us today:

the government thinks it must do something, or commit to doing something, about consumer

protection. It came up with this. Therefore it must do this. Our view is that this mechanism will do

more harm than good, and if the government believes there is need for additional consumer protection,

there are other ways to deliver on consumer protection without putting 1000 Victorians out of jobs at

a critical time in this state’s history, at a critical time with the state’s economy.

So if the bill gets to committee, we will seek to move a set of amendments, which basically have three

purposes. They will omit the government’s ban on door-to-door sales and ban on telesales of gas and

electricity products, and they will seek to provide three other mechanisms to increase consumer

protections. The first is to provide that no person engaged in telemarketing or door-to-door sales of

energy products can be remunerated on a commission basis. It removes any incentive for a person

going door-to-door or a person on the telephone to hard-pressure a would-be customer, because there

is no commission incentive there. They can only be paid on the basis of a fixed rate, fixed

remuneration, not sales-based, incentivised remunerations.

The next provision would require that contracts that are put in place by retailers from door-to-door

sales or telesales must be lodged with the Essential Services Commission and must be approved by

the Essential Services Commission. So only contracts that have ESC approval could be used in door-

to-door or telesales provisions. This gets around any concern that unfair contracts are being put in

place or unfair terms and conditions are being forced on consumers when they are dealing with

unsolicited approaches from electricity retailers, because the only contracts which would be able to be

used would be those which had been signed off by the Essential Services Commission.

The third aspect of the amendments would require that any retailer undertaking unsolicited sales door

to door or via telesales would be required to be a member of a peak body approved by the commission,

a peak body of representing retailers engaged in door-to-door activity and telesales activity which has

the approval of the Essential Services Commission. There are bodies that exist now. Many of these

retailers are already members of them, and they have codes of practice which they require their

members to adhere to.

We believe if, as the government maintains, it is necessary to strengthen consumer protections for

consumers in relation to energy retailers, there are ways to do it without destroying 1000 jobs in the

Victorian community. Prohibiting commission sales, requiring contracts to be approved before they

can be used on unsolicited sales and requiring retailers to be members of peak industry bodies that

oversee and have codes of practice for retailers are better ways to provide consumer protection than

simply prohibiting door-to-door sales and prohibiting telesales, which will kill at least 1000 jobs in the

COVID environment and would have killed 6000 jobs in the pre-COVID environment. This is not the

BILLS


time for the government to be passing legislation which abolishes 1000 jobs. This is bad legislation. I

would urge the house to oppose it, and if it does pass, I would urge the house to support our

amendments, which would not destroy jobs and which would provide additional consumer protection,

which the government claims is needed.

Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (14:23): It is with great pleasure I rise to support the Energy

Legislation Amendment (Energy Fairness) Bill 2021. Energy is the basis for all things, and in

particular electricity and gas energy supply are essential services for our households, for industry and

for business. Access to reliable, sustainable and affordable energy supply is indeed vital to the health

and wellbeing of all Victorians and the Victorian economy.

In 2014 when we came to government energy prices were already out of control and opaque marketing

and pricing practices by retailers left many people confused. The privatisation introduced beforehand

was not delivering any of the benefits that the previous Kennett government had promised when they

sold off energy assets in the 1990s. Victorian electricity retail charges were amongst the highest in the

world and all of the benefits of privatisation supposedly for competition actually were accruing to

large energy companies rather than to households and businesses. Indeed I quote some statistics here:

over the four years from the fourth quarter of 2010 to the third quarter of 2014 the price of energy had

risen 34 per cent, well above the CPI. So when we came to government in 2014 we committed to

fixing the energy market, the retail market, by shifting the balance of power from the large energy

companies to those in favour of the households, and we have delivered on that commitment.

As a first step we commissioned the independent review into the electricity and gas retail markets in

Victoria to examine how the market was operating and to deliver recommendations for making energy

fairer and easier to understand. The review, which was completed and released in August 2017,

concluded that ‘the competitive energy market in Victoria is not delivering outcomes in the best

interests of consumers’. So in particular and specifically the review also identified three big issues that

were creating poor outcomes for our customers and for our businesses. Number one, so-called

competition, instead of helping, actually was increasing rather than decreasing the prices. The retailers

were pouring huge amounts of money into marketing and customer retention, including brokerage

services and so-called comparator sites. Those costs were then passed on to our consumers.

The number two finding of the review stated that even though the number of retailers had increased

following full deregulation, nevertheless, the three largest energy companies still held a combined

market of more than 60 per cent in electricity and 70 per cent of the market in gas, hardly the

competition deregulation intended. So those three big companies holding the majority of the market

in electricity and gas are also vertically integrated in the sense that they hold not only the distribution

but also the generation assets. In doing so they had a distinct advantage in the market, and not

surprisingly they also had the highest retail charges in the market. Finally, opaque pricing and

deliberately confusing marketing campaigns made it very difficult for energy users to distinguish

between a good deal and a not-so-good deal, and as a result many were being charged a lot more than

was necessary for their energy in the form of electricity and gas.

Our government supported every single one of the recommendations, so let me briefly go to what we

have done as a government. To address the recommendations of the review and also to deliver real

benefits to the energy user we committed to delivering the energy fairness plan ahead of the last

election in 2018. The energy fairness plan will deliver the biggest regulatory shake-up of the energy

sector in Victoria’s history and shift the power back into the hands of Victorians rather than the big

retailers. Since 2018 we have implemented a number of key programs and reforms that have worked

to empower energy users, to increase competition and to crack down on dodgy practices from energy

retailers.

Specifically we introduced the Victorian default offer as the centrepiece of the energy fairness plan.

The Victorian default offer, VDO, provides a simple-to-understand, reliable energy offer that the

consumer can understand and trust. We implemented the payment difficulty framework to offer

BILLS


assistance to customers who are struggling to pay their bills. We developed the Victorian Energy

Compare website so that people can have a truly independent comparison of all the offers out there in

the market. I have to admit I myself have used that website. It is worth noting that over 3 million

Victorians have accessed the site, and of those, seven out of 10—70 per cent—have saved money.

Typically annual household savings on energy bills in the first year alone were up to $330 per year.

Also we introduced for people an incentive, the $50 power saving bonus, so that people can visit the

website and do the comparison for themselves. Altogether $128 million was spent on the $50 power

saving bonus.

We also extended the power saving bonus further by providing a one-off $250 payment to vulnerable

Victorians to provide immediate bill relief to people who are eligible: concession card holders and

those receiving JobSeeker and also the JobKeeper that was available last year. Altogether we have

received 200 000 applications and paid $40 million to those who need it most. Also we are reaching

further out to more people, because not everyone has internet access. We have partnered with six

community organisations to help people to apply either over the phone or in person, particularly in the

CALD community. The $250 power saving bonus was announced as part of the unprecedented

$1.6 billion energy package that was announced in November last year for the 2020–21 state budget.

In addition to the $120 million that I just mentioned for the power saving bonus, the household energy

saving package also includes $335 million to deliver new energy-efficient heating and cooling for low-

income households and $112 million for energy efficiency upgrades for 35 000 social housing homes.

We have already provided further support in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, with $3.7 million

for initiatives to connect Victorians with energy bill hardship support during that difficult and

challenging time.

I will just briefly go to what the bill components are. It has three main components. First, it bans win-

back and save offers to customers. Those are the tactics. Why do the big companies not offer their best

offer in the first place and only give those lower, supposedly better, offers once the customer is leaving

them for a better offer elsewhere? The problem is that the offers that the companies try to lure

customers back with are most likely to be very short-term and in fact in the long run cost more for the

consumer. Also the big retailers use these tactics to stifle competition by preventing smaller retailers

from gaining any foothold in the market. It is in fact anti-competitive behaviour.

Secondly, the bill bans retailers from selling energy retail plans door to door and from cold calling.

These are usually very high pressure tactics and confusing and put customers, mostly vulnerable

people, into contracts that they more often than not do not understand and that have a longer

commitment in terms of time.

Thirdly, the bill also seeks to provide rights to protection against wrongful disconnection, with

maximum criminal penalties of up to $1 million for the worst kinds of wrongful disconnection. I take

as an example some statistics here. Under the previous Liberal government, disconnections more than

doubled. In 2009–10 there were 29 959, nearly 30 000, residential electricity and gas disconnections.

By 2013–14 that figure had risen to nearly double, or 58 000.

In the last few minutes, I will urge the house to support the bill because it is important to protect the

customers and the consumers, and we need the right rules in place to ensure that large companies do

not take advantage of customers and do not have the power to stifle competition in the market. This

bill further balances the market in favour of the energy consumers and places more downward pressure

on energy prices. It is a continuation of our success and underlines the value of fairness that only a

Labor government could and can deliver and our commitment to reform Victoria’s retail energy

market by placing customers’ needs at the centre of policy and at the centre of practice.

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (14:37): I rise today to contribute to this debate on the

Energy Legislation Amendment (Energy Fairness) Bill 2021, which the government has chosen to

term the ‘energy fairness’ bill. The element which particularly interests me is the ban on door-to-door

BILLS


sales and telemarketing activity contained in clause 5, in the case of the electricity industry, and in

clause 19, in the case of gas.

As usual with this government, political spin does not begin and end with media manipulation; it

makes its way into the legislation which comes before us in this place. It is the same recipe each time.

First you take some laudable policy aims and write them into a bill. You reference the odd manifesto

pledge and give the bill a catchy title, the sort of title no-one could object to. In this case it is the energy

fairness bill. How could anyone oppose the energy fairness bill? But as ever, the devil is in the detail.

In this case we have the unjustified destruction of a whole industry slipped in. It is just like the Change

or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020, which was designed to portray

opponents of overreaching and deeply illiberal state regulation as supporters of hideous, barbaric and

already illegal conversion practices. Today opponents of this bill’s attack on business will doubtless

be characterised as objecting to energy fairness. It is nonsense of course and deeply regrettable. But

you can see why they do it. It is poor government but good politics. Yet again, the Premier and his

party are showing they care more about appearance than reality and about short-term headlines, not

the long-term good of Victoria.

Now, I have no objection to prohibiting high-pressure sales tactics. Deciding on the outcome before

properly consulting a customer is unprincipled. Choosing selective examples and evidence is

unscrupulous. Using misleading language is unethical. Pressuring others from a position of strength is

immoral, and failing to respond to legitimate complaints is just plain wrong. But who is doing this?

The regrettable activities I listed there are not the actions of some dodgy door-to-door salesman ripping

off customers but the approach taken by this government in this legislation.

The outcome was prejudiced, the evidence limited and contradictory, the consultation non-existent,

the notice period paltry. This is not high-pressure sales, it is high-pressure policy. It is a deeply unfair

bill which uses a sledgehammer to crack a nut and in so doing will restrict legitimate business,

discourage competition, limit consumer choice and wipe out the livelihoods of more than

1000 Victorians. The energy fairness bill does not just highlight ministers’ Qdos-informed

preoccupation with polling and media spin or its political wedge inspired manipulation of legislation;

it shows us yet again, as if our COVID experiences are not enough, that the Andrews government will

only ever trust top-down regulation or outright bans and will never believe that individuals or

businesses could do the right thing. It is not just deeply illiberal and frankly insulting, it is also unjust.

The evidence shows that the existing situation, with its balance of appropriate regulation and

responsibility from business, works. Complaints are not high; in fact they have been reducing for years.

Regulation is not non-existent; it performs effectively. We already have Australian Consumer Law,

which prohibits unfair, misleading and unconscionable conduct. We have rules on cooling-off periods,

restrictions on times during which consumers can be contacted and ‘Do not knock’ stickers. As the

final arbiter we have the energy and water ombudsman. Energy retailers are already required by law

to be members of this binding mediation scheme. Frankly there is no reason it could not perform this

function or be enabled to perform this function. Instead we are banning an entire industry. As the

opposition amendments make clear, an alternative is possible—one which would not disadvantage the

25 per cent of customers who currently switch to new energy plans because of door-to-door sales or

telemarketing and one which would not harm consumer choice or hurt smaller entrants to the energy

market who do not have vast sales departments and who are forced to rely on marketing companies to

gain customers in their early years.

Self-regulation is possible as part of the solution; indeed it is already effective. I commend the work

of Sales Assured in this regard, a not-for-profit organisation which works with companies in the sector

to ensure best practice in direct marketing by its members to their consumers. Members must comply

with stringent standards of training, assessment and discipline. New employees are assessed for

suitability and undertake appropriate criminal record checks. A complaints mechanism exists, and

those who do not comply are deregistered. In the view of industry operators, it is because of schemes

BILLS


like this that the number of complaints about the sector is far from disproportionate and certainly not

requiring a total ban.

I would like to finish here with some quotes from Andrew Dennis, director of Prism Group, whom I

have corresponded with recently. As a sales and marketing company, Prism specialises in direct sales.

Companies come to them to market their products face to face or over the phone. Andrew makes a

number of incredibly important points:

What we do as a marketing company is only take on good clients who have excellent track records of

compliance. Compliance is everything to us. It’s how you get more business.

He says:

We understand that direct sales better than anyone, our priority is always our customers making sure they get

the best deals and that our clients look after them.

He explained in some detail to me the process they go through, which includes a verification process

where an appointment at a later date, generally about three days after, is booked for salesmen to go

back to see the customers. In this way a customer can easily cancel any visit or call if they do not wish

to be involved. He added:

They then have a 10 day cooling off period, even better than that if a customer wants to cancel after that we

allow them to as we don’t want someone signing up to something they don’t want.

This is a responsible business, performing an important role, and yet with almost no notice and

effectively at the stroke of the minister’s pen he and his 48 employees will be out of work. It is no

surprise that Andrew and others consider this a huge injustice. As he said:

What gets me is that no one from the labour government will speak to us, they wont come and visit our

operation, yet they will make decisions on our business.

…

What are we meant to do if we are forced to close? We have lease etc bills and responsibility’s because we

have always followed the law.

I urge the house therefore to listen to this plea and to the interests of more than 1000 others whose

livelihoods could be destroyed by this pointless, disproportionate legislation. I believe the coalition

amendments find a much better balance, protecting consumers more effectively and allowing this

important industry to continue to exist.

Finally, and diverging slightly from this argument, I want to return to the very beginning, to the

minister’s second-reading speech. She said:

Energy is an essential service. Access to a reliable, sustainable, and affordable energy supply is vital to the

health and wellbeing of all Victorians.

I could not agree more. I entirely support the need to expand electricity generation, particularly given

the accelerated closure of baseload power plants in the Latrobe Valley, largely caused by significantly

increased royalties. I am technology agnostic: I support all forms of energy generation. But it is the

transmission aspect which worries me most. The minister says that:

… energy supply is vital to the health and wellbeing of all Victorians.

Yet in the case of the Western Victoria Transmission Network Project she appears to have no regard

whatsoever for that health and wellbeing. This 190-kilometre line with towers the height of MCG

lights will cut a swathe through prime farming land, sensitive ecological habitats, fire-prone

environments, a community-established important biolink, pristine state forest and residential

neighbourhoods. Not only that, the firefighting community will be unable to do their job, because the

transmission line is intended to cross a reservoir which provides the water for the firefighting

volunteers—once again, typical of this government, no real engagement or consultation and total

disregard for all the stakeholder concerns. And now the fire at the Victorian Big Battery at Moorabool

BILLS


casts further doubt on the minister’s intentions and abilities. If she really wants to ensure access to a

reliable, sustainable and affordable energy supply, as she claims to do in this bill, she should look first

to energy generation, storage and transmission, not to regulating out of existence viable and legitimate

businesses which add to consumer choice and employ many hundreds of honest and hardworking

Victorians.

Ms WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (14:49): I am proud to speak in support of this bill, a bill that

I think might fly under the radar for some, but it is a really important step in helping low-income and

vulnerable Victorians. When Labor came into government in 2014 what we saw was an energy market

that was simply out of control, an energy market that had been allowed to let rip on consumers by

those opposite and opaque marketing and pricing practices by energy retailers that simply left

consumers confused. Back in the 1990s the Kennett government promised massive benefits when they

privatised and sold off our energy assets. When we entered government—granted, well before my

time in this place—the energy market was benefiting big energy companies while ripping off and

failing consumers. Those opposite, when they were in government, allowed this to happen. We

promised that we would make it right and we would make it fair so that Victorians would have the

power rather than large energy companies. We have delivered on that commitment, and this bill is

another step in doing so. We commissioned the independent review into the electricity and gas retail

markets in Victoria to deliver us recommendations on how to make the market fairer. We got

11 recommendations and we supported every single one, and that is how the energy fairness plan came

to be—a real plan to deliver real change, a plan that makes the energy market easier to navigate, better

for families and fairer for all.

I spent much of my career before entering Parliament working with low-income and vulnerable

Victorians and dealing with the cost of living. Indeed I have visited a lot of low-income households in

my time. When I was working in the not-for-profit sector, I was helping people who were out of work

find employment. I have had so many conversations with people in tight situations where they have

had to choose between paying the energy bills and eating or paying the energy bills and sending their

kids on school camp. These are the sacrifices that get made every day in this state. So very many of

the financial anxieties that families face stem from the rising cost of energy. We are in the middle of

winter, and I know that there are so many in the Northern Metropolitan Region—those on the pension,

those in public and social housing, those on low incomes—who are wondering how they will stay

warm, who are wondering how they will be able to pay for their next bill or who are wondering how

they will keep their elderly family members warm and safe this winter. This bill will make it so much

easier for so many people. While this delivers the final elements of the energy fairness plan, it is worth

looking at the important steps that have taken place so far to help the Victorian community with their

energy bills.

Now, I was reading through Hansard, as one does, looking through discussions that took place on gas

and emissions. What concerned me most was contributions made by some members with a distinct

lack of understanding of how low-income and vulnerable households need to be brought along in the

transition to renewable energies—declarations that we need to simply turn off the gas and ignore the

challenges experienced every day by low-income Victorians. There are so many people out there that

would love to upgrade to more energy-efficient appliances and to reduce their reliance on old gas

appliances. It saves them power and it saves them money. Appliances that give off less emissions and

use less power are not just good for the environment, they are good for households and household

budgets. But changing appliances is not cheap, so upgrading to modern, more energy-efficient heaters

and coolers is out of reach for far too many.

The Andrews Labor government has delivered the largest household energy-efficiency package in any

state’s history, with $335 million invested to replace old wood, gas and electric heaters with new

energy-efficient systems that are not only cheaper to run but also make a significant difference in

reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. On top of this is our $112 million investment for 35 000 social

housing tenants to also take advantage of this policy. This policy is sometimes overlooked and unseen,

BILLS


but it is so, so very important. The considered, measured removal of gas from our energy mix is

needed, but it also has to be inclusive and fair for all Victorians, and this Labor government is not

leaving anyone behind.

I want to take a moment to talk about the $250 power saving bonus, another really important initiative

from this government to make our energy system just that little bit fairer and just that little bit easier

for Victorians experiencing vulnerability. Last year during the global pandemic 20 per cent of

Victorian households requested financial assistance with their energy bills. We know energy bills are

a top cost-of-living issue for Victorians, and the power saving bonus removes some of the pressures

that so many families are facing now. I know the kind of difference that $250 can make, so recently I

reached out and got in touch with some residents in my region, in the Northern Metropolitan Region,

and let them know about this power saving bonus of $250 and how they could access it. Every single

person that I talked to during that time was so excited to hear about the funds that they could receive,

and many told me what a difference it would make for them, their families and their future.

There was one really lovely family that I talked to. They lived in Brunswick with their kids. Like

everyone at home more often than not last year, they found their power bills had unfortunately gone

up and it was making it really difficult for them to make ends meet. They talked about the difference

that this is going to make for them. They can keep the heater on a little more this winter and maybe

have some fun activities during the school holidays, and I know there are so many other stories like

this that I could share today. Already there have been 200 000 applicants for the program, with already

more than $40 million in the hands of those who need it most. This is another example of a real

difference that this Labor government is making in people’s lives, because when we talk about fairness

we truly mean it.

We have also introduced the Victorian default offer. It gives a simple, easy-to-understand energy offer

that Victorians can trust. This price is set by us; it is not set by big energy companies. It puts the power

back in the hands of Victorians. Then of course there is the Victorian Energy Compare website. Now,

I talked at length about this earlier this year. I went on the Energy Compare website during 2020 when

I was a worker on JobKeeper. This site allowed me and others to see if I had the best energy product

in my home. With both the Energy Compare website and the Victorian default offer, it is now much

easier for Victorian families to find this information from a trusted source. They can turn to an

independent fact-based source to find out what is really best for their family and their budget.

What we see here is a government with a strong and consistent commitment to energy fairness. It is in

no small part due to the hard work of my good friend in the other place, Minister Lily D’Ambrosio,

Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change and Minister for Solar Homes. She is a very

hardworking minister who has recently outlined a very bold plan to tackle climate change, a plan that

is leading the country but also the world, and she is making sure that every Victorian is a part of our

transition to renewable energy. This work, the energy fairness plan, is helping working people,

especially those with low incomes and vulnerable Victorians, and is making a real difference. This is

true leadership—leadership from Minister D’Ambrosio and leadership from the Andrews Labor

government. This bill is an important step in this work, and I am very, very proud to stand up here and

speak to it.

There are three key parts to this bill. Firstly, it will ban win-back and save offers to consumers. We

have all been there. We have all seen it. We shop around for a better deal, a better offer on our power,

and we find one and then, bam, all of a sudden our current provider pops up with an even better

discount, an even better offer, something to entice us back. Some of us see through it, some of us not

so much. Of course it is just a coincidence that these providers were able to offer a discounted price

magically when we found a better offer. The problem is that most of the time these offers are short

term. Consumers will end up paying more in the long run. It is sneaky, it is anti-competitive and we

do not like it. Now companies will be more likely to offer their best deal up-front, empowering

consumers and tilting the field back in their favour.

BILLS


Secondly, this bill bans retailers from selling energy retail plans door to door and bans cold calling by

those providers also. Too many Victorians have been taken advantage of by coercive, misleading and

unsolicited door-to-door salespeople and telemarketers who sign them up for what turns out to be a

more expensive electricity offer. Sometimes, often, this happens directly after going to commercially

operated compare websites. We know that vulnerable households are particularly susceptible to these

high-pressure sales tactics, and so that is why we are stamping it out.

Thirdly, this bill seeks to provide greater protection against wrongful disconnections by introducing

higher civil penalties as well as criminal offences with maximum penalties of $1 million for the worse

kinds of wrongful disconnections. Similarly, a $1 million maximum criminal penalty will apply to

retailers who provide false or misleading information to the Essential Services Commission. These

new penalties send a very clear signal to retailers: if you do the wrong thing, you will pay a huge price.

One of the most significant impacts that this bill has as part of the energy fairness plan is a reduction

in power prices for Victorians. This plan, as well as the government’s support for renewable energy

and innovative technology, is driving our prices down. In the first quarter of this year the wholesale

price in Victoria was at a record low, at $27 per megawatt hour. This is impressive, and more so when

you consider that in New South Wales it sits at $39 per megawatt hour and in Queensland at $45 per

megawatt hour. That wholesale power price is the lowest we have seen anywhere in the nation,

anywhere in the national electricity market since 2012. We know that this will make a difference in

the everyday lives of Victorians, and it has not always been this way. When those opposite were in

government, electricity prices were out of control, rising 34.1 per cent over the four years—a massive

indictment on the time the Liberals were last in government.

This massive saving for Victorians makes a real difference. Our energy fairness plan has delivered

lower prices and is a testament to the renewable energy program that this government is implementing.

We are investing record amounts in renewable energy because, as Minister D’Ambrosio and this

Labor government know, talk is cheap but only Labor governments deliver. We do not just talk about

climate change and renewables; we invest the money to get it done. Between June 2019 and the end

of last year 1.6 gigawatts of large-scale renewables were connected or beginning commissioning, more

than any other state. We have got the Solar Homes program, connecting record levels of residential

solar. There have been 100 000 solar home installations, and the program is well on its way to

700 000 installations over the life of the program. All of this new capacity entering the grid is driving

prices down, and it is a big win for Victorian families.

Our energy fairness plan has also delivered for those who struggle the most with their energy bills.

Under the previous Liberal government, disconnections more than doubled. In 2009–10 there were

29 959 residential electricity and gas disconnections. By 2013–14 that figure had risen to 58 503. That

meant that there were more people without electricity and power to their fridges or gas to warm their

homes in winter. We know what this means. It means that there were thousands of Victorian families

that were without power to power their fridges or warm their homes in winter. Vulnerable and low-

income Victorians were left to fend for themselves as the market ran rampant. Our energy fairness

plan has helped to halve disconnections. We have spoken to so, so many people—even before I came

to this place, I had—who were struggling with paying the bills. We understand that the energy market

does not magically work in favour of Victorians. We have to put the rules in place to protect Victorians

from large energy companies through our energy fairness plan. This bill furthers this work, balancing

the market in favour of energy consumers and places more downward pressure on energy prices. This

Labor government is making the system fairer and making the system easier on Victorian families and

households. I commend this bill.

Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (15:03): I rise to make a contribution on the Energy

Legislation Amendment (Energy Fairness) Bill 2021. The bill we are discussing here in this place

today essentially does three things. It bans energy retailers from engaging in door-to-door sales of

energy products or cold calling, it also bans save and win-back offers and finally it creates an offence

and penalties for energy retailers who wrongfully disconnect Victorians.

BILLS


I will say on the surface the bill seems great. The wording and language used by the energy minister

make it seem as though it will be helping vulnerable Victorians and protecting them from the big bad

energy bogeyman, but when you look behind this rhetoric you quickly realise that this simply is not

the case. We met with a company called Sales Assured. They are a not-for-profit who engage with the

energy sector, among others, to support them in their compliance of sales activity when engaging in

door-to-door sales and cold calling. Sales agents who are engaged with Sales Assured are held

accountable for their behaviour and disciplined for breaching the standards prescribed by them. Their

framework provides a first barrier to misbehaviour. Their disciplinary framework catches breaches.

Sales agents who breach the standards can be deregistered for five years, and this is an incredible

deterrent for bad behaviour.

Nationally since 2012 over 43 000 sales agents have been engaged primarily by the energy sector, and

in this time only 425 agents have been deregistered. The market already heavily self-regulates and has

a compliance framework to ensure ethical and lawful interactions. Australian Consumer Law already

provides significant consumer protections, including prescribing permitted hours for unsolicited sales

activity and cooling-off provisions in addition to bans on false and misleading conduct,

unconscionable conduct and unfair contract terms. The government will lead you to believe that this

ban is to protect Victorian households from being taken advantage of. Well, I would liken it more to

the government treating its citizens like children who cannot make their own decisions and need their

big daddy government to make decisions for them.

Consumers already have an avenue to avoid door-to-door and cold-calling activity—using ‘Do not

knock’ stickers, which are honoured by the energy sector and have ramifications for breaching, along

with the Do Not Call Register, where consumers can opt out of unsolicited telemarketing activity. I

am told by Sales Assured that they believe a blanket ban of door-to-door sales and cold calling for

domestic customers is disproportionate and will dramatically reduce the engagement by many

consumers in the energy market—a sledgehammer instead of a scalpel. It would not be the first time

I have stood in this place and called the government’s actions disproportionate, and I am sure it will

not be the last. There has been a steady drop-off of complaints made to the energy ombudsman about

marketing activities in the past nine years. This is clear when looking at the number of complaints to

the ombudsman, which surpassed 2500 per annum in 2010–11, down to about 500 complaints from

2014–15, which held steady around this number until 2018–19, which is the most up-to-date data that

we could get our hands on.

The impact that this section of the legislation will have on competition in the market is estimated to be

quite negative. There are always unintended consequences when governments intervene. The

government would like to believe that this legislation will actually increase competition in the market.

However, the removal of door-to-door sales and cold call tactics and channels will inevitably make it

more difficult for small and new retailers to gain new customers. Direct marketing is the most effective

way that smaller and new retailers can take their product to the market. It is often these key retailers

who drive competition and deliver innovative services and product offers. These retailers do not have

the budget to undertake traditional advertising, such as television and radio ads, and instead rely on

direct channels.

Effective communication between providers is essential to drive positive outcomes for consumers,

especially in the areas of price and service. A reduction in market competition creates a risk that

consumers may have less access to offers or less choice. Limiting choice in these sectors leads to less

innovation, less competition and therefore a less competitive price for consumers. Consumers may not

have access to the best price or best deal if the capacity to offer choice is limited to the larger providers

with the bigger marketing budgets. If these retailers cannot effectively compete, then consolidation of

entities is likely to occur and further reduce competition. The passage of this legislation will also cause

an immediate loss of an estimated 1000 workers—1000 people who have lives, bills to pay and

families to support, and they will be out of work. There will also be flow-on effects that may lead to

more job losses, including effects on administration staff, if smaller retailers and third-party marketing

BILLS


businesses downsize. In these times of COVID, instability and unemployment this legislation will add

further economic strain on families impacted by these job losses.

I would quickly like to touch on the other changes that this bill is incorporating—the ban on save and

win-back offers, which the government describes as including short-term discounts which eventually

cost more in the long run. Again, I would refute this government talking point. In 2020 the Essential

Services Commission introduced new rules which restrict energy companies to one price rise a year

and ensure any discounts, credits or rebates are maintained for the entire length of a customer’s

contract. So the idea that save and win-back offers will end up costing consumers more in the long run

is definitely a stretch of the imagination under the framework outlined by the ESC.

Finally, regarding new offences and large penalties imposed on energy retailers who wrongfully

disconnect Victorians, one point which was raised by Mr Brad Rowswell in the other place during his

contribution was the question around how many instances the Essential Services Commission had

issued a wrongful disconnection penalty notice to a retailer with the existing fine of $5000. The

response the government gave to this question was that the Essential Services Commission has not

issued a wrongful disconnection penalty notice since the establishment of its power to do so in January

2016. This calls into question why the penalty is being increased if there have never been any penalty

notices issued for wrongful disconnections in the first place.

This is a package of reforms by the Victorian government with several changes being implemented

that are markedly different from the national energy customer framework position. This therefore is

going against the recommendation for uniformity across jurisdictions in the ACCC’s retail energy

pricing inquiry in June 2018. It is for this reason and the reasons I have outlined earlier that the Liberal

Democrats will be opposing this bill.

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (15:10): I rise to speak on the Energy Legislation Amendment

(Energy Fairness) Bill 2021. Energy fairness indeed—well, the government, as we know, has a way

with words. It does not have a way with governing but it certainly has a way with words, and they are

at it again today. They would like us to believe this is about fairness. They would like us to believe

this legislation is about giving people a fair go.

Before we go there, I will just give Ms Watt, who is relatively new to this place, a small spot of

warning, and that is in regard to her credibility. Now, she can get away with a lot of things, as indeed

many do in this place. She can get away with a lot of things, but once she starts singing the praises of

Lily D’Ambrosio, her credibility is shot. That is it. It is all over. Because I do not think we have ever

had in this state a worse energy minister than the current minister.

Now, let us have a look at the track record of the Andrews government, shall we? They would like us

to believe that this legislation is coming to the aid of consumers. When was the last time this

government came to the aid of consumers? It does not happen—it just does not happen. However,

1000 jobs gone—now, that is where the Andrews government excels. They know how to destroy jobs

like nobody else, and you just have to have a look at what is happening in Victoria at the moment. The

last thing that we need in this state is another 1000 jobs gone. There are too many people who are on

the breadline now, there are too many people who are struggling for survival now, without abolishing

another 1000 jobs—a quite extraordinary track record.

We have to look at this fair and square in the face. When it comes to energy policy, the Andrews

government has been an unmitigated disaster. It is staggering, absolutely staggering, that we would

have in this state of Victoria an energy crisis. In Victoria, so richly blessed with natural resources that

we would be able to keep going with the amount of coal we have for hundreds of years, the gas that

we have is providing or would be able to provide energy for us for centuries to come, we find ourselves

in the extraordinary situation where we have an energy crisis. We have all these resources—richly

blessed, as I say—but the Andrews government has found a way to screw it up. How do they do it?

There must be a PhD in it somewhere, and they are all doctors with PhDs in my view. We have enough

BILLS


coal, enough gas, to serve our own needs and to serve the needs of most of Australia. Indeed we have

probably got enough to export overseas as well. But instead we have the ideology of the left, and the

ideology of the left serves no purpose to anybody in the consumer category. Indeed what we heard

today from Ms Watt was quite extraordinary. She so hates competition that she told us that competition

was anti-competitive. Now, I am going to go home tonight—I might have to have a drink and think

about that for a while. When you hear members of the government trying to tell you that competition

is anti-competitive, you have really got to wonder where they are coming from.

Mr Ondarchie interjected.

Mr FINN: I do not know, Mr Ondarchie, what they have been smoking or what they are doing; it

is absolutely beyond me. But keep in mind these are the people who forced the closure of Hazelwood.

These are the people who are bringing forward the closure of Loy Yang, so we are going to see in the

next few years 50 per cent of our power in this state gone—just disappeared. And what to replace it

with? Well, we do not know. The Premier apparently has an idea. It is currently in flames down near

Geelong. So that is going to be very helpful. That is going to be marvellous for everybody.

We are going to lose 50 per cent of the power supply that we had just a few short years ago with

nothing to replace it with. Then the government has the audacity to tell us that prices will fall. Well, I

do not know—I am not an economic genius—but you do not have to have a degree in economics to

understand that if you withdraw that degree of energy and the demand continues or indeed increases,

the price is going to go up and it will continue. To hear members of the government talking about

themselves as friends of the consumers—as friends of the poor, if you do not mind—what nonsense!

I will tell you what: I was pretty angry before when I heard Ms Watt talking about members on this

side not knowing what it is like to struggle because, I tell you what, I know what it is like to struggle.

I have been there. I have sat around the table with the bills mounting, wondering how the hell I am

going to pay for them. I have sat around the kitchen table wondering if indeed we can keep a roof over

our heads, having to make a decision as to whether we pay the bills or we pay the mortgage.

Mr Ondarchie: You are not the Lexus left.

Mr FINN: Indeed, the Lexus left, Mr Ondarchie. I have certainly never been in that category, but

I have been in the situation where I have wondered from one day to the next where the money will

come from to pay the mounting number of bills on the kitchen table. So do not let anybody on the

opposite benches try and tell anybody on this side what it is like to struggle, because many of us know.

I remember some years ago, when I was running my own business, and beginning my own business

in particular, how very, very difficult that was and just how hard pressed we were for a dollar back in

those days. So do not let anybody from the Labor Party try and tell you that people on this side of the

house do not know what it is like to struggle, because we do.

We are going to have this situation where we will have, I would say, in the summer major power

failure. We will have major blackouts, as we had a few years ago when we had a reasonably warm

summer. We have been fortunate that the last two summers have been bits of duds. You cannot say

that we have had hot summers the last two years—quite the opposite. But I will tell you what: the first

time that a warm summer greets us we are going to go back to the blackouts. I remember a few years

back when we had a reasonably warm summer there were blackouts all over the western suburbs of

Melbourne. The west was blacked out from one end to the other. I raised it at the time in the house

and requested the minister, Minister D’Ambrosio, explain what happened. She said there were a few

problems. I said, ‘A few problems? The entire western suburbs were blacked out’, and she said that

we had a few problems but it was all sorted out now. The only problem was the following year the

same thing happened. I assume that it was indeed the same sort of problem that they were having

12 months later.

The problem is that all of this could be avoided. The trouble is that the government does not want to

avoid this because this government has a deep-rooted hatred of fossil fuels without any sense to it at

BILLS


all. They have an obsession with a thing called renewables—or, as I describe them, unreliables,

because we do not know. We cannot rely on wind because the wind does not always blow. We cannot

rely on the sun because sometimes it gets dark. What are we going to do if there is no wind? What are

we going to do if there is no sun? What are we going to do if Dan’s battery continues to burn? What

are we going to do for power in this state? It is not so long ago we had the most reliable and cheapest

power supply in the nation, and then Daniel Andrews came along and changed all that. If people in

this state or indeed interstate want to know what happened to Victoria, if they want to know what

happened to the Victorian power supply, just have a look at Daniel Andrews and his government.

They have trashed it. They have destroyed it. It is just extraordinary.

As I say, if you really want to see an example of the Andrews government’s energy policy in action,

drive down the highway to Geelong and have a look, because it is on fire and you can smell it. It is

even worse than the government usually stinks. It is just appalling. Indeed I am getting many contacts

from people down that way who are asking me what they are breathing as a result of this fire. I cannot

tell them. I assume they contacted me because I have been very concerned about what people in my

own region will be breathing when the government dumps carcinogenic toxic soil in various parts of

the west, and people in Geelong are now concerned about the same thing as a result of this nasty

battery fire. But that is what they do. That is what these sorts of batteries do: they explode sometimes.

It is one of the dangers indeed of electric cars that run on lithium batteries that these things just ignite—

they blow up. I have to say that the enthusiasm that members opposite have for this mystifies me a tad

given the dangers to life and limb that these pose. It is just extraordinary.

We currently find ourselves going down the same route as South Australia, and remember just a few

years ago South Australia was a national joke. Well, Victoria is taking over. People would tell the

joke: what did South Australians use before electricity—sorry, I have got that wrong; I have mucked

up the joke. What did South Australians use before candles? They used electricity. That is the joke—

delivered considerably better by others, it has to be said. But that was the joke, and now Victoria is

going down the same path. South Australia had blackouts left, right and centre—all over the place. It

did not matter whether it was summer, it did not matter whether it was winter; they just did not have

enough power to keep the lights on, to keep the heating going, to keep the air conditioning going. They

did not have it. Well, Victoria is going down the same path. And who do we have to thank? We have

Daniel Andrews and Lily D’Ambrosio. They are the ones we can thank for destroying the reliability

and the competitiveness of our power supply in this state.

Here they have legislation which is an anti-competitive piece of legislation but which is also legislation

which is going to put at least 1000 people out of work. Whichever way you look at it, Victorians are

losers under Labor. That is the bottom line. It is a great pity, and I am hearing this from so many people

now. Whether it be on Facebook or whether it is when I am out talking to people, I am hearing this

from everybody. People just cannot wait until November next year. They cannot wait to get rid of the

Andrews government. They see the disaster around them, they know that it is getting worse and they

know that the longer the Andrews government is in power, if you will pardon the pun, the more they

will continue to suffer. They cannot wait. They cannot wait until November next year so they can all

get to the ballot box, they can all get to the polling booth, and vote this government out.

I hope that the Andrews government does not do the sort of damage I anticipate it will prior to the next

election, but I can assure the house that the O’Brien government will act very, very quickly after the

election next year to rectify the damage that the Andrews government has left, because the legacy that

Daniel Andrews leaves is every Victorian sitting in the dark.

Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (15:26): It is a relief to have Mr Finn sit down for one of a number

of reasons that I am going to refer to now. Firstly, the hot air which would seem to be in and of itself

a pretty significant and reliable source of renewable energy has come to an abrupt halt. But secondly,

it gives me an opportunity to actually correct a number of assertions made by Mr Finn in his

contribution which are blatantly untrue. This is a pretty common refrain from those we hear when they

get to their feet on the opposition benches on the question of energy, on the question of renewables,

BILLS


on the question of a global move away from coal-fired power and the embracing collectively by private

and public sectors internationally and around Australia of renewable energy and of energy efficiency.

What speaks to Mr Finn’s attempts, as inelegant as they were, to put a position on behalf of the

opposition that supports coal-fired power and that supports an ongoing discussion around the use of

sellers and sales tactics and techniques which include door-to-door sales operations, which included

references to Hazelwood, is that Mr Finn could not even get the name of the power station right when

he sought earlier in his contribution to refer to Yallourn W. This is a power station which has

announced a seven-year notice period and did so at the beginning of this year, the longest notice period

of any coal-fired power station in Australia. Yallourn W, which has been operating for 47 years, is the

last of five power stations for that area and it has been a significant contributor to the state’s power

and to the reliability and efficiency of energy production throughout the state but also as part of the

national grid.

Mr Finn very conveniently forgets the importance and the existence of the national grid, which enables

Victoria to share resources with other states as required in times of higher spot pricing—again,

something which Mr Finn would not know anything about—and it also enables Victoria to draw down

on resources from other states in the event that we need them. This capacity to share power across

jurisdictions is one of the things that in fact contributes to greater reliability and efficiency. Another

thing which contributes to greater reliability and efficiency is embracing a mix of energy resources

across the board. We know that Minister Lily D’Ambrosio has worked tirelessly and has set the pace

across Australia in relation to creating a blend of energy resources which is in and of itself reliable,

which drives prices down and which creates better equity for people across private markets.

We know also that capacity to deliver certainty of power supply to industry, to commercial enterprises

and to households is one of the hallmarks of what we have sought to achieve here through calling for

a national energy policy, which is something other than the garbage that we currently have emanating

from Canberra. We also know that a mix of energy relies upon initiatives such as—and Mr Finn

conveniently left this out of his discussion on Yallourn W—a 350-megawatt battery which will in fact

be able to be developed to contribute to a mix of energy and resourcing. He also neglected to mention

the renewable energy targets, which those opposite voted against when they came up before this

chamber, which has put them very squarely on the wrong side of history. We also know that initiatives

such as household energy and bill relief programs have made a significant and positive difference to

families and to communities all around this state. This is something that, like many others in this place,

I feel particularly strongly about.

We know that the energy compare and energy saver programs, which have enabled people to sign up

for the most competitive deals available to them, with the incentive of a $50 payment, have made a

real difference. We know that retrofitting houses with technology that enables better energy efficiency

and with appliances that enable bills to come down makes a real difference. And in 2017 we developed

and rolled out the energy efficiency and upgrade program in the Latrobe Valley—$5 million for up to

1000 households to improve the efficiency of appliances in their homes, to do an audit of homes to

make sure that areas such as draft and insulation were able to be managed and tackled—and this in

turn had a positive downward impact on household utility bills. And I see Mr Ondarchie shaking his

head across the way, and shame on him for in fact not agreeing to buy into the importance of actions

that make a real and practical difference to household bills.

We also know that those opposite find it inconvenient that the Thwaites review undertaken into

retailers was also conducted by former minister Terry Mulder of the coalition, who alongside Patricia

Faulkner, AO, did an extensive review of the market to find that consumers were being ripped off, to

find that there was an unacceptable level of opacity in the market, which led in fact, in implementing

all of the recommendations from that review, to the Victorian default offer. And this is part of the

important work that we as a government need to do to provide better certainty to households on the

way in which pricing occurs, better reliability, better efficiency and a strong commitment to renewable

energy as part of a mix of overall energy availability now and into the future.

BILLS


We can see that all over the world coal-fired power is evolving, using better technology and definitely

becoming more efficient with the use of better technology, but increasingly is becoming obsolete. We

also know that other forms of technology, including coal-to-hydrogen projects, are making a big

difference, and this is where again those opposite are very forgetful when it comes to looking at the

$50 million investment that we have made in partnership with Kawasaki corporation and the

commonwealth government to investigate this cutting-edge technology that is intended to form part

of our overall energy mix.

The bill itself is an important marker for our commitment to better, clearer and more certain terms of

engagement for consumers, not just in relation to the way in which energy deals are put to consumers,

noting the practical environment and the pressure and the tactics often engaged in door-to-door sales

and the way in which people will feel pressured to accept an offer which, but for an opportunity to

properly consider and to analyse offers, but for accuracy and clarity of information, they would not

necessarily take up; we are also in a position to be able to provide certainty around the way in which

comparator exercises for the cost of energy are undertaken and to make sure that we continue our work

to deliver better access to a variety of retailers when and as required.

We are determined to make good on our commitments. We are determined to make good on better

access to improvements across the board, not just at a macro level as far as the national energy grid is

concerned, not just at a state-based level, where our renewable energy targets continue to be rolled out,

and not just on a regional level, where we continue to assist with transition, including for communities

such as the Latrobe Valley region, but also to make sure that at a community and household level we

are helping people to access the very best deals that are available. We want to make sure that offers

that are made to consumers are durable and are transparent and are not simply supplanted by a better

offer that only lasts for a couple of weeks before being eclipsed, much as may occur in a credit card

scenario with a much higher interest rate or much higher default charges. And I noticed when

Mrs McArthur got to her feet earlier she talked about self-regulation being the best way to go, and I

am paraphrasing her here, but what occurred to me when I heard her speak about that was a refusal to

acknowledge that self-regulation in a competitive industry will not work where there is no incentive

or indeed penalty system in place to deter unlawful or inappropriate or intimidating behaviour.

We know from the banking and finance sector royal commission that it does not work. We know from

the disability royal commission that it does not work. We know from the aged care royal commission

that it does not work. And this is such a common refrain and one which we do not intend to enable to

go further in a discussion about energy. So while Canberra continues to faff around with an absence

of clear national energy policy, we are determined to pull every lever that we can for Victorians to

make sure that the way that pricing is rolled out, the way that offers are made and accepted and the

way that energy is made available to households, communities, towns, regional centres and indeed the

entire state provide the best possible opportunity for people to understand and to enforce their rights

and entitlements to make sure that they are getting the best possible deal and to make sure in fact that

overall the industry is not just encouraged to do the right thing but, where necessary, dragged into

compliance through the frameworks that we put into place.

We also want to make sure that disconnections are in fact not occurring for people who are vulnerable

to the brutality of changing climate, even seasonally. Winters in the Latrobe Valley in particular are

often particularly hard to bear. It is cold wind, it is days and days of rain, it is storms and it is already

outages, and we know that from recent weeks. It has been particularly hard. We also know that our

summers are getting hotter. We know that our dry spells will get drier. You do not need to be a rocket

scientist to understand that longer term modelling on climate change means that the pressures,

particularly for regional and rural communities, in maintaining comfort, particularly for those who are

vulnerable, will only continue to become more oppressive. This is why we need to make sure again

that those penalties apply for wrongful disconnections and that people have access to recourse—

immediate recourse—and longer term assessment and enforcement, for example, through the Essential

BILLS


Services Commission, again, to deter that sort of wrongful disconnection and to make sure that

operators are thinking very carefully before they execute a disconnection of any type.

I commend this bill to the house. It is an important bill. It is an important further step in the work

toward energy efficiency, affordability and transparency. It is good for consumers, it is good for overall

better practice, it is good for household bills, it is good for our renewable energy targets and it is good

overall for making sure that we put equity front and centre as we deliver and implement our legislative

agenda and the things that we promised before we were elected again in 2018. I commend the bill to

the house.

Mr TARLAMIS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (15:38): I also rise to speak on the Energy

Legislation Amendment (Energy Fairness) Bill 2021. This legislation comes down to the Victorian

government choosing to support a fair price for energy in Victoria. That is what is at its heart—that

goal of an improved, fairer price for energy for Victorian consumers. Basically it is another piece of

commonsense legislation enacted by this government to ensure that market mechanisms are keenly

attuned to delivering an equitable share of wealth and productivity dividends between the profit

makers on the one hand and the consumers on the other.

Where a universal market for an essential service such as energy is concerned, these mechanisms and

strengths are absolutely necessary for delivering the sorts of outcomes Victorians reasonably expect

in relation to fairness and equity. We have seen what happens when governments do not act to smooth

the operation of these sorts of markets: energy prices that consumers pay become astronomically high,

and several large companies end up taking most of the market share, with hugely inflated profits. We

have seen in deregulated energy markets that all the benefits of privatisation are skewed to favour the

balance sheets of large energy retailers and disproportionately affect the price consumers pay for their

energy. Deregulated energy markets do not work. They end up becoming quasimonopolies or

duopolies, with 60 per cent of the electricity market and 70 per cent of the gas market in Victoria being

cornered by only three companies. Anyone with a basic appreciation of economic principles can tell

you that this is not an effective or optimal outcome.

That is why the Victorian government has instituted its energy fairness plan—to consolidate our

commitment to ensuring that retail energy markets are functioning appropriately by improving

transparency and competition within the retail energy market and holding energy providers to account.

This legislation builds on the independent review into the electricity and gas retail markets in Victoria

that we commissioned back in 2016 and, since the conclusion of that review in 2017, its

recommendations and goals, which we have been working to implement.

This review found that competition policy in the energy market was failing consumers because

monopolistic-like behaviour was encouraged by the deregulated nature of the market and the predatory

consumer retention and marketing practices that deregulation and the lack of oversight allowed. Our

energy fairness plan, which was committed to prior to the 2018 election and was endorsed by the

voters, was designed to address these issues by demystifying the energy market and curtailing

predatory corporate behaviour. The energy fairness plan is delivering the biggest shake-up of the

energy sector in Victoria’s history and it is putting the power back in the hands of Victorians.

Already we have instituted the Victorian default offer, a transparent, fair and easy to understand price

benchmark that serves as a useful economic device to keep energy providers competitive and honest

in their price mechanisms. The Victorian default offer is the centrepiece of the Victorian Energy

Compare website, which in itself has provided further transparency to the energy market, laying bare

the packages and prices of energy retailers in Victoria, with the upshot of making retail energy options

less convoluted and disincentivising the laying of booby traps and marketing catches that in the end

lock consumers into unfair contracts. It is worth noting that over 3 million Victorians have accessed

the site and, of those, seven out of 10 people saved money. If sunlight is the best antiseptic, the

Victorian Energy Compare website is a great big glowing sun, ensuring nasty economically dishonest

practices cannot hide in the shadows.

BILLS


We have implemented the payment default framework to ensure that energy companies offer

assistance to customers who are struggling to pay their bills. We introduced the $50 power saving

bonus payments, and of course due to the COVID-19 pandemic the Andrews Labor government

extended and increased the power saving bonus by providing a one-off payment of $250 to Victorians

that need it most. Every member in this place will know just how useful and well received this move

has been, as they all would have seen constituents contacting their offices in large numbers. It has been

testament to the success of this policy that over $40 million has been directly distributed to more than

200 000 people. Over the 12-month life of this bonus, we expect to reach about 900 000 households.

The $250 power saving bonus was announced as part of the unprecedented $1.6 million energy

package included in the 2020–21 state budget in November. This package included record investments

in clean energy and additional measures to make energy more affordable as we emerge from the

COVID-19 crisis. In addition to the $128 million for the expanded power saving bonus, the household

energy saving package included $335 million to deliver new energy-efficient heating and cooling for

low-income households. On the weekend you would have seen the announcement by Minister

D’Ambrosio of the further tranche of this expansion to benefit even more Victorians, and the

$112 million for energy-efficiency upgrades for 35 000 social housing homes was also included as

part of this package.

We have already provided further support in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, with $3.7 million

for initiatives to connect Victorians with energy bill hardship support during the pandemic. This

included tailored energy brokerage services to help Victorians doing it tough to navigate the energy

market and ensure their rights were protected. These investments add up to the comprehensive package

of support for energy users and clearly demonstrate this government’s commitment to energy fairness.

It has been a pivotal emergency tranche of our energy policy, and I am proud of how responsive and

responsible our government has been with energy policy during COVID times.

By any measure, this track record proves we are serious about reforming our energy market to make

it fairer, more competitive and more transparent for Victorians. We have already done a lot to improve

the standing of Victorian consumers, and this bill we are debating today will further build on this base.

In particular, this bill aims to stamp out the dodgy marketing tactics employed by energy providers

that end up costing consumers more in the long run. Win-back and save offers are good examples of

the cunning techniques that are normally used by energy retailers when they learn that a customer has

decided to switch providers. These energy providers will suddenly provide a discount or a better offer

to entice the customer back.

However, often those involve short-term reductions in energy or connection costs that seem beneficial

but are actually tied up in a quagmire of terms, conditions and time limits that usually result in the

customer paying a lot more for the same product. Banning these tactics will ensure that energy

companies are more likely to offer customers their best deal up-front, knowing that they will not be

able to rely on a last-ditch offer that they should have been offering the customer in the first place.

These offers, along with others that mislead customers into thinking they are getting a better deal by

remaining loyal to a single energy provider, also have the effect of stifling competition. This sort of

behaviour must stop. It is dishonest, it is conniving, it is bad for consumers and it is bad for Victoria,

and for clarity it is important to place on the record that this bill will not stop retailers from matching

or offering a better deal to existing customers or customers who approach them directly, because this

bill is about correcting the imbalance that exists by further empowering customers. It is my view that

one of the most fundamental roles of a democratic government is to prevent precisely this sort of

extortion of customers and distortions of the market that clearly put not only a finger but the fist on

the scales in order to favour large corporate entities who wish to profiteer from dishonest, price-

gouging behaviour and stymie competition.

A similarly shifty practice that this bill addresses is door-to-door selling practices and cold-calling

telemarketing from energy retailers spruiking retail energy products. Many Victorians, and all too

often some our most vulnerable Victorians, have unknowingly trusted a salesperson essentially intent

BILLS


on ripping them off. They obfuscate the terms of what are, from the point of view of the average

Victorian, seriously complicated contracts, all with the purpose of selling products to those who really

cannot afford to be the butt of these crafty marketing techniques. Now, this is not intended to be an

indictment of door-to-door salespeople as individuals. Often they are young people trying to just earn

a living, caught up in the corporate structures of KPIs, sales targets and employee incentive programs.

The problem is energy retail companies that view themselves and their competitors in the markets as

though they were in a sporting arena, with a win-at-all-costs mentality, with no regard to the perverse

market outcomes that arise from their profiteering habits. This behaviour too must stop, and I am

pleased to say that bill will ensure that that happens.

Curbing insensitive win-at-all-cost practices will not be where this bill ends. It has also come to the

attention of the government that reform is required around the wrongful disconnection of electricity,

particularly in relation to disadvantaged Victorians and where life support machines are in use. With

this legislation, wrongful and reckless disconnections will attract penalties of up to $1 million.

Similarly, providing misleading information to the Essential Services Commission will also attract a

fine of $1 million. Providing accurate and transparent information to the regulator is critical, for it is

the regulator that calculates and sets the Victorian default offer for energy, the centrepiece of the price

and regulatory mechanisms in the government’s energy fairness plan. These provisions will ensure

that energy retailers pull up their socks when it comes to acting in the market with an intact social

conscience, because markets cannot exist without morals, and the Andrews Labor government is intent

on making sure integrity and compassion remain important features of the retail energy market with

which nearly all Victorians must interact.

The evidence is clear that our energy policy framework is delivering real benefits for Victorians

through the combination of the Andrews Labor government’s energy fairness plan, its support for

renewable energy and its efforts to improve energy efficiency. We have cleaned up the mess that those

opposite created under the Jeff Kennett era, when energy prices increased by 34 per cent over four

years. We have cleaned up the mess that the Liberal government’s reckless privatisation and

deregulation caused, and we have made a really big difference in the lives of Victorians as a result. As

I said earlier in my contribution, deregulated energy markets do not work. They disproportionately

favour big energy companies who dominate the market at the expense of your average Victorian’s

cost of living and affordability for one of their essentials of life, and that is really what surprises me,

how those opposite can actively criticise a piece of legislation that benefits every Victorian. What

astounds me is that those opposite can claim to be the party of economic efficiency, the party that

claims to run the economy like a well-oiled machine, yet they are actively blocking the government’s

plan to make one of the most important markets in the state run more efficiently. It will run with more

complete market information. It will run with better outcomes for consumers. It will curb the excesses

of the marketing schemes and the price-gouging that have become standard practice in the industry.

If those opposite had even the slightest of economic credentials, they would know that these reforms

will make the market run more smoothly and make the market more efficient as a desirable economic

outcome. If they were not so caught up in badmouthing every single thing the government tried to do

and instead viewed our plan on its merits, they would be able to see that this plan is absolutely essential

for delivering economic and social outcomes across the state. But why am I not surprised? You know,

if you listened to their contributions today, it basically came across that they do not support renewables,

there is not a problem, there is nothing that needs to be protected, they believe there are no further

protections for consumers, everything is okay, everything is rosy, consumers do not need any other

protection and they wish they were living in their own sort of halcyon Jeff Kennett era. If they liked

that era so much and they are looking for a new leader, why don’t they bring Jeff Kennett back to

replace Michael O’Brien? I mean, he has got some time on his hands. He might be willing to do it.

But having said that, this legislation continues on the pattern of reform that the Andrews Labor

government has been driving in this state for the last seven years, a pattern of reform that places

fairness, social responsibility and the constant improvement of economic outcomes at the centre of

BILLS


this government’s agenda. Those opposite may carp and cry at reform that is widely considered as

important and meaningful—might I add, in a pathetic attempt to try and make themselves relevant—

but the Victorian people can recognise that sort of behaviour for what it is: opportunistic and hollow.

The Liberals have shown once again that they do not have the backs of Victorian people; this

legislation and the reforms in it do. With this additional reform, the Andrews Labor government

continues to show once again that the best interests of Victorian people sit squarely at the centre of our

vision for this state. I commend the bill to the house, and I wish it a speedy passage.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (15:52): I am just going to acquit some of the matters that

were raised in the house without seeking to repeat matters that have already been discussed and very

eloquently presented by members on our side.

First of all, just to be really clear, privatisation was not delivering any of the benefits that the Kennett

government had promised when it sold off Victoria’s energy assets in the 1990s. It just did not deliver

what it promised. When we came into government in 2014 energy prices were out of control, and

opaque marketing and pricing practices by energy retailers left energy users confused. Fundamentally

we are not saying X or Y is evil; what we are saying is the balance of power had shifted so far away

from consumers that it was creating an imbalance—it was creating a very unfair and inequitable

situation. Hence the core element of this bill is fairness. That is why this reform has to be delivered.

Now, I know Mr Rich-Phillips did say this was nothing more than a thought bubble. Can I please put

that loose concept to bed, and I will tell you why: because as a first step we commissioned the

Independent Review into the Electricity and Gas Retail Markets in Victoria, headed by John Thwaites,

to examine how the market was operating and to deliver recommendations on making energy fairer

and easier to understand—hardly a thought bubble. The review was released in August 2017. Now,

was the opposition suggesting we do the review and just sit on our hands and do nothing and leave the

most vulnerable consumers at the mercy of these very aggressive marketing tactics that we have

witnessed? No. That is not who we are on this side of the house, and we set about addressing those

inequities in a rational and systematic way. I would like to commend Minister D’Ambrosio for her

courage and conviction but also the pragmatic application and implementation of significant reforms

which have already been spoken to.

Now, there was also the issue of notice. Well, the industry was notified. It has known about these

changes coming about since November 2018—hardly an overnight switch. I was not really sure why

that concept was being reiterated over and over. We are now—what are we—in 2021. November

2018, now 2021—clearly the industry had notification and warning of these changes coming about.

I would also like to say that it is a little bit bizarre the kinds of behaviour those opposite are seeking to

protect. For instance, in the recent case regarding Simply Energy they were fined $2.5 million by the

Essential Services Commission for such acts as door-to-door salespeople sorting through mail, calling

call centres with fake accents and switching 500 people over without permission. Is this the kind of

behaviour that you deem appropriate? Is that fair? I put it you it is not, and this is exactly why we are

bringing about these very much needed reforms.

I should also put to those opposite: when we are talking about jobs, Victoria is the leading state for

renewable energy jobs, and we are talking about skilled and well-paying jobs. We also have to balance

with these reforms the impact on those very vulnerable consumers. I do not consider myself to be a

vulnerable consumer, but when called constantly with very intrusive questioning about what particular

proprietor you are with and how much you are paying on your bill et cetera, et cetera, this is very

intrusive and aggressive and surely not fair and not appropriate.

Accordingly, and finally, this is part of a whole framework in terms of bringing energy prices down

and making the market fairer overall. We have already had other colleagues who have spoken to

significant and pragmatic energy efficiency measures in terms of looking at appliances that actually

will cost less to run—that makes good sense, doesn’t it—and also transitioning people away from

BILLS


those old and dangerous gas heaters to more reliable energy-efficient modern heaters. What is so bad

about that? What do you have against energy efficiency?

Now, the final point that I am going to land on is with regard to this question of reliability and

renewables and this assertion that somehow we just randomly landed on renewables. We actually have

one of the tightest reliability standards in the world, 0.1, and one of the greatest concerns over summer

is the ageing coal-fired plants. So I suggest those opposite have a little look around the globe and look

at where the trends are in terms of energy efficiency and energy transition into the future, and I think

you will find renewables are at the top of the list.

Sitting suspended 3.58 pm until 4.17 pm.

Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (16:17): When I was listening to this debate down in my office, I

heard the contributions from those opposite and the mighty defence that they led still in support of Jeff

Kennett’s privatisation policy of 20-odd years ago. They are still clinging to it. Given that this bill is

talking about power, they might reflect on why it is that they have not seen power for a while in this

place, and of course it is all because they continue to support failed policies, none greater than the

privatisation of energy in this state. If you contrast that approach with the approach of the Andrews

Labor government, the evidence is clear that our energy policy framework delivers real outcomes, real

benefits for all Victorians.

It is worth remembering of course that electricity prices were out of control under the previous

government—under the Liberal government—increasing by some 34 per cent over four years from

quarter 4 of 2010 to the third quarter of 2013. They were well above CPI, not even in the ballpark, and

they were out of control. If you contrast that with our energy policy framework, what do we see in

terms of prices, particularly the wholesale prices? In the first quarter of 2021 prices were at the lowest

in Victoria at $27 per megawatt-hour, followed by Tasmania at $34, New South Wales at $39,

Queensland at $45 and South Australia at $53. So you can see on all of those measures that our policy

framework is absolutely on the right track.

Of course there are other things to support the proposition. In 2009–10 there were 29 959 residential

electricity and gas disconnections here in the state of Victoria, but under those opposite in 2013–14

that figure rose to some 58 503 people—double the number of disconnections, under their watch. And

of course it all comes back to affordability. That is why we set up the independent review. That is why

we set it up, and not just with Mr Thwaites, although I know that some of those opposite have made

comment about that, but of course with one of their very own former ministers. Mr Mulder was also

part of that review, and Mr Mulder was in lock step with the rest of that independent review and the

findings that it handed down. I will come back and talk very briefly about some of those findings, but

I just want you to contrast those disconnection rates. Disconnection rates in 2009–10 were 29 959.

They doubled less than four years later under those opposite, and in the most recent miserable year,

2019–20, just prior to COVID, that number had reduced to 26 822, lower than what they were over a

decade ago. It is yet another indication of the approach by the Andrews Labor government under the

fantastic stewardship of Minister D’Ambrosio, and she is to be commended for her approach to energy

fairness in this state, the price reductions that she has brought about, putting some spine back into this

system and ensuring as practically as we possibly can that consumers actually benefit from a

framework that was very much dismantled by those opposite.

I want to very quickly touch on some of the things from the independent review, because we can often

talk about what the current bill is about and where it has come from, and I think Mr Rich-Phillips in

his contribution said that it had just come from nowhere—that it was a brain bubble. What was it? I

cannot remember what it was—something to that effect. But of course that is not the case. That is not

the case, and it suits those opposite to suggest that that is the case. In fact the independent review

looked at the impact on the energy sector in this state brought about by the Liberal Party’s privatisation

of this sector under then Premier Jeff Kennett and the reasons given by that administration as to why

they were doing what they were doing, and of course it found three main factors for the market failure.

BILLS


The competition has in fact added additional cost to the market that has not been offset with cost

reductions or other benefits, and these costs need to be recovered from consumers. That is what they

have done. I know Mr Finn had a crack at my colleague Ms Watt when she pointed this fact out. That

is what she was pointing out—that the supposed competition that was apparently the driving force

behind the Kennett government’s privatisation of the sector did not in fact lead to the outcomes that

were expected and that competition was actually adding more costs and those costs were being

absorbed by consumers.

We also found, through the independent review, that the structure of the market had skewed, and there

were at the time three large tier 1 retailers, four medium tier 2 retailers and 18 smaller retailers. The

three tier 1 retailers were vertically integrated and were in fact called ‘gentailers’—that is, they

generate electricity as well as retail it—and they had significant market advantages over their

competitors. But what did we find? That instead of there being a massive price differential, indeed

what was happening was that these tier 1 providers were actually able to charge consumers at the top

of the range because they were able to gain an unfair advantage through the system.

Thirdly—and I will finish on this note because I know that my friend Mr Leane is going to do a

summary and I do not want to steal all of the thunder—the practices of the industry: when consumers

enter the marketplace to purchase their energy they are faced with a multitude of retailers, and the

review found that hundreds of offers, all of varying discounts, benefits and fixed and variable charges,

existed but that even knowledgeable consumers at the time found it hard to navigate. Retailers have

thus adopted discounting practices to make energy marketing seem simpler. As has been pointed out

by many speakers in the debate, of course what happens is that these discounts, these price reductions,

are offered into the marketplace only to be very quickly absorbed by the market and indeed see price

escalation not too far into the future.

The thing I want to end on is the Liberal Democrats contribution: ‘That can’t happen because the

market self-regulates. There’s a self-discipline that exists in the marketplace. We’ve seen a steady drop

in complaints to the ombudsman, and of course what this bill will do is reduce market competition’.

Self-regulation and self-discipline—goodness me! In a former life I did some work in the finance

sector and it was often the thing that was quoted by some of the big banks in this country and indeed

internationally: ‘No, we don’t need regulation, because we self-regulate; we look after the market. Of

course we are in the business of the interests of consumer’. No, they are not. They are in the business

of making money. That is what they are in the business of. You do not go into business, you do not go

into a commercial operation, if you are not there to make money, and if you have a different motive, I

would suggest that you are probably not going to last long. So I do not subscribe to this theory that the

market will self-regulate—that the market will self-discipline those within it who act reprehensibly.

That is not the experience.

Then of course I think we heard a little bit about the thousand jobs. I think that it came from both the

Liberal Democrats and the Liberal Party, so I think they have probably caucused on this point. I would

be interested to learn about those thousand jobs. Who are those people? What are their employment

arrangements? I will bet that the very vast bulk of those people are not on a fortnightly wage. I will

bet that most of those people are not on a permanent working arrangement. I will bet that they are in

insecure employment. I will bet that they are on retainers for the number of contracts that they can get

signed and that their income is generated by that. So do not come into this place and suggest that what

we are dealing with are people in a market that are absolutely, hand on heart, just focused on the

outcomes for the consumers, because that is not what they are in business for. They are in business for

a whole bunch of other reasons.

Finally, in terms of the $250 rebate scheme that many people have commented on, I just wanted to

say that constituents in my electorate of Northern Victoria are thrilled with that opportunity. When we

go out and we talk to people in Northern Victoria about that $250, they cannot sign up quickly enough.

They are very, very grateful. At the end of the day the people who will make these price adjustments

and skew them towards their own financial benefit are not there for the benefit of the consumer and in

BILLS


fact are hoping to prey on the vulnerable and entice them into a new deal when they are in desperation

stakes, and this bill will straighten that practice up. I commend the bill to the house.


Development, Minister for Veterans) (16:29): I will be brief—that is me channelling Mr Quilty. I just

wanted to put some of the real parameters as far as this bill goes on the record before we go into

committee stage. This bill is about protecting energy consumers, and we unashamedly as a government

are proud that we are implementing more of that—more parameters around that. What this bill does

is it bans door-to-door sales and cold calling by energy companies. It bans save and win-back offers

by energy retailers. It was well described why that particular amendment is being introduced by a

number of the government speakers before. In particular Dr Kieu gave a great explanation around that.

It would be better if the best offer for energy sales would be the first offer and not an offer later on to

try and retain a customer.

Also the third part of this bill introduces criminal penalties of up to $1 million for not only licensees

who provide false and misleading information to the Essential Services Commission but energy

retailers who knowingly and recklessly arrange the wrongful disconnection of customers. That has

been discussed a lot in this debate, and I appreciate and acknowledge previous speakers, including

Mr Gepp, who went over that particular issue quite comprehensively. The third part is the criminal

penalties of up to $1 million for energy retailers and relevant exempt persons who disconnect or

arrange for the disconnection of a household in a way that endangers customers on life support

equipment, which is a self-explanatory part of the amendment which I thought would be supported.

This bill, as far as the government is concerned, is making energy consumers its priority. I appreciate

other members of the chamber may have argued that some of the energy companies should be the

priority rather than consumers, but we would not agree with that. Mr Gepp and others spoke about

self-discipline and all sorts of things that some of the energy companies may be aspiring to. Well, it

was only in recent weeks that there was a penalty handed out to an energy company because door-to-

door salespeople were just signing up individual consumers that did not even know they were getting

signed up. They were just signing them up.

I do not want to actually put the onus of that poor practice completely on the door-to-door salespeople.

I take up Mr Gepp’s contribution around what sort of employment arrangements some door-to-door

salesmen have. I think that the argument around the 1000 jobs does not line up. Over half of the energy

companies have in the last 18 months gone away from door-to-door sales, so that does not stack up

very much. We know a number of these positions, as Mr Gepp explained, and their employment

conditions, were taken up by backpackers, and we do not have backpackers because of COVID. So I

am not too sure about the quote about the cost of 1000 jobs.

I appreciate Mr Rich-Phillips has proposed some amendments to the bill, and I just wanted to flag that

the government will not be supporting the amendments to the bill for the pure reason that we stand by

this bill that makes energy customers a priority. We think the bill goes a long way towards that, and

we do not believe the amendments would support that position.

House divided on motion:

Ayes, 24

Barton, Mr Kieu, Dr Shing, Ms

Cumming, Dr 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

BILLS


Noes, 13

Atkinson, Mr Davis, Mr O’Donohue, Mr

Bach, Dr Limbrick, Mr Ondarchie, Mr

Bath, Ms Lovell, Ms Quilty, Mr

Bourman, Mr McArthur, Mrs Rich-Phillips, Mr

Crozier, Ms

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (16:42)

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: As we have heard, one of the things the bill does is prohibit certain sales

practices in relation to gas and electricity sales—namely, door-to-door sales and telesales. Can the

minister inform the committee how many people are currently employed in door-to-door sales and

telesales for gas and electricity?

Mr LEANE: I will take advice on that. I would imagine, Mr Rich-Phillips, that there would not

have been many door-to-door salespeople operating in the COVID environment in the last 18 months,

but I will ask about telemarketing.

On the telemarketing question of Mr Rich-Phillips, the government did engage with the industry to

see if they could supply a total number of people working in that area, but this could not be gained by

the minister at that time.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Sorry, Minister, could you repeat your answer, please?

Mr LEANE: Yes. Sorry, Mr Rich-Phillips. The advice I have had is that the government did ask

the energy companies involved in this particular type of marketing if they could identify the number

of telesales people, but that part of the industry did not supply that information as a total number.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. In respect of door to door, obviously, yes, we are

once again shut down—shutdown number 5—but presumably that is not ongoing. Does the

government have an estimate of how many people are involved door to door on energy sales?

Mr LEANE: Mr Rich-Phillips, it is a similar answer to my last one, on telemarketing. But I do

know that even outside of lockdown, during a time of global pandemic, there has been a real lull in

door-to-door salespeople for obvious reasons.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Minister, has the government engaged with the Australian Energy Council

about this bill?

Mr LEANE: My understanding is yes.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: And the council did not give an estimate to the government on the number

of people involved? Because they gave us one.

Mr LEANE: So the response I gave, Mr Rich-Phillips, is that there were conversations with the

energy supply sector, and there were conversations about if they could supply their understanding of

the number of telesales people, because they are the people who actually employ them, and the

response that I have been given is that that part of the sector did not supply those numbers.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. Well, the opposition has been advised through Sales

Assured, which is the peak body for door-to-door retailing, online retailing, that currently around

1000 people are involved in both those types of selling of energy products. Does the government have

anything that contradicts that or disputes that figure?

BILLS


Mr LEANE: Well, we have got nothing that contradicts that, Mr Rich-Phillips. We are not going

to dispute that number, but I can state that we know that over 50 per cent of the energy market, people

involved in energy retail, have moved to a different type of model anyway in the last 18 months. So

we would be surprised that there would be that many people working in this part of the sector, because

over 50 per cent of the companies that are involved have completely moved away from these types of

door-to-door sales and telemarketing anyway.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Minister, what type of transition support is the government providing to

these businesses which will be shut down because they can no longer conduct telemarketing/door-to-

door sales?

Mr LEANE: As far as compensation goes, getting back to different business models that a number

of these companies have embraced in the last 18 months without any conversation or any urging from

this government or any other government, in my understanding a lot of the positions that were held

have actually been taken up in their call centres, where consumers can actually call rather than the

companies—the other way—calling consumers. Consumers can actually call and get advice on their

accounts and anything to do with the gas and electricity connected to their premises.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. So, Minister, is it the government’s position that

there will be no job losses as a consequence of this bill?

Mr LEANE: No, that is not the government’s position, as far as it is up to each particular company

how they deal with the changes this amendment will deliver. But, in saying that, I did just give the

example that there are a number of jobs at companies that have moved away from this type of

marketing business model that have been utilised in other parts of the business, and hopefully that

could be the potential in some instances.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. But there is no clear understanding from within

government as to whether that is going to occur or not? You hope it happens—you hope no-one loses

their job—but you really do not know what is going to happen, and the government has made no

contingency planning, provided no support, for those businesses which may cease operation because

they are wholly dependent on door-to-door sales or telesales. It is more a hope than any actual

understanding of how businesses will transition out of these models when you ban them with the

passage of this bill.

Mr LEANE: Look, this is not a bill as far as there is no intention as far as any direction of

employment of any individual or group of individuals goes. This bill is about prioritising energy

consumers, and we do not apologise for that. You know, even in recent weeks there have been some

really ordinary practices, which I highlighted in the second-reading summary, of door-to-door

salespeople signing up consumers where consumers did not even know they were signed up. This bill

is about protecting consumers, and we do not apologise for that.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. Just noting your comment and that comment you

made in your second-reading summing-up where you identified that particular case of a retailer signing

up people without their knowledge, you also made the point that they had been subject to penalty under

the existing regime, which somewhat negates the argument for this bill, given they have already been

penalised under the existing regime. I would like, if I can, to proceed to my first amendment on

clause 1 and to move that first amendment, which is a test of the other amendments. I move:

1. Clause 1, line 6, omit “prohibit” and insert “regulate”.

In essence, it is our belief that the government is arguing it wants to improve consumer protection by

banning door-to-door sales and telesales of energy products. We believe that is a heavy-handed and

frankly unnecessary step and there are other ways to address consumer protection around the sale of

energy products door to door and via telesales, so what the coalition is proposing by way of the

amendments before the house today, which are tested by the first amendment, is to omit the new

BILLS


sections from the Electricity Industry Act 2000 and the Gas Industry Act 2001 with respect to

prohibiting telesales and door-to-door sales and instead put in place a framework which will do three

things.

The first is to prohibit the payment of commissions to people who are involved in telesales or door-to-

door sales. This goes to the issue of removing the direct incentive for an individual who is selling to

try and maximise revenue and therefore maximise their commission by requiring anyone who is

engaging in this type of sales work to be on fixed remuneration not remuneration based on

commission. Mr Gepp in his contribution talked about how the people involved in these jobs are

typically not on fixed remuneration but are on commission remuneration. We believe that to be the

case, and this gets away from that. This is something that frankly, given what Mr Gepp said in his

second-reading contribution, he should be supportive of—putting these workers onto regular fixed

remuneration rather than having their remuneration tied to what they sell. This removes the incentive

for those people to drive sales and push sales in a way that is perhaps not ethical. That is the first

element of the amendments the coalition is seeking to move.

The second is to ensure that any contracts which are entered into through telesales or door-to-door

sales are contracts which have been submitted to the Essential Services Commission and approved by

the Essential Services Commission. So under our amendments it would not be possible to engage a

customer in an energy contract unless that contract had been preapproved by the ESC, and that gets

around the issue of unconscionable terms in contracts and it gets around the negative implication of a

person being pressured into signing a contract where they are not aware of the terms, because the terms

and contracts would need to be approved by the Essential Services Commission prior to those contracts

being sold by way of direct contact.

The third element of the amendments is a requirement that any energy retailer participating in door-

to-door sales or telesales would be required to be a member of a peak body approved by the Essential

Services Commission, and the most obvious example of this would be Sales Assured, which oversees

companies engaged in door-to-door selling. It has codes of conduct for those operators, and it requires

its members to adhere to those codes of conduct. So that would provide a further level of assurance as

to the conduct of retailers in door-to-door or telesales environments.

We believe these three amendments taken together and applied to both the Electricity Industry Act

and the Gas Industry Act would provide the types of consumer protections that the government is

seeking without destroying what we believe are at least 1000 jobs for people involved in telesales and

door-to-door sales, and therefore I commend these amendments to the house.

Mr LEANE: Thank you, Mr Rich-Phillips, for outlining your amendments. The government will

not be supporting the opposition’s amendments, for the reasons in the broad frame that I outlined in

the second-reading summary.

Committee divided on amendment:

Ayes, 16

Atkinson, Mr Davis, Mr McArthur, Mrs

Bach, Dr Grimley, Mr O’Donohue, Mr

Bath, Ms Limbrick, Mr Ondarchie, Mr

Bourman, Mr Lovell, Ms Quilty, Mr

Crozier, Ms Maxwell, Ms Rich-Phillips, Mr

Cumming, Dr

BILLS


Noes, 21

Barton, Mr Leane, Mr Stitt, Ms

Elasmar, Mr Meddick, Mr Symes, Ms

Erdogan, Mr Melhem, Mr Tarlamis, Mr

Garrett, Ms Patten, Ms Taylor, Ms

Gepp, Mr Pulford, Ms Terpstra, Ms

Hayes, Mr Ratnam, Dr Tierney, Ms

Kieu, Dr Shing, Ms Watt, Ms

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 37 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.


Development, Minister for Veterans) (17:03): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading


Development, Minister for Veterans) (17:04): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

In doing that I would like to thank all contributors to this bill and Mr Rich-Phillips for his contribution

during the committee stage.

The PRESIDENT: The question is:

That the bill be now read a third time and do pass.

House divided on question:

Ayes, 24

Barton, Mr Kieu, Dr Shing, Ms

Cumming, Dr 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

Noes, 13

Atkinson, Mr Davis, Mr O’Donohue, Mr

Bach, Dr Limbrick, Mr Ondarchie, Mr

Bath, Ms Lovell, Ms Quilty, Mr

Bourman, Mr McArthur, Mrs Rich-Phillips, Mr

Crozier, Ms

Question agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with

a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.

BILLS


VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND OTHER ACTS

AMENDMENT (FEDERAL JURISDICTION AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL 2021

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ms SYMES:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (17:11): I am pleased to speak on behalf of the opposition

in relation to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and Other Acts Amendment (Federal

Jurisdiction and Other Matters) Bill 2021. This bill does a few things, which I will go through later,

but the principal reasons why this legislation is before us are a High Court decision and a Court of

Appeal decision. In Burns v. Corbett from 2018 the High Court held in respect of federal jurisdiction

matters that only courts referred to in chapter III of the commonwealth constitution could exercise

adjudicative authority, and the Court of Appeal decided in Meringnage v. Interstate Enterprises of

2020 that VCAT is not a court of a state within the meaning of chapter III of the commonwealth

constitution.

Those two decisions combined mean that there are a range of matters traditionally dealt with by the

Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal which it no longer has the authority to hear. Matters which

fall within the scope of federal jurisdiction matters involve those where the commonwealth is a party.

One could imagine a dispute between a Centrelink office, for example, and a landlord—Centrelink

being an agency of the commonwealth—where the dispute arises under a commonwealth law or treaty

or where the dispute is between residents of different states. I am sure colleagues in this chamber who

represent border communities or border areas would have had those sorts of issues come before them.

I am aware of some disputes from East Gippsland and one via my colleague Ms Britnell, the member

for South-West Coast in the other place. Perhaps an owner of a premises is from a different state—

from South Australia, for example, in Ms Britnell’s situation—and the property is in Victoria, or

perhaps an owner is from Merimbula or the south coast of New South Wales and owns a property in

Orbost or Cann River or somewhere like that. Those disputes that arise between parties like that,

whether that is a residential tenancy dispute or some sort of retail dispute, would have traditionally

been dealt with by VCAT, but now, because of the application of the constitution and the definition

of a court of the state as found by the Court of Appeal, they can no longer be adjudicated by VCAT.

Of course without an alternative location for those matters to be determined, there is a real gap in

access to justice as we currently stand. What this bill seeks to do is take matters where the

commonwealth is a party and the dispute arose under commonwealth law or treaty, or the dispute is

between residents of different states or foreign consuls are affected, and transfer the jurisdiction of

those matters from VCAT to the Magistrates Court, which falls within the definition of a court in

chapter III of the commonwealth constitution and is a court of the state consistent with the Court of

Appeal decision. So this is important legislation in that regard. If one was in a legal limbo, as I am sure

some people are, you would want this matter resolved, so there is an appropriate location for

adjudication of these disputes that involve these particular classes of people or entities.

The opposition appreciates that the Attorney-General has discussed in the second-reading speech and

the statement of compatibility the background to that and the findings of those courts on why the

transfer needs to occur to the Magistrates Court. We recognise too that the Magistrates Court is the

next best placed court to hear those disputes, where we want formality to be less, costs to be less and

access to justice to be as quick as possible. Of course the Magistrates Court is different to VCAT in

that VCAT is a no-cost jurisdiction, unless one party is vexatious, in certain circumstances. Basically

each party bears their own costs. It encourages litigants to be self-represented where possible to limit

costs. The Magistrates Court, while still less formal and less expensive than the County Court and the

Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal, is still a different environment to VCAT. That is something

which I know the Chief Magistrate is alive to and aware of, but that transition will create some

challenges, no doubt, particularly with issues around the awarding of costs. I will be interested if any

BILLS


government members want to talk to that specific issue—the fact that the Magistrates Court is a costs

jurisdiction and costs usually follow the event, the decision or the outcome, unlike in VCAT. I think

that is an important issue, if government members could address that specific issue, because that has

been raised with me as a concern.

Of course, too, the fact is that our courts are currently under enormous pressure following COVID and

have huge delays, huge backlogs, which have led to an increased number of prisoners on remand and

delays in hearings for both civil and criminal matters. Whilst there has been much work done by the

courts themselves to use more technology, remote hearings, online hearings, at times directions

hearings over the phone, which have helped the system to continue, I think it is fair to say that the

underinvestment in IT upgrades across the court system over the last six or seven years has meant that

there was a lot of catch-up work for the courts when COVID first hit, and actually dealing with those

backlogs over time will be a real challenge. Whilst the volume of work this transfer of jurisdiction will

bring is not yet known, any additional jurisdiction, any additional workload for the Magistrates Court,

will be a challenge and a burden. I would call on the government to ensure that, whatever additional

resources are needed to deal with this new jurisdiction, those resources are provided. I understand from

the briefing and from inquiries with VCAT and the Magistrates Court that the number of matters this

may involve for the Magistrates Court is not yet really understood and that it will be a matter of time

before we see what sort of volume of matters comes through the door and what sort of resourcing

challenges that puts on the court. The Chief Magistrate may determine a separate list is the most

appropriate way to manage these. That will be a matter for her.

But, as I say, with the pressures the Magistrates Court is already under it is important that additional

resources are provided to enable it to respond to and deal with this additional jurisdiction that it now

will inherit from VCAT as a result of these findings of the High Court and Court of Appeal

respectively. The bill, to facilitate the change, confers on the Magistrates Court the functions and

powers that VCAT would have had in hearing the relevant matter by incorporating some of VCAT’s

features and processes where relevant matters are being heard, including the presumption that rules of

evidence will not apply unless the Magistrates Court decides otherwise. There will be some ongoing

restrictions on the availability of legal representation in some matters, the removal of the rule against

self-incrimination and the inclusion of a direct use immunity.

The bill will ensure that previous orders of VCAT involving federal matters deemed to be invalid by

the court cases I referred to will be retrospectively made effective by creating rights and liabilities

equivalent to those flowing from VCAT’s purported decisions and ensuring the effectiveness of acts

and omissions done in relation to those rights and liabilities. As I say, we recognise that this needs to

occur, and I am sure some people will be put at ease by the passage of this legislation. It gives them

an avenue for the adjudication of a dispute that may involve one of those classes of parties that

currently has no home when it comes to access to justice.

The bill also creates a new statutory position of deputy chief judge. I understand that the creation of

that new position was at the request of the Chief Judge of the County Court. Given the growth in

County Court matters and the responsibility that entails, we recognise the importance of and the need

for such a position.

The bill will also create the position of acting chief Crown prosecutor, which again will make the

leadership of the Crown prosecutors office more seamless and easier to manage without referral back

to the Governor in Council and the like. So that too appears to be a sensible change and amendment

that this bill makes. With those comments, the opposition does not oppose this legislation.

Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (17:23): I rise to make a contribution in regard to this bill,

the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and Other Acts Amendment (Federal Jurisdiction and

Other Matters) Bill 2021. It is quite a long title, but it is a very important bill that seeks to resolve some

technical matters. Before I go into a little bit of detail in regard to that I just want to outline for the

house and for those who may be playing along at home this afternoon that the Victorian

BILLS


budget 2021–22 contained a $210 million package to help our justice system to drive down waiting

times. So we recognise that it was important to make some significant investment in our justice system.

The budget also invested in extra resources for our courts, such as innovative case management

programs, expanded online services, additional judicial officers and court support staff as well as

remote hearing services, because we know the challenges that the COVID pandemic threw up to our

court system meant that there was an important need to transition to look at more hearing options that

involved matters that were not in person. Obviously some could not be present because of COVID

restrictions, so it was important that those changes were supported. The online Magistrates Court,

which was previously expanded during the pandemic, received $40.9 million in funding, including

two new magistrates to preside over the court as well as additional courtrooms. We also provided

$56.7 million for VCAT to transition more of its hearings online, providing quicker, easier resolution

for members of the community. So these are also significant investments that will help ordinary people

get faster and easier access to justice.

Now I will return to some of these matters that are touched on under the bill. In essence what the bill

will do is make critical changes to Victoria’s court system to ensure all Victorians can obtain access

to justice, and in particular it will empower the Magistrates Court of Victoria to resolve disputes

involving federal jurisdictional matters that cannot be heard by VCAT. It will also ensure that past

decisions which have been made by VCAT members in federal jurisdictional matters are effective, as

those decisions were made without authority. I will now go into explaining how we got to that

situation.

Presently there is a gap in the law that arose as a consequence of recent High Court and Court of

Appeal decisions. I know that Mr O’Donohue touched on this earlier, but in Burns v. Corbett in 2018

the High Court of Australia decided that because of certain provisions in the commonwealth

constitution only a court of a state may determine federal jurisdictional matters. Also subsequently in

Meringnage v. Interstate Enterprises the Victorian Court of Appeal determined that the Victorian Civil

and Administrative Tribunal, or VCAT, is not a court of a state for the purposes of the constitution.

This is obviously the first time this was tested, and there has been indeed a 12-month lag time in

resolving this, but of course there has been a lot of work being done behind the scenes to actually work

through the challenges that these appeal decisions threw up.

In the first instance this means that in federal jurisdictional matters where VCAT had exclusive

jurisdiction there is no other forum that can hear the dispute. Therefore parties who were seeking

justice had no way of resolving their dispute through the justice system. Second, it meant that the

previous decisions made by VCAT in federal jurisdictional matters were invalid and unenforceable

because they were made without jurisdiction. So, again, these two appeal cases I guess were for the

first time a test of these provisions and consequently they have thrown up these anomalies, and so

consequently a legislative fix is needed to resolve these matters.

Since the decisions in those matters were handed down, the government has been working with the

Magistrates Court of Victoria and VCAT, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, to develop

a pathway for parties to resolve their federal jurisdictional disputes. The government is aware of the

access to justice issues created by the gap in the VCAT jurisdiction, as I mentioned, but it is also

essential the reforms were not rushed to ensure that they operate effectively from day one. As I said,

there were some matters that had already been decided that the legislation needed to capture, so

historically, looking back, but also then looking forward to make sure that other matters that might be

heard in the future do not succumb to the same problems. The government has been responding

urgently as well to the COVID-19 pandemic, which was emerging at the time of the Court of Appeal’s

decision, and so consequently there was a lot of work being done behind the scenes. As I mentioned

earlier, we have made some significant investments in the budget to help the Magistrates Court

transition to a more online environment, and that included VCAT as well, but at the same time we

have been working on these important reforms to make sure that the courts can manage these matters

as well.

BILLS


Since Meringnage, VCAT has been informed that for parties with federal jurisdictional matters it

cannot hear their disputes because it has got no jurisdiction to do so. Therefore VCAT has refunded

the parties their application fee where this has occurred. So where people were in the queue, had

applied and had paid their application fee, those funds were refunded. Where VCAT shares the

jurisdiction with courts, parties may be able to commence proceedings in those courts if they choose

to. Where VCAT has exclusive jurisdiction some parties may still be able to go to court to resolve

their dispute under a different cause of action. So for example if there was a small claims dispute about

poor quality of service or workmanship, a person could bring an action for breach of contract in the

Magistrates Court of Victoria. However, if there was no parallel action available, parties in these

matters had effectively no forum in which to be able to resolve their dispute.

So what can parties effectively do if they cannot have VCAT address their matter? Presently where

VCAT shares a jurisdiction with courts, parties may be able to commence proceedings in those courts,

as I said, if they want to. The other option is that parties could try and settle their disputes informally.

For example, the Dispute Settlement Centre of Victoria does really good work with parties—I was

fortunate to be able to do a work placement there as part of my dispute resolution degree—on lots of

things like fencing disputes, dogs barking, neighbourhood issues, noise and the like, and they do a

marvellous job. Where both parties consent to dispute resolution there are some really creative and

innovative solutions that can be found to resolving disputes, and it does amazing work. Also, parties

who have not resolved their disputes through other mechanisms can restart their proceedings when the

bill commences using the new processes, and this would include people who previously had had an

application to VCAT where it was struck out because VCAT lacked the jurisdiction to hear these

federal matters.

I will just briefly touch on these points, but I will not go into great detail about the types of matters,

although there are some that I think are worthy of mentioning. In effect the federal jurisdictional

matters are defined by the commonwealth constitution. They are effectively those matters listed in

sections 75 and 76 of the commonwealth constitution, and these are matters including where the

commonwealth is a party, so pursuant to section 75(iii); the dispute is between residents of different

states, section 75(iv); or the dispute arises as a result of commonwealth law, section 76(ii).

Again I will not go into a huge amount of detail, but I will just touch on some of these matters. This is

critically important, and we saw this being highlighted in terms of the pandemic. Some of the matters

that are affected are residential tenancy disputes, and we know that this was a significant issue in the

pandemic. The government did some other great work in this area to assist parties, and I know there

was a moratorium on evictions under residential tenancies. But also Minister Pulford, who is sitting

here in front of me, did some amazing work in terms of the commercial tenancy space, and there is

ongoing work being done in that regard as well. The government has been working extraordinarily

hard to assist tenants, whether they be residential tenants or commercial tenants.

But particularly in regard to this bill, the matters affected under the jurisdiction of VCAT were in

relation to residential tenancy disputes, and they are the most affected because these cases represent

over half of VCAT’s caseload. A significant number of people seeking assistance and access to justice

at VCAT were doing so as a result of tenancy disputes. It is also common for landlords who live

outside of Victoria. For example, interstate investors who own a rental property in Victoria would also

be seeking access to justice via VCAT, so that means it is likely that most federal jurisdictional matters

will be residential tenancy matters. Again the bill will ensure statutory time frames which apply to

residential tenancy matters in VCAT continue to apply in the Magistrates Court as well. Some

consumer disputes, domestic building disputes, planning and environment matters, anti-discrimination

and some legal practice matters are also affected.

You can see there are a broad range of matters, but a large portion are residential tenancy matters.

When we talk about how many matters are affected, it is not possible to quantify the number of cases

affected with absolute precision, but VCAT records show that federal jurisdiction matters arise most

often, as I said, in regard to residential tenancy matters. It is estimated that since the Meringnage

BILLS


dispute in 2020 over 650 residential tenancy matters have been struck out because VCAT did not have

jurisdiction to hear them, and residential tenancy disputes are likely to be the most impacted area, as I

said, because they are more than half of the caseload of VCAT—and landlords living in other states.

The other area of concern is in regard to family violence matters in regard to residential tenancies. For

example, a person may apply to VCAT to terminate a tenancy agreement because of family violence

matters where the landlord resides interstate. Now, this can cause significant hardship as there may be

no other form of legal redress in regard to this matter, and that is very concerning. The bill will ensure

that these kinds of applications can be resolved at the Magistrates Court under new processes. The bill

will ensure statutory time frames such as hearing an application to terminate a tenancy agreement

because of family violence within three business days apply. Section 91V of the Residential Tenancies

Act 1997 will continue to apply in the Magistrates Court of Victoria as it would if they had applied at

VCAT, so this will ensure that such matters are given the appropriate priority and dealt with quickly

to minimise the stress to victims as far as possible. As you can see, if it is family violence and someone

needing to escape quickly, it is something that needs to be dealt with very quickly. So these are

important amendments but very welcome amendments.

There are many other aspects to this that are important. I note Ms Shing is speaking on this bill after

me, and there will be other speakers no doubt, but it is important just to highlight the investment that

the Andrews Labor government has made through the latest Victorian budget, 2021–22. As I said,

there is a $210 million package investing in our justice system to help drive down those wait times.

We are a little bit of a victim of circumstance here again. The pandemic created some unforeseen and

unknown challenges in terms of how our justice system needed to quickly adapt. As I said earlier, the

online Magistrates Court was previously expanded, receiving $40.9 million in funding, with two new

magistrates to preside over the court as well as additional courtrooms, and a very welcome

$56.7 million went to VCAT to transition more of its hearings online to provide quicker, easier

resolutions for members of the community, so again providing a much-needed injection of funds and

providing people who are seeking access or assistance the ability to do so in a much speedier way.

I might leave my contribution there. As I said, there are very important reforms in this bill, critically

necessary, and I commend this bill to the house without amendment.

Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (17:36): I rise in support of the overall objectives of this bill.

To ensure access to justice for affected and vulnerable people is an important priority. So is clearing

up jurisdiction issues where there is a commonwealth aspect or an interstate aspect to a matter brought

before VCAT. Currently parties with federal jurisdiction matters are being turned away from VCAT

as a result of a number of recent High Court and Victorian Court of Appeal decisions on the subject.

For instance, a renter bringing a matter before the tribunal where the rental provider lives interstate is

currently being turned away from VCAT. So I support this bill’s aim to fill jurisdictional gaps such as

this, and I support the other measures addressed by the bill around the Magistrates Court, the County

Court and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

However, there is an aspect that has not been addressed in the bill that was discussed by the member

for Caulfield in the other place that I wish to raise again here today. It is a well-worn but nevertheless

fundamental truth that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done, and here

Mr Southwick and I have an issue with the method of appointment of the members of the Victorian

Civil and Administrative Tribunal, known as VCAT. I am often contacted by constituents and indeed

by people across Melbourne who look at VCAT—mistakenly, I believe—as a haven of last resort

against the overwhelming power of cashed-up developers. Now, these people know I am a strong

advocate for democratic planning processes that give the community a say in planning decisions, with

resort to a fair hearing, preferably at the municipal level, rather than what we now have: massive

developments and destruction of our precious heritage—an environment decided at the stroke of a pen

by the planning minister against the wishes of the local community. That is how bad it has become.

BILLS


But these sorts of decisions also end up being made at VCAT, which brings me to the Court of

Appeal’s case already mentioned by Ms Terpstra, Meringnage v. Interstate Enterprises Pty Ltd, in

which the court mentioned the lack of security of tenure for many VCAT members and their

reappointment at the Minister for Planning’s pleasure. It is this expressed misgiving that I find most

disturbing, and it should be the subject of a serious external review. Both the lack of ongoing tenure

and the minister’s discretion when it comes to reappointment tend to raise concerns that members’

decisions could be influenced by their lack of job security—something naturally important and

influential for most people in the workforce. So when I see the debate in the other place addressing

this method of appointment to the bench of VCAT, I am tempted to link the suitability of an

appointment with this government’s passion for development and a reluctance to talk to those with

opposing views.

We know this government is a developer-friendly government. The Premier in a statement on

3 August 2020 described the construction industry as ‘the lifeblood of the Victorian economy’. Now,

whether it should be or not is another matter, but his government is very friendly with the construction

and development industries. In a government which is clearly biased in favour of the property

development lobby over local communities, reappointment of VCAT members at the planning

minister’s discretion has created a great amount of concern in many of the local residents that contact

me. They see decision after decision at VCAT, especially in regard to larger projects, made in favour

of the development industry. Residents feel the deck is stacked against them and that VCAT decisions

will mostly go against them, or even against their council, in favour of property developers. Is that

appropriate for the way our Victorian communities perceive such an important tribunal with powers

that affect their very quality of life? I believe not. And we see the results out there on the ground with

the seemingly never-ending cascade of concrete swallowing up the Melbourne we once knew and

loved, replacing it with a torrent of soulless and often substandard apartment buildings, destroying the

character of what we used to know as marvellous Melbourne, capital of the former Garden State.

This government and the property development lobby work together as one. That is clear. I note that

Mr Southwick, member for Caulfield in the other place, called for a root-and-branch review of VCAT,

and I wholeheartedly agree and support that idea. Its image in the community has deteriorated to such

an extent that it is widely seen as a rubber stamp for overdevelopment, rather than what it should be—

a tribunal that all members of the community can approach in good faith, seeking decisions based on

merit. However, when the reappointment of its members is currently made at the discretion of a

planning minister whose record is one of favouring development despite community concerns, then

many people who have contacted me feel that VCAT decisions are not based on merit or on the failure

of local councils to be fair but on other factors. I call on the government, in the interests of the Victorian

community, to undertake this full-scale review of VCAT and seriously consider reforms to the way its

members are appointed, taking the power out of the hands of the planning minister and removing the

impression that politics in any way plays a role in their tenure on the tribunal. Currently that is not the

case. Many in the community who have approached me for help against overdevelopment certainly

have formed that impression, and it is not difficult to understand why.

Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (17:43): There is a lot to get through in responding to Mr Hayes’s

contribution alone. So with the time that I have available to me I do not intend to go through all of the

matters that he has referred to on appointment processes exhaustively, save to say that these matters,

as they have also been raised by the member for Caulfield in the other place, fall squarely outside the

scope of this particular bill. No doubt they are matters which Mr Hayes and indeed others in this

Parliament may seek to canvass through other mechanisms.

I do want to turn, however, to the substance of the bill itself and to note from the outset that

Mr O’Donohue has made a number of really useful and constructive contributions today. I am not

saying that is a first, Mr O’Donohue. You do have form in this regard, and it is always helpful to be

able to come into a debate like this after an opening from the opposition representative which does

actually set out the basis and rationale for this bill in really clear terms and the way in which the bill

BILLS


itself seeks to cure deficiencies which have in fact left parties to disputes out on a ledge due to the

constitutional fetters in sections 75 and 76 and the operation of chapter III as it relates to the conferral

of jurisdiction in federal matters, where VCAT as a tribunal would not otherwise have jurisdiction to

deal with such matters. And we know from the contributions of Mr O’Donohue as well as my

colleague Ms Terpstra that these are the sorts of disputes, as we have seen in other jurisdictions

including South Australia and New South Wales, which are fundamentally the matters which cause

disadvantage and lack of access to administration of justice in a prompt and fair way to people who

can least afford the legal uncertainty and often the costs that go along with it where matters are

protracted and drawn out, including over jurisdictional boundaries. As Ms Terpstra mentioned,

tenancy disputes and matters involving landlords who may well be in other jurisdictions are one such

example, but the lack of access to alternative dispute resolution and the ambiguity that exists because

of these legal shortcomings are one area of reform in this bill which will correct the substantive gaps

which have arisen as a consequence of determinations by the High Court.

The way in which this bill has been drafted is very clear around curing these deficiencies in ways

which minimise inconvenience and which also correct past denials of access to proper, fair,

streamlined and equitable decision-making, and in that sense the way in which jurisdiction will be

newly conferred on the Magistrates Court to resolve federal jurisdiction matters—that is, matters

arising under commonwealth law, where the commonwealth is a party, where a dispute arises under

commonwealth law and where a dispute arises between residents of different states. That will actually

be able to be addressed by a conferred jurisdiction upon the Magistrates Court, a chapter III court, for

the purposes of the commonwealth constitution. But importantly there is a retrospective element to

this bill which will mean that past VCAT decisions in federal jurisdictional matters which may

otherwise find themselves out on a limb by virtue of these High Court determinations will in fact be

able to be validated through operation of this bill and the framework that it establishes.

It is really important that when we look at the definition of a court of the state, we look at the purposes

for which such a court was established, and this is where there is low cost and processes within a

jurisdiction are informal. This nature of informality is to the best extent preserved. This is where the

nature of the conferral of jurisdiction upon the Magistrates Court is intended by operation of this bill

to maintain a degree of informality, including as it relates to the application of the rules of evidence

and including as it relates to the privilege of self-incrimination, save and except for the way in which

a court in a federal jurisdiction may in fact decide to adopt those rules and they will be implemented

and the way in which parties before the Magistrates Court will be treated as a consequence of that

conferral.

Enforcement, however, of matters in the Magistrates Court as a court of the state will be enforced in

the same way as other orders of the state, and it is also important to note that parties in federal

jurisdictional matters which are being dealt with in the Magistrates Court will have access to existing

alternative dispute resolution processes. This is really important. It is an important thing to note in the

same way that Ms Terpstra and Mr O’Donohue have referred to the clarity that parties look for,

particularly parties for whom time and expense are major considerations in accessing a legal process.

To this end in fact it squares the playing field—I should say it squares a ledger and it levels a playing

field. You can tell I have been watching too many various Olympic codes at all times of the day and

night to be able to get my sporting metaphors right. But the matters at hand really do deserve a careful

examination not only as they relate to the way in which parties can access the Magistrates Court as a

competent jurisdiction for the purposes of the definitions of chapter III of the constitution and the

application of sections 75 and 76 of the commonwealth constitution but also in relation to the way in

which the Magistrates Court will be assisted to implement changes, including training for registrars

and staff, including information to access and to enhance online capability and including the way in

which court rules can and indeed will be developed to facilitate this conferral of jurisdiction following

the commencement of the legislation.

BILLS


Now, as it relates to the time frames, we do not want to delay this any further. It is anticipated that

gazettal will occur in October and that commencement, being foreshadowed as it is for 1 January next

year, will enable these changes to become meaningful in a practical way for parties to disputes and to

legal matters. It will also mean that we are in a position to begin the modelling necessary for the

Magistrates Court to understand the operational implications of these changes and therefore to

continue to work alongside the government and within the court system, in much the same way as the

extensive consultation with VCAT and the Magistrates Court has occurred in developing this bill, to

understand properly the consequences and the implications—in real terms, in practical terms and in

resourcing terms—of these changes and what is needed into the future.

This is where—to pick up on a point which Mr O’Donohue raised earlier—we will work as a

government very closely with the Magistrates Court of Victoria to make sure that there is modelling

that is undertaken very carefully and very thoroughly to understand what the resourcing needs are into

the future, including the way in which alternative dispute resolution may be best directed to assist

parties to resolve matters and thus avoid the expense and the time frames associated with proceeding

to hearing. Where there are additional expenses that arise in relation to this modelling, then of course

any further request for assistance will be part and parcel of the ongoing discussion of resourcing

matters between government, the Attorney-General and the Magistrates Court of Victoria.

There are a couple of other matters in the bill itself, though, that I do want to touch on very briefly. I

do not believe that they have been canvassed by other speakers today, so it does fall to me to refer to

the new statutory position of the deputy chief judge of the County Court and streamlining the process

for the appointment of an acting chief Crown prosecutor. The bill itself contains two amendments to

the County Court Act 1958, the Judicial Entitlements Act 2015 and the Public Prosecutions Act 1994

to create that new statutory position of deputy chief judge of the County Court and also to specify

remuneration for that new role. This is an important part of making sure that the County Court’s really

valuable work can be bolstered and that resourcing challenges and demands for that jurisdiction can

be better met, including as we emerge from the pandemic and including as we reinforce and stand by

our commitment to assist in reducing the burden of court lists and waiting times, which continues to

be a focus for not just Victoria but Australia and indeed international jurisdictions.

The other part of the bill is an amendment to the Public Prosecutions Act to broaden the circumstances

in which the directors committee can appoint a senior Crown prosecutor to act as the chief Crown

prosecutor. This is a really important recognition of the practical consequences of otherwise needing

to seek Governor in Council approval, which is in and of itself an onerous and really time-consuming

process where otherwise the appointment of an acting chief Crown prosecutor can be undertaken for

what might be very well a short period of time in the event that that substantive position is vacant or

where the chief Crown prosecutor is absent from duty or unable to carry out the duties of the office

for any reason.

So there are a number of elements to this bill. In practical terms they do put us on an even footing with

other jurisdictions—as I said at the outset, South Australia and New South Wales. In practical terms,

for parties to disputes it means certainty in a way which will be a useful counterpoint to the precedent

established by the High Court in its examination of the operation and scope of chapter III courts. We

need to be as agile as we possibly can be in responding to the challenges at a legal and administrative

level on the one hand but at a practical level on the other in making sure that to the best extent possible

inconsistencies and shortcomings, such as the failure to access a jurisdiction by virtue of the matters

that I talked about earlier in my contribution, are avoided.

So these are necessary changes. They are important changes, practical changes and changes which

will stand the Magistrates Court in good stead and VCAT in good stead but, as importantly, parties to

legal matters in better stead to be able to access an appropriate administration of justice within the state

of Victoria. It is pleasing to note that neither the opposition nor indeed those who have spoken today

from the crossbench—and I stand ready to be surprised should that be the case—have indicated any

substantive opposition to the bill. I look forward to its speedy passage such that commencement and

BILLS


implementation can begin apace. Thank you to all of the parties, including those from the Magistrates

Court and VCAT, who have been such an integral part of the consultation which has led to the

development of this bill. It has been a significant body of work that has definitely called upon their

expertise. I look forward to wishing it a speedy passage and commend it to the house.

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (17:56): I rise to speak on the Victorian Civil and

Administrative Tribunal and Other Acts Amendment (Federal Jurisdiction and Other Matters)

Bill 2021. This is a bill addressing a loophole in our judicial system, a loophole created by the quirks

of our federation, where the lines between commonwealth and state jurisdictions are increasingly

blurred in some areas but still firm in others. The changes in this bill are in response to a decision of

the High Court of Australia, which found a number of matters thought to be within the jurisdiction of

VCAT were actually unconstitutional. A case where one party is the commonwealth or where the

parties are residents of different states is actually within federal jurisdiction and cannot be heard by a

tribunal like VCAT. This has meant that a whole lot of cases that VCAT had previously been able to

hear and many cases that it had previously heard and decided were unconstitutional and out of

jurisdiction.

This bill addresses this problem by allowing the Magistrates Court to hear any matter that would be

within VCAT’s jurisdiction if VCAT is unable to hear it. While there are a few kinds of disputes that

were captured by the decision of the High Court and will now go through the Magistrates Court, by

far the most common one will be disputes between landlords and tenants where the renter lives in

Victoria but their landlord lives in another state. It is already tough enough to be a renter, and even

tougher to try to resolve a dispute with a landlord or a property manager through the legal system. We

should not be denying these renters access to justice simply because their landlord happens to reside

in a different state, nor should we be penalising these renters by forcing them to go through a more

expensive, complicated or stressful proceeding in the formal court system rather than a tribunal

hearing. So it is good to see attempts in this bill to ensure that the process of the Magistrates Court will

be as similar as possible to the VCAT system. The fee will be similar, the same rights in relation to

legal representation and evidence will apply as at VCAT and parties will be able to use the alternative

dispute resolution system offered by the Magistrates Court.

While it is good to see the government take an interest in making some changes to our legal system to

increase access to justice in this bill, there is more to do to improve dispute resolution systems in

Victoria, especially in relation to residential tenancy disputes. The residential tenancies list is by far

VCAT’s busiest list, covering 60 per cent of VCAT’s entire case load. The list hears disputes between

landlords and tenants, rooming house owners and rooming house residents, the director of housing

and public tenants, and community housing providers and their tenants. But of these it is the disputes

between landlords and tenants that make up the majority of the matters heard through the list. The vast

majority—about 70 per cent of all cases heard by the residential tenancies list—are initiated by a

landlord or a property manager, and of those 90 per cent are initiated by a property manager, which

means that VCAT is being used by the property industry as another tool to threaten, bully and

intimidate tenants.

I frequently hear from constituents whose landlords or property managers are using the threat of a

VCAT hearing to bully them into submission or to punish them for exercising their rights under the

law, like property managers attempting to withhold the entirety of a bond payment for the normal wear

and tear of living in a property or landlords trying to block tenants from adopting a pet. It is another

frequent reminder that instead of living in their own home renters are residing in someone else’s

retirement plan and that, despite the recent reforms to strengthen renters rights, so many landlords and

property managers still view tenants as a nuisance and a threat to the quality of their investment,

especially over the last year, when many renters got in touch to ask for help in navigating the COVID

protection scheme and in working with landlords and property managers who refused to engage with

the system in good faith or at all. I heard stories of property managers who threatened to blacklist

BILLS


renters for requesting rental reductions through the COVID protections or who refused to offer rental

reductions at all even when tenants had lost all or significant parts of their income.

We know that after COVID there was a surge in notices to vacate and that many landlords simply

waited it out until they could legally evict their tenants instead of agreeing to any temporary rent

reduction. Landlords and property managers hold all the power—and they know it—and too often our

VCAT system reinforces that imbalance instead of empowering renters to enforce their rights.

Recently I was contacted by a renter who had just been through an eviction hearing at VCAT despite

stay-at-home orders being in place. The renter reported that the member was dismissive of their loss

of income and experience and approved the eviction in the middle of our most recent lockdown. It is

really disappointing that this is still happening and that the government’s refusal to introduce rental

protections for renters is putting people at risk of homelessness, especially when they are willing to

offer this support to businesses.

Later this week we will be debating the Commercial Tenancy Relief Scheme Bill 2021, which will

reintroduce rental relief mechanisms for businesses struggling to pay their rent, but even though we

know that renters are being taken to VCAT during lockdown and that VCAT is willing to turf them

out of their homes and onto the streets, no similar protections have been extended to renters. It is an

indifference to the welfare and safety of renters at best and deliberate cruelty at worst. We will have

more to say on this later in the week, but in the context of VCAT and this bill it is clear that more

needs to be done to improve the experience of renters in the judicial system. While I know the

government has reiterated that VCAT can only issue an eviction order where it is reasonable and

proportionate to do so, the stories we have heard from renters suggest that too often VCAT is too

willing to favour the landlord when making this judgement. I hope this government is willing to

commit to further reform in this area to better empower renters in the dispute resolution process.

Mr ERDOGAN (Southern Metropolitan)

Incorporated pursuant to order of Council of 8 June:

Introduction

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and Other Acts Amendment (Federal Jurisdiction and Other

Matters) Bill makes critical amendments to ensure the ongoing delivery of justice for all Victorians.

The bill addresses gaps in VCAT’s jurisdiction resulting from recent court decisions by amending the

Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (VCAT act) and the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 (MC

act).

These amendments empower the Magistrates Court to decide on disputes that, for constitutional reasons,

cannot be heard by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) anymore.

These include matters where the commonwealth is a party; where the dispute arises under a commonwealth

law; and where the dispute is between residents of different jurisdictions, like residential tenancy disputes

where the landlord lives outside Victoria.

Background

The amendments to the VCAT act and the MC act contained in this bill arise from two judicial decisions from

the recent past.

In Burns v. Corbett [2018] HCA 15 (Burns), the High Court of Australia decided only a ‘court of a state’ may

determine federal jurisdiction matters due to certain provisions in the commonwealth constitution.

Subsequently, in Meringnage v. Interstate Enterprises Pty Ltd & Ors [2020] VSCA 30 (Meringnage), it was

determined that VCAT is not a ‘court of a state’ for the purposes of the constitution by the Victorian Court of

Appeal.

Consequently, this meant that parties had no way of resolving their disputes through the justice system in

cases regarding federal jurisdiction matters where VCAT had exclusive jurisdiction.

It also meant that previous decisions made by VCAT in federal jurisdiction matters were invalid and

unenforceable because they were made without jurisdiction.

BILLS


This bill addresses both these issues by conferring new jurisdiction on the Magistrates Court to resolve federal

jurisdiction matters which cannot be resolved by VCAT for constitutional reasons, and validating past VCAT

decisions in federal jurisdiction matters.

These reforms will ensure the continued delivery of justice for all Victorians.

New jurisdiction

The reforms to rectify the jurisdictional ‘gap’ have been developed through extensive consultation with the

Magistrates Court and VCAT.

Feedback has also been sought from other legal and affected stakeholders, besides considering the approaches

taken in South Australia and New South Wales to address this issue.

Ensuring that federal jurisdiction matters can be heard in an accessible, low-cost and user-friendly way has

been a central objective in developing these reforms.

The broad framework enshrined in this bill gives the Magistrates Court and VCAT the flexibility to manage

these proceedings, while not impinging on the independence and integrity of the Magistrates Court as a ‘court

of the state’.

Upon commencement of this bill, parties in federal jurisdiction matters will be able to apply directly to the

Magistrates Court to have their matters heard.

If a party applies to VCAT but the matter is a federal jurisdiction matter, VCAT will assist them to apply to

the Magistrates Court.

Care has been taken to ensure applicants will not be financially worse off as a result of this process.

Applicants will be refunded their VCAT filing fee in such a situation, and the fee for Magistrates Court will

be the same.

This new process will be available in new disputes, and for parties who have previously been affected by the

gap in jurisdiction.

These reforms will empower the Magistrates Court to hear and determine these applications if it is satisfied

that it involves a federal jurisdiction matter in VCAT’s original jurisdiction, or when there is some doubt

regarding the exercise of jurisdiction to ensure the validity of such decisions.

In hearing and determining federal jurisdiction matters, the Magistrates Court will have the functions and

powers that VCAT would have had, in addition to its existing powers.

This bill also aims to ensure consistency between the process of VCAT and the Magistrates Court for handling

federal jurisdiction matters where appropriate.

This includes similar rules relating to legal representation, evidence and privilege against self-incrimination.

Importantly, parties in federal jurisdiction matters will also have access to the Magistrates Court’s existing

alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes.

This will enable parties to avoid the time and expense of hearings in appropriate cases.

To continue the effectiveness of past VCAT decisions in federal jurisdiction matters, the bill will ensure that

parties have the same rights and liabilities purportedly established by those decisions.

Therefore, it will provide much-needed certainty to the parties involved that their rights arising from VCAT

orders can continue to be enforced.

Other reforms

The bill also introduces two other amendments aimed to bolster the efficiency of our state’s court process.

The bill will amend the County Court Act 1958, the Judicial Entitlements Act 2015 and the Public

Prosecutions Act 1994 to create a new statutory position of deputy chief judge of the County Court and to

specify the remuneration for the new role.

The new deputy chief judge will support the vital work of the County Court by assisting the Chief Judge in

managing the court’s increased workload.

They will also enhance continuity by acting as the Chief Judge in certain circumstances.

This is crucial considering the current significant challenges for the County Court created by the ongoing

COVID-19 pandemic.

The bill amends the Public Prosecutions Act 1994 to enable the directors committee to appoint an acting chief

Crown prosecutor during a short period where the office is vacant or the chief Crown prosecutor is unable to

carry out their duties due to absence or any other reasons.

ADJOURNMENT


It also broadens the circumstances in which the directors committee can appoint a senior Crown prosecutor

to act as the chief Crown prosecutor.

This shifts from the current onerous and time-consuming requirement of only the Governor in Council being

able to appoint someone for a short-term acting arrangement.

Conclusion

The Magistrates Court, with the assistance of VCAT, is prioritising the implementation of these reforms with

a view to ensuring that the new scheme operates as smoothly as possible from day one.

With work already underway, the Victorian government is aiming to proclaim the commencement of these

reforms around late October this year.

This bill ensures that these reforms will commence no later than 1 January 2022.

The bill ensures no Victorian has structural problems in their access to justice.

I commend this bill to the house.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Third reading


Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (18:02): I move, by leave:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Gepp): Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be

returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill

without amendment.

Adjournment


Education) (18:03): I move:

That the house do now adjourn.

MORNINGTON GARDEN SUPPLIES

Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (18:03): (1403) I raise a matter for the attention of the

Minister for Small Business. The action I seek is that she advise me what she will do to assist an

important small business in my electorate, Mornington Garden Supplies, to relocate and/or continue

operating. Mornington Garden Supplies is a highly respected, longstanding local business on the

Mornington Peninsula which has served local tradies, builders, farmers, home renovators and others

for over 40 years. It employs more than a dozen staff, many of whom are long-term team members.

Many years ago the business outgrew its premises in the Mornington industrial estate, and at the

recommendation and urging of the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council it moved to a new site on the

Moorooduc Highway. The council assured the business owners that despite the new location being in

a green wedge zone it could operate all activities associated with a garden supply business, including

the sale of bulk rock and sand, because of the pre-existing use rights. The site for many years was a

large caravan park with a significant retail shop, and more recently for 20 years it was a small garden

supplier which made concrete statues and the like.

After Mornington Garden Supplies spent hundreds of thousands of dollars moving to the new premises

and having commenced operations, the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council changed its position and

decided that the use of the land was inconsistent with the permitted uses on the site and required the

ADJOURNMENT


owners to apply for a planning permit, which in turn triggered an objection and ultimately a VCAT

process. Following an expensive and protracted VCAT proceeding, which has cost the shire,

ratepayers and the business a small fortune, VCAT determined the business was operating outside the

planning scheme and needed to relocate or close some of the key parts of its operations.

After much soul-searching, the business engaged with council again and was assured a suitable

location could be found. Further negotiations took place and a perfect location in the local industrial

precinct was identified, and following further reassurance from the council the business spent another

$20 000 designing new premises and engaging planning and other consultants.

Later, after these costs had been incurred, the council again changed its mind and determined the land

could not be made available and was not suitable for a garden supply business. During this time the

business owners have sought to engage members of the Andrews government, including Planning

Minister Wynne. On behalf of the business I have written to Minister Wynne as well, and despite

waiting now for two months, I am yet to receive a response. The business owners have also sought to

engage with the mayor and councillors, so far to no avail. The business has now just a few months to

trade before it has to move premises and, with a complete lack of alternative sites in the Mornington

area, will likely be forced to close, making redundant the breadwinners of a dozen local families and

further concentrating the power and market share of national operators such as Bunnings.

This most unfortunate situation illustrates to me how, despite the talk, small business is treated with

contempt by this government, and all too often by local government. It is an example of how even

when you navigate the complex bureaucratic processes, pay all the taxes and fees and look to grow

your business, you can still be shut down because of the wrong advice from a faceless ever-changing

bureaucracy—a decision that no-one owns, takes responsibility for or suffers any consequences for as

a result, except the small business owner. So the action I seek from the minister is to advise me what

she will do to help this business survive.

WESTERN VICTORIA PASSENGER RAIL SERVICES

Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (18:06): (1404) My adjournment debate is for the Minister for

Public Transport, and it relates to a new train shuttle service from Nhill to Ararat. During my time as

a member for Western Victoria I have been given the opportunity to meet some amazing people,

councils and businesses in rural and regional Victoria. They work hard and love their communities.

People living in country Victoria understand that they will not always have access to exactly the same

services as metropolitan areas, and they understand that it does take longer to travel elsewhere. But in

saying this, we are seeing now more than ever a wider gap of services between the country and the

city.

Recently I embarked on a trip around Western Victoria meeting community groups and councils. The

same issues continue to arise: there are not enough houses, areas cannot fill jobs, there is not enough

funding for roads, more health services are needed and the public transport is abysmal and in some

places non-existent. The current transport system in the Wimmera is horrendous at best. It is a bus-

based network with horrible timetabling and extremely long and uncomfortable trips, and it is difficult

for elderly residents to use. I am told that instead of using the buses to go to appointments in

Melbourne, locals either go without or drive themselves to Ballarat to catch the train. For those in

Nhill, that is a 3-hour drive, a train ride to Melbourne and then back again. The choice left for locals

is to either pay to stay overnight in Melbourne, which many cannot afford, or drive back home, and it

is barely a choice at all.

What is heartbreaking about this issue is what the locals say, and I have heard this too many times to

count: ‘If this was happening in metropolitan Melbourne or a marginal seat, the problem would be

fixed straightaway’. Horsham, Dimboola and Nhill need a train service. Speaking with the councils,

locals and businesses, everyone wants a train service. The good news is that all of the infrastructure is

already there. The Overland train uses the existing track, which is in good enough condition for

passenger rail, and I am told the old rolling stock from the north-east line, which matches the gauge of

ADJOURNMENT


the track, is sitting unused in Melbourne. We do not need a dedicated service to Melbourne, just a

shuttle from Nhill or Kaniva that connects with the Melbourne service at Ararat. I have also been told

that the Department of Transport had begun a business case before the COVID-19 outbreak. The

pieces of the puzzle are all there; we just need to put it together.

There is an opportunity now for government to begin to close the gap of inequality between the city

and the country in the Wimmera. There is a cost-effective, viable option that can be put into action

easily. I know that the Horsham council have met with members of the government and discussed this

plan. All we need now is a commitment. Therefore the action that I seek from the minister is to provide

an update on the business case for this shuttle service, including when it will be finished and if it will

be made public, and for the minister to meet with the Horsham Rural City Council, Hindmarsh council

and the Nhill Train Alliance to discuss the return train service from Nhill to Ararat.

GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT POLICY

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (18:09): (1405) My adjournment tonight is for the Premier, and

it is regarding the Andrews Labor government having walked away from supporting Victorian

manufacturers in favour of cheap imported products. The action that I seek from the Premier is for

him to instruct HealthShare Victoria and state government departments to support Victorian

manufacturers as a priority when purchasing products for use in Victorian departments, health

services, authorities and agencies.

The past 18 months have taught Australians a lot about the danger of relying on imported goods, as

when borders closed, the supply chains all but dried up. Of greatest concern during these testing times

has been the supply of vital medical equipment and PPE needed for our fight against COVID-19. At

the forefront of manufacturers who stepped up to assist were Med-Con, a business in Greater

Shepparton, who at the time were Australia’s only manufacturer of surgical masks. Med-Con operated

two machines in Shepparton, but the demand for masks drew support from both the commonwealth

and state to increase their production. The commonwealth provided immediate support from the armed

forces, and Foodmach, a company in Echuca, manufactured eight new mask-making machines to

enable Med-Con to increase supply, with 10 machines in full operation.

The commonwealth immediately placed an order for almost 60 million masks to be delivered by

December 2020, to create a national stockpile, and an ongoing commitment to purchase 10 million

masks per year. The Victorian government needed Med-Con to secure masks for health services and

frontline workers such as the police force, and other states, including New South Wales, Queensland

and Western Australia, also placed orders. Med-Con were very clear with all governments at the time,

pointing out that they were happy to help out by increasing their production capacity but that they

wanted ongoing business from the governments to support that increased capacity. As happens when

a product is in high demand, other manufacturers jumped on the bandwagon, and several other

manufacturers have now commenced producing masks in other states. As the Premier has often said,

masks are vital to stop the spread of COVID-19, yet the Victorian government has walked away from

supporting Med-Con in favour of cheaper imported and interstate products, hiding behind the excuse

of competitive tendering now there is ample supply of cheap inferior imports or from interstate

manufacturers.

The result of the Victorian government abandoning Med-Con is that production has reduced from

10 machines to two, the number of machines in production pre-pandemic, and the workforce of Med-

Con has reduced from 150 to only 25. I have raised the need for the Victorian government to support

Victorian manufacturers on many previous occasions. Another glaring insult to the Greater Shepparton

community is the state, through HealthShare Victoria, purchasing cheap imported preserved fruit

instead of supporting SPC. It is time for the state to remember how desperate they were for locally

manufactured goods and to prioritise purchases from Victorian manufacturers like Med-Con and SPC.

In addition, I encourage every member of the Victorian Parliament and Victoria to purchase Med-Con

masks— (Time expired)

ADJOURNMENT


WYNDHAM CHILD DISABILITY SERVICES

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (18:12): (1406) My adjournment matter is for the

Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers. The action that I seek is for consideration to be given to

providing an education centre in Wyndham dedicated to supporting children with disability, especially

those with complex and high support needs. I have been contacted by a grandfather of a child who has

ADHD and autism. His grandson attends a local school. While he acknowledges the hard work that is

done by the teachers, he is frustrated, as his grandson struggles with learning in a normal school

education system and his needs are not being met.

There has been a move over recent years to provide schooling for children with learning difficulties

within the normal school system. Now, I support inclusion, but these children with high needs within

the current system are not having their needs met. Their education is still based on the curriculum

rather than their life skills and their learning difficulties. Their needs with regard to personal hygiene,

social friendships and activities are complex and often cannot be met within the current system. The

environment is often disturbing for them rather than nurturing.

Over in the eastern suburbs there are a range of schools and education centres that are structured and

designed to meet the needs of these children, but facilities within the western region are sadly lacking

for our children. Yes, there are some centres, but they are either not suitable for a range of children or

are at capacity. I acknowledge that the government is building new schools in the area, which the local

community and I really do appreciate, but the children with special needs are falling through the cracks

and will continue to fall through these gaps. Now, Wyndham is one of the highest growth areas in the

state. They need specialised education facilities, and I am hoping that this government will do this for

that community.

POINT COOK ROAD

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (18:14): (1407) My adjournment this evening is for the Minister

for Roads and Road Safety. It concerns an area that I have expressed a great deal of concern about

now for a number of years, and that is the area of Point Cook and in particular Point Cook Road. It

does not actually intersect with the Princes Freeway, but it causes a major problem as it attempts to

take the traffic from Point Cook Road to the Princes Freeway.

Now, what we have at the bottom of Point Cook Road is a roundabout. We have a constant stream of

traffic coming in from Altona Meadows and areas such as this as well as Point Cook and Sanctuary

Lakes. They are expected to get to the freeway by crossing a one-lane bridge and then travelling

through a couple more roundabouts, through the main town centre of Laverton and then through,

again, a very narrow road onto the freeway. Now, it is absolutely ridiculous that VicRoads have not

done anything about this in years gone by. In fact it is a scandal of some considerable proportion, in

my view, that the government and previous governments have allowed this area to grow in the way

that it has grown without providing the infrastructure to allow them to actually get out of the place,

because a lot of people are feeling a little bit claustrophobic in that they have difficulties in getting out

of Point Cook, getting out of Sanctuary Lakes or getting out of Altona Meadows without some

considerable difficulty. Whether it be a diamond interchange or just an interchange of some other sort,

we need it, and we need it now. In fact we needed it 10 years ago.

What I am asking the minister to do tonight is to put in place a process whereby that will be delivered.

I am asking the minister to start the process to ensure that we have a free-flowing traffic situation from

Point Cook Road over the freeway or onto the freeway so that people can get to work, they can get to

school and they can get to wherever they want to get to without having to spend an inordinate amount

of time waiting in the traffic on Point Cook Road just to get onto the freeway. An interchange, I believe,

will fix that. It is long overdue, so I am asking the minister now to put that into progress. Let us get

this show cracking.

ADJOURNMENT


COVID-19

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (18:18): (1408) My adjournment matter this evening is to

the Minister for Health, and it relates to hundreds—thousands actually—of people that are in New

South Wales and around Australia trying to get back to Victoria. As we see what is happening in other

states—and people have been in other states for various reasons—they have wanted to return home,

and quite legitimately. Although the government has put blanket bans on things, had restrictions that

have extended across the state and shut borders, it is sometimes very difficult for people to be able to

come back within the time frames that the government is talking about. I especially refer to those sad

situations when people have had to go interstate because of parents or loved ones having died and they

have had to sort out obvious issues around family matters that relate to those situations. When they

have wanted to return, they have been asked time and time again to get tested within a certain period

of time, to put all their documentation in and to apply through the exemption email address or ring the

COVID hotline. Now, that all seems fine on the face of it, but in reality it is an absolute dog’s breakfast.

I have had a lot of people contact my office saying, ‘Could you please help me?’, and I have been

spending a lot of time helping a lot of people trying to get through what they need to be doing to get

back to Victoria.

The action I am seeking from the minister is around this very issue. There needs to be some clarity

around what people are supposed to do, because if they are told to get a test 48 hours prior to travelling

but then they are not granted an exemption, then that test is wasted and they have got to go back and

repeat the process time and time again. And so the action I am seeking from the minister is to provide

some clarity around the process; if need be, get people in place who actually know what they are

talking about, because people often are getting misinformation as well; and get that exemption process

absolutely bedded down—a proper process in place—so that people can fully understand what they

are required to do to return back to Victoria. They deserve to come back to their homes. We are one

country. We are a state in this nation, and people need to come home. They understand that there is a

situation in other states. We have been in that situation, but Victorians need and deserve to come home

to their homes in Victoria.

WESTERN VICTORIA TRANSMISSION NETWORK PROJECT

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (18:21): (1409) My adjournment debate is for the Minister

for Energy, Environment and Climate Change and concerns the Western Victoria Transmission

Network Project. I have spoken here before about the determined, informed, passionate and creative

opposition being put forward. This was taken to new heights in Ballan on Friday, with a gold medal

performance worthy of Tokyo. I was pleased to be on hand to witness a part of it. Kelly Conroy began

a 100-mile run to raise awareness of the Western Victoria Transmission Network Project. She ran to

oppose the project, which will blight communities along the 190-kilometre line from Bulgana to

Sydenham, if it continues as proposed, above ground. Kelly ran for the environment and for every

farmer, businessman, tourist operator and individual who will be impacted by this project for

generations to come. She was joined by family and friends along the way, loudly cheered on by poster-

holding students at St Brigid’s Primary School and assisted by a team that were able to finish the run

for her after she suffered an injury after more than 100 kilometres of running. A total of $20 000 was

raised in donations to help fight the current AusNet project. I want to congratulate Kelly on her terrific

efforts and to thank her and all those who supported her and donated to this worthwhile cause.

Now, I am also pleased to note that local Labor MPs, both federal and state, have begun to wake up to

the opposition. Catherine King, the federal member for Ballarat, has said:

We know that underground will cost a bit more, but I think it is worth the effort …

She has admitted that, quote:

While new transmission lines do need to be built … this is not the way to do it.

ADJOURNMENT


She concluded:

It is my opinion and the opinion of many in the community that the transmission lines should be run

underground.

I was far more astonished, however, by the Damascene conversion of the minister’s colleague the state

member for Buninyong. Last week she finally woke up to months and months of desperate pleas from

her constituents. She wrote to Australian Energy Market Operator chief executive Daniel Westerman:

You asked AusNet to build the project and we are asking you to send them back to the drawing board. This

project needs to respect our prime agricultural land, precious natural landscapes and our home. Hear our

voices and demand AusNet investigate all other options, including undergrounding and alternative routes.

So the action I seek from the minister is for the minister to make her own views clear and to order that

undergrounding and other routes be prioritised. And I ask the minister: does she accept the requests of

her own Labor colleagues to take this project underground, and will she now work to make that

happen?

GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT POLICY

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (18:24): (1410) My adjournment debate matter tonight is for the

Minister for Health—and he might think that there is an echo in here, because this has already been

raised tonight. On a recent trip to Shepparton I met with local manufacturers of medical supplies and

PPE Med-Con. In April last year, at the start of the COVID panic when our supply chains collapsed,

they were restocking not just our state’s but all of Australia’s dwindling medical supplies. They were

a homegrown manufacturing hero, going from a single shift of 14 workers a day producing 2 million

surgical masks a year to 24/7 production with 150 staff producing 90 million masks in 2020. Med-

Con received government grants targeting critical supply chain vulnerabilities. They used the money

to buy 10 new machines and implement multiple production lines; that is how they managed to scale

up.

Whilst on principle I am opposed to donating taxpayer dollars to private companies, you can make a

case that this shoring up of critical manufacturing capability in a crisis is not wasteful investment. It

was clear when we became closed off from the rest of the world that we needed to produce these

products in Australia, so the investment was made and during the peak of the crisis demand for masks

and other medical products was met. Politicians, state and federal, including some from this chamber,

posed for photos in front of the machinery. News stories showed a resilient northern Victorian

company and caring politicians delivering solutions.

Happy story, right? No, because the moment we could get our cheaper and lower quality medical

supplies imported from Asia again our medical supply procurers ditched Med-Con like a hot brick.

The number of manufacturing staff is back down to eight or 10. The brand new machinery has been

mothballed, and the factory is now quiet again. There is a reason for this. The masks from Asia are

cheaper, even if they are of a lesser quality. I fully support getting value for taxpayers dollars in our

purchasing decisions. However, dropping Med-Con as a supplier altogether shows an appalling lack

of foresight by our public servants and by the MPs who were posing for those photos. We cannot hide

this foolishness behind competitive purchasing guidelines. We need to throw some business to these

manufacturers if we want them to be there next time.

The action I seek is for the minister to commit, where the options exist, to purchasing at least 10 per

cent of our critical medical supplies from local manufacturers like Med-Con and suppliers like them

so we will retain this manufacturing capacity sustainably in Australia, not just propping it up with

emergency COVID packages, because otherwise the next crisis they may not be there at all.

ADJOURNMENT


MONT ALBERT AND SURREY HILLS TRAIN STATIONS

Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (18:27): (1411) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for

Transport Infrastructure, and it concerns ongoing issues that many members of the community have

with the government’s approach to a level crossing removal in Surrey Hills and Mont Albert. Now, I

enjoy a level crossing removal as much as the next person—in fact it was the last coalition government

that commenced the current level crossing removal program—and yet the approach that has been taken

to this level crossing removal in Surrey Hills and Mont Albert is uniquely cack-handed. It is uniquely

dismissive of the very genuine concerns of the local community.

Recently numerous reasonable community-minded groups in Surrey Hills and Mont Albert have come

together to reject the government’s proposal to abolish the current situation whereby there are two

stations—two historic, beautiful stations dating back to the 19th century—one in Surrey Hills and one

in Mont Albert, and instead to build a super-station. And the geniuses in the Andrews Labor

government have decided to build the super-station right on top of Lorne Parade Reserve. Nonetheless,

and perhaps unsurprisingly, members of the local community are unhappy. They point to some issues,

such as the permanent loss and closure of two stations that for over 100 years have been attached to

their local shopping villages. They point to the complete disconnection of the new super-station to the

local shopping villages. They point to dramatic changes to residential streets, to the closure of roads

and to the narrowing of others. They point to the loss of the historic Lorne Parade Reserve, which one

Hamer saved in the 1970s and another Hamer today is determined to destroy. They point to the

widescale clearing and felling of trees, some of which are 150 years old. They point to the bare

minimum being done for accessibility regarding the new station and to issues with the planning

consultation.

None of these concerns, which have been expressed time and time again to the Andrews Labor

government, have been adequately dealt with. Months ago in this place, back in May, I used my

contribution in the constituency debate to call upon the minister to finally meet with the Friends of

Lorne Parade Reserve. Well, she has refused to do that, so the action I seek tonight is for the minister

to accept the bleedingly obvious—that is, that this project is fundamentally flawed—to call it in and

to call for a complete rescope and redesign.

I would note before I finish, with some pleasure, the biblical reference from Mrs McArthur in

reference to chapter 9 of the Acts of the Apostles, and I would remind her that, as of tomorrow, God

in this place is forever to be cancelled.

DALTON ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (18:29): (1412) Like Dr Bach, my adjournment

matter this afternoon is for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure. Thomastown residents do not like

the raised intersection speed humps on Dalton Road. My office has conducted a community survey,

and I am very grateful to those people of Thomastown who responded to that survey and told me

without any question that those speed humps are dangerous and they want them removed.

Last week on Dalton Road I witnessed a large volume of crushed rock that had come out near one of

the Dalton Road intersections. It had probably come off a truck as it went about its business and hit

the speed humps. I also witnessed at the time a truck with scaffolding hit the speed humps, and the

load on that truck jumped all over the place. It was very lucky it did not come off, and thank God it

did not come off and hit a car that was travelling behind it.

We were all glad to hear that the raised intersections were ruled out on the Childs Road upgrade after

a lot of great local campaigning, but in responding to my question about this at the time, Minister,

when you ruled out the raised intersection on Childs Road, you said to me, and I quote:

As always, these decisions are made on the very best safety advice from our expert teams.

ADJOURNMENT


So in June I asked the Minister for Roads and Road Safety to release the advice that led to those speed

humps being installed in the first place and also about ruling them out for Epping Road, but that

minister referred me back to you as the key decision-maker for the safety advice. So, Minister, the

action I have for you today is for the government to release the advice that led to those speed humps

on Dalton Road being installed in the first place and to get rid of those speed humps, because they are

quite frankly, as the residents tell me, an absolute disaster and they are dangerous.

COVID-19

Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (18:31): (1413) My adjournment is for the Minister for

Health, and the action I seek is for the government to consult and engage with regional communities

when considering restrictions before the end of the state of emergency and the pathway out of this

pandemic. Over the past year I have asked the government to consider a traffic light system for

restrictions in Victoria to allow places without cases to operate at a level proportionate to their absence

of case numbers and to provide some measure of flexibility and certainty within regional areas.

Regional Victoria has been subject to restrictions for at least a third of the last year. We are emerging

from lockdown 5, and communities are worried about how they will get through lockdowns 6, 7 and

so on. In border communities there is confusion, anger and frustration about the substantially tightened

cross-border rules. The border zone is home to 573 000 people, and in recent weeks there have been

five active cases, all suppressed. Across the border there are no cases north, west or south of Goulburn.

Albury-Wodonga has had over 300 days of zero cases. That is not to say ‘Let it rip’, but contact tracing

has enormously improved and vaccination numbers are building, and we should have confidence in

that.

Albury-Wodonga media was briefed on the border bubble restrictions, but there was no interaction by

the government with border mayors. Wodonga mayor Kevin Poulton told ABC Goulburn-Murray

yesterday, ‘We just seem to get forgotten in the whitewash’. The Gannawarra council recently passed

a motion to call on the government to assess any restrictions on a shire basis with input from the local

council. Other regional councillors in conversation with me or publicly have shared their support for

a response that is much more nuanced.

Regional communities have proven that they will stand up in response to any outbreaks and take local

and individual responsibility. Industry groups are frustrated that their proactive proposals for protocols

to manage risks are given no feedback. Many local businesses are near broke and in substantial debt.

Their psychological resilience is spent, their children’s learning is constantly disrupted, their other

health needs are being pushed to the side and they are beyond frustrated. There is a need for stronger

and collaborative engagement with regional communities, including in the four-phase plan agreed

between states and the federal government that maps the pathway out of repeated lockdowns. Places

without cases deserve a fair go, and I ask the government to talk with us, listen and use some common

sense in our suggested approach.

RESPONSES


Education) (18:34): There were 11 matters raised in the adjournment debate tonight from

Mr O’Donohue, Mr Grimley, Ms Lovell, Dr Cumming, Mr Finn, Ms Crozier, Mrs McArthur,

Mr Quilty, Dr Bach, Mr Ondarchie and Ms Maxwell. I thank them for those matters, and they will be

referred to the appropriate ministers.

Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (18:35): President, I would like to draw your attention to

standing order 4.13. As you know, that standing order requires that adjournment matters receive a

response within 30 days. I would just like to outline some adjournment matters that are outstanding:

1391, which was due on the 24th of the 7th; 1297, which was due on the 24th of the 6th; 1177, which

was due on the 2nd of the 4th; 1169, which was due on the 1st of the 4th; 1088, which was due on the

4th of the 3rd; 1042, which was due on the 26th of the 12th; 986, which was due on the 11th of the



12th; 879, which was due on the 13th of the 11th; 838, which was due on the 2nd of the 10th—this is

last year, obviously; and 784, which was due on the 17th of the 9th.

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (18:36): I have a similar point, if I may. Can I

commend Ms Maxwell for her focus on getting these things answered, and at the same time can I

commend the Government Whip for getting through most of my list that has been backdated. I do

thank her for her work. But I do draw to the attention of the minister an answer to adjournment 1336,

a question that was asked of the Minister for Roads and Road Safety about roads in Lalor, which was

due to me on 9 July but still has not been furnished.


Education) (18:36): I thank Ms Maxwell for raising those points. If she could send that to me to line

up with the notes that I took, that would assist in tracking it down. And again I am sure the whip will

continue to pursue matters raised by Mr Ondarchie.

Questions without notice and ministers statements

WRITTEN RESPONSES

The PRESIDENT (18:37): After question time today Mr O’Donohue raised a point of order about

questions and answers. I checked Hansard, and I believe the question was answered by the minister.

The house stands adjourned.

House adjourned 6.37 pm.