Tuesday, 30 August 2022

Mental Health and Wellbeing Bill 2022

Council’s amendments

The SPEAKER (12:09): I have received a message from the Legislative Council agreeing to the Mental Health and Wellbeing Bill 2022 with amendments.

Ms BLANDTHORN (Pascoe Vale—Leader of the House, Minister for Planning) (12:09): I move:

That the amendments be taken into consideration immediately.

Ms STALEY (Ripon) (12:09): What we have got here are some amendments coming back from the Council. There are quite a number of these amendments. I believe that we are just seeing them now. We do not know exactly what they are. They have come back from the Council and the government is choosing to take them into consideration immediately. I have had some conversations with the Leader of the House, and I requested that in fact we do them in about an hour’s time, partly to give us the opportunity to have a look at them but also because it would then mean that the day will flow better. But we have got an inexperienced Leader of the House who is now bringing them on immediately when it actually is just going to cause chaos.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms STALEY: There is no need to do this and no need to ride roughshod yet again over members of the opposition and those on this side of the Parliament, who have not seen what these amendments are. We should be given the right to see what these amendments are before we are required to take them into consideration. I note as soon as I stand up those on the other side are yelling me down. Their only approach in this place is to yell across the chamber, apparently, whenever I and others, particularly women, stand up on this side. It is just a pattern of behaviour that goes on all the time—all the time. And as for the whip, the member for Buninyong—well out of order, I would have thought.

All we are asking for is a small amount of time to see what these amendments are. My understanding is that one of them is an amendment we moved to the bill, so—guess what—we are probably going to support that one. But the others—I do not know what they are, and so we should be given the right to find out and have just a small amount of time. But once again we have a government that just thinks, ‘Oh, no, we’ll come in and we’ll do them immediately’. The Leader of the House, who was not the Leader of the House when this last happened, might be reminded that there was a very small amendment that was made to a forestry bill, and I managed to speak on that amendment—I believe all it did was change one date to another—for half an hour. I did so, and then there were other speakers from the coalition, the Liberals and Nationals, who also spoke on that amendment because it was an important amendment. We certainly needed to ventilate all the issues around that amendment.

This time around I suspect there will be even greater issues because it is not just doing one date; there are many other words on this paper. I have yet to read what they are. They are only just now being brought into consideration, so we should be given the opportunity to see what these amendments are, to consider our position and to have the Shadow Minister for Mental Health, who will no doubt speak eloquently on whatever is put in front of her because she is up to speed on her portfolio, speak. But that does not come across—the real problem here is once again the government thinks it can just play games and ride roughshod over openness, transparency and proper procedure because they can—because they have the numbers in this place.

There was no need to bring these amendments on right now. Instead of immediately it could have been later this day, and later this day could have been in an hour’s time or so. Instead we are going through all of this because of the Leader of the House. I did put this to her, and she did not actually come back and say, ‘Oh, you’re wrong in theory’. It was just, ‘No, we’re not doing that’. I did ask. It is not as if we did not ask for this. But the arrogance of this government is once again on display. At every opportunity they are there to just ride roughshod. I assume the assumption was that we would not speak on these amendments. Well, I will advise the government that not only will we have a lead speaker, we will have other speakers on this, and we will now have possibly several hours of debate on these amendments. So I say to the Leader of the House and to the government: you reap what you sow when you come and you do these things against agreement when agreement was so easy to achieve. So, as I say, we oppose these immediately, and we will be voting against this procedure.

Mr RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (12:14): What an extraordinary performance this is by the opposition. Who would have thought that they are so disconnected in their party room that they are now disconnected from the Council on basic things that were agreed to and worked through in the Council. Such is the division, such is the lack of organisation on that side, that we now see that they do not even tune into what other members in the other place of their own party and their own representation have put forward. To suggest that there is care and consideration from the lead speaker on this is truly extraordinary. They have been dragged by the public, by this Parliament, kicking and screaming to support this bill—kicking and screaming—knowing that if they opposed it, they would leave a $3.7 billion hole in mental health. They have had a bet each way on this. We have had the Leader of the Opposition oppose the mental health and wellbeing levy that would drastically impact on communities throughout Victoria.

Ms Staley: On a point of order, Speaker, this is a narrow procedural debate on the question of whether we take the amendments into consideration immediately or at some other point. I would ask you to ask the member to restrict himself to the procedural motion.

The SPEAKER: I do ask the member to come back to the procedural motion that we are debating.

Mr RICHARDSON: The point I am going to—while the lead speaker mentioned forestry of all things—is that the hour that the member is asking for will not decouple from the fact that they have worked on these amendments in the upper house, they have worked them through, and they understand what was brought forward. I assume they were in the Parliament during that debate or that they had checked out those amendments and checked out the things that we agreed to and how it has come back to the Legislative Assembly. These are just stalling tactics from a desperate opposition who never supported this bill, the Mental Health and Wellbeing Bill 2022, and were taken kicking and screaming to this point in time. The notion that an hour changes a deeply dysfunctional, demoralised opposition is an absolute furphy. Let us bring it on now. They are divided, they are disconnected—from opposition rooms all the way through, it appears, to the Council—in bringing these amendments forward.

We are getting on with the job of moving these amendments to this historic bill, which is the most important legislation—arguably the most important legislation—which will save lives and change the outcomes for Victorians in the future. The notion that an hour changes the dysfunction that they have brought to this place, the dysfunction from the Legislative Council—do any of the speakers want to get up and describe what they do not know about what their other members of Parliament were up to? We know that they change from time to time who will be the lead speaker on a particular issue day to day, but give us a bit of a sense of what the difference in—

Ms Kealy: On a point of order, Speaker, this is a very narrow debate. It is about these amendments that have been brought before the house. It is not a time to criticise. I therefore ask you to bring the member back to the point that we are debating right now.

The SPEAKER: I ask the member to come back to the matter before the house.

Mr RICHARDSON: It is amazing that it is not a time to criticise but the lead speaker says ‘reap what you sow’. That is a very interesting contradiction. Maybe The Nationals and Liberals again are at polar opposites in this place. This is just another stunt, with two sitting weeks to go, opposing some really important work that is coming forward in the mental health and wellbeing space. I would just love to know from those opposite what 3600 seconds changes in the way that they have approached this bill and the work that has been done to this point. All Victorians know where people stand on mental health and wellbeing and the support that we are bringing to this community. So let us bring on the debate. Let us have a chat.

When you look at how many speakers from that side spoke during the debate on the bill—I mean, they ran dead for how long?—barely anyone spoke from that side, and now they are really concerned about amendments. No-one fronted up. They did not even exhaust their list, and now they are coming in and saying that they care about amendments. They could not even front up enough people to speak on the Mental Health and Wellbeing Bill.

Ms KEALY (Lowan) (12:18): I speak in support of the Manager of Opposition Business. Absolutely there is no doubt that we should not be debating this immediately. We have put forward a very, very straightforward request that we are given an hour to look over these amendments and ensure that we are completely across them and are putting forward a strong position from the Liberals and Nationals. I will take up some of the comments that were made by the previous speaker. It is completely untrue and just politicising mental health—which has to be one of the most disgraceful things you could ever do—to even contemplate that we were against the Mental Health and Wellbeing Bill 2022. We supported it, and we went through that in very considered detail. In fact it would have been very good if the government had stepped forward and supported our amendment—we will be looking forward to debate later today—which was around making specific reference to the alcohol and other drugs sector in relation to the obligations of the bill. Now, if the government had in fact listened and adhered to what we were putting forward to improve the Mental Health and Wellbeing Bill and to make sure that the alcohol and other drugs sector had security in its funding and was specifically referenced as being part of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Bill—

Ms Blandthorn: On a point of order, Speaker, we have had numerous points of order this morning about remaining relevant to the procedural motion rather than the substance of the bill or the amendments, and I would ask that the member be kept to the procedural motion.

The SPEAKER: I ask the member for Lowan to come back to the procedural motion.

Ms KEALY: I am more than happy to speak to that because it is important that these amendments are given proper consideration so that we can debate them in full. The Liberals and Nationals have not asked for anything extraordinary. It was put to us that we were looking to hold back the passing of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Bill. There is nothing more ridiculous that I have heard in this place. We are asking for an additional hour to look over these amendments that have been brought forward in the Legislative Council to ensure that they are well thought through, that there are no further errors in them and that we are able to properly represent the views of the people who are in our electorate and the views of the mental health and wellbeing sector to ensure that their points are brought to this house, because we have seen that on some occasions that proper opportunity—time to consult with our stakeholders—has not been given to us.

The government does not always get legislation right, so it is very, very important that we make sure that we are given the opportunity as the opposition and as crossbenchers to scrutinise legislation that is put before the house, and that includes amendments that are brought before the house. So I strongly support that we have greater time to be able to look over these amendments and to get a full briefing, and while it might only be an hour—it has already been put to us that that is an extraordinarily long period of time; ‘Why on earth would we want an extra hour’—to think that that additional period of time would be a critical failure of this government in being able to pass this Mental Health and Wellbeing Bill is nothing short of complete and utter codswallop. It is just basically the government wanting to further stifle debate, to further stifle scrutiny, to further stifle the voice of Victorians who are deeply concerned with some of the legislation that is put through this place and to further stifle our opportunity to put forward good ideas that sometimes the government do take on.

It would have been nice—and we would not have had to have this debate today—had the government supported our amendment when we put it in the Legislative Assembly just a couple of weeks ago. We would not be in this position where we have this legislation coming back from the Legislative Council, and so this debate would have been completely needless. We would not be, as has been put forward by Labor MPs, wasting our time on this frivolous matter. It is not a frivolous matter. These are key amendments that should be properly considered, not just by the Legislative Council but by this chamber and by every single member, and that does not just include the Liberals and Nationals, it includes the crossbenchers as well. It includes members of the Labor Party who may want that additional time to speak to people in their electorate to see how these amendments would impact upon them, particularly given the great impact of lockdowns and restrictions on people’s mental health right across Victoria.

So I urge the government to reconsider and to provide a simple, additional 60 minutes so that we can properly prepare for this debate, ensure that we put forward the views of all Victorians in this chamber and ensure that stakeholders are properly informed—we do get those last-minute phone calls and emails that come through—to ensure that the community is actually in support of these amendments, that there are not any problems in any of them and that the community do support them as part of rebuilding Victoria’s mental health system. It is not unusual to do that. It is not untoward. We do not want the government running roughshod over the opposition, who are trying to bring forward very good points here to improve legislation. It is what we have been able to do with this amendment, so I strongly recommend it, and I provide support for the Manager of Opposition Business.

Mr FOWLES (Burwood) (12:23): 250 hours since the Legislative Council was last sitting—250 hours—and here we are in this chamber with this confected outrage about a further hour of consideration required. Those opposite have suggested with all this confected outrage that they need this additional hour to consult with their stakeholders. Well, what a load of nonsense. They have had 250 hours to get this consultation done, and they think the last hour is going to make the difference. They are doing their homework on the bus on the way to school. They went out partying all weekend. They are doing their homework on the bus on the way to school. It is absolute nonsense, absolute codswallop, and all it does is seek to draw attention once again to the political games and carry-on going on on that side of the chamber, just again playing games in another round of political game playing with no view of the bigger picture and no view of the importance of these mental health reforms, which once again they are seeking to wriggle around and walk away from.

So there we have it: stakeholder consultation. They need an hour. They say, ‘We haven’t used the 250 or 260 hours since the Legislative Council passed the amendments. No, we want to use this 1 hour whilst we are sitting to get all of our stakeholder consultation done’. It is just complete nonsense. It is a confection, and it is simply an exercise in them wasting a bit of time in the chamber and carrying on and jumping on their high horse. This is exactly the sort of stuff that drives the punters wild—you know, this stupid game playing. It just drives people bonkers. Everyone can see through it. It is such a facade that those opposite can come in here and complain about an hour when they have had 250 of them to get ready for this thoroughly inconsequential debate on a bunch of amendments. They know it. They absolutely know it. They absolutely know they are wasting the time of this chamber. They are wasting your time, Speaker. They are wasting the time of Victorians, and Victorians are wising up to it. They are clearly wising up to this sort of carry-on, this nonsense, the artifice of ‘Oh, deary us. We need another hour. We need another hour to be able to go through these amendments because we haven’t used the 250—we don’t even know what the amendments are’.

I do not know what is going on in shadow cabinet or if shadow cabinet even meet or, if they do meet, they do so without screaming at one another, but the reality is they have had plenty of opportunity to look through all these amendments—plenty of opportunity because there is a little thing going around this joint called Hansard, and I pay tribute to the good folk from Hansard. They actually record all the things that go on in this joint and in the other place and, lo and behold, these amendments were of course duly noted, duly recorded and made available to those opposite hundreds of hours ago, yet here we are fannying around. What a load of absolute carry-on that we have to sit here and listen to this drivel, this confected outrage about an hour—an hour when they are going to go and do all of their important stakeholder consultation. Whilst they are meant to be doing parliamentary business, at the same time, they are going to get all the stakeholder consultation done in an hour.

Doesn’t that speak to the modus operandi of the Liberal and National parties? Because consultation, again, is just a mere flick of the wrist. ‘Well, you know, we’re not going to fund the mental health system, but we still agree with most of the things that are going on. Are we going to fund it or are we not? Are we going to have a special revenue measure or are we not?’. They cannot make up their own minds. Clearly the left hand is not speaking to the right hand on any given day, because their very colleagues, who sit in the party room, who sit in the same shadow cabinet, have actually litigated all of these amendments already. If they wanted to get briefed on it, they could have used any one of the 260 hours since the Legislative Council last sat. But have they? No, because it is far too much fun to come in here and play these childish, childish games, to faff about to just try and divert attention from all of their many, many problems.

Right now it is not just those in this chamber but all Victorians who are seeing right through it. What an absolute load of tosh being put up by the members to my right, an absolute load of tosh that we are sitting here debating something as absurd as a 1-hour extension when they have already had 250 hours to complete their homework. You want a one-hour extension. It is an absolute load of twang—a waste of your time and a waste of this house’s time.

Ms BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (12:28): I rise to support the Manager of Opposition Business’s proposal that we have the opportunity, as is absolutely the right in any debate, to be able to respond. We have just had this come down from the upper house to the Legislative Assembly and there has been absolutely no opportunity for us to actually see the amendments. Yes, I do understand that one of the amendments is ours—and how this government could have left off the glaringly obvious need for the Mental Health and Wellbeing Bill 2022 to have alcohol and drug services in it just shows how ignorant and arrogant this government is—but we have not seen what is in the bill, and that is why I think it is so absolutely arrogant—

Mr Richardson: On a point of order, Speaker, it is quite narrow. I know that people want to go the tonk, but it is quite narrow, this debate. It has just come down from the Council in the last 250 hours, and all the amendments are on the website. They have been there for some time. But it is quite a narrow debate on why the homework has not been done.

Mr Morris: On the point of order, Speaker, there have been repeated allegations in this house that this has been around for 250 hours. The fact is, Speaker, as you know, you just introduced it. So the member is entirely within her rights to make that point.

The SPEAKER: The member has made the point, it has been made several times, but I ask the member to come back to the procedural motion.

Ms BRITNELL: Thank you, Speaker. I will come back to the motion by saying I think it is absolutely arrogant and ignorant of this government to state that they think it is reasonable for us not to have at least even an hour to look properly at the amendments and give that respect to the community that we serve and that we need to communicate with to check whether the things that have been put back in this bill are actually something that the community who work in this environment need. It is just absolutely disgraceful that something as important as the mental health and wellbeing of our community is being pushed forward by this government without that due consideration of debate and respect. The member for Lowan, who does extraordinarily hard work in this space, knows her constituents’ needs, but she cannot do it without consultation, because that is what we are here for—to scrutinise, to communicate and to work with the community. The government on the other hand just wants to push things through with no communication, no consideration and no scrutiny, because it thinks it is beyond and above that. Well, this is what you call riding roughshod, not only over the opposition here but over the community, who have worked so hard and who want that opportunity to be heard. To seek advice—is it so difficult for the government to realise that it is an important part of forming legislation to seek advice, to talk to the community and to actually give the community, through the opposition, the opportunity to scrutinise?

An hour is not long to ask. In fact to claim that it is a long time, which I have just heard in this chamber, is nothing short of absurd. To hear words about confected outrage is hypocrisy at its greatest if ever I have heard it. I do not know why the voice of Victorians does not get the right to be heard and how in this Parliament, where we are elected to do exactly that, that can even be debated or put down, which is basically what is happening here. The right of Victorians to have their voices heard is being arrogantly dismissed by a government that has got so arrogant it has forgotten who it is it works for, who it is it is supposed to be listening to and who it is it represents. I urge you to reconsider and think through exactly what you are trying to do here—rush through something and not allow the right for the people’s voices to be heard. I just cannot understand why you are talking about stalling tactics and not supporting something as simple as this.

A member interjected.

Ms BRITNELL: No, I do not think it is worth sitting down. I think it is worth hearing the voice of the community—the community who elected me to represent them, the community that have told me from the day I was elected that we have massive problems in our community. This bill has got amendments in it that I want to have the right to be able to see, to study and to communicate to the people who talk to me frequently. So I do not think asking for an hour is at all too much, but you want to sit over there and yell and scream like disrespectful—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for South-West Coast will not use the term ‘you’. You are reflecting on the Chair.

Ms BRITNELL: Sorry, Speaker. You are quite right. I will finish by saying I do support the Manager of Opposition Business asking respectfully for an hour—it is not much to ask—so we can scrutinise what is very important: this bill.

Ms SHEED (Shepparton) (12:33):(By leave) I think what we are dealing with here is the processes of the Parliament, and I think we have spoken on those many times in relation to there being no non-government business program and not enough consideration in detail. Today we have an amendment, I understand, to the Mental Health and Wellbeing Bill 2022 which none of us have yet seen. I was admitted to the Supreme Court of Victoria in 1979, and it was my understanding, always, that when you looked at an amendment you had the act with you so that you could understand what the amendment might be. Now, to not do that as a member of Parliament, as a lawyer, is not to do your job—it is just not doing your job.

All that is being asked for here is a 1-hour period of time to give people the chance to pick up the amendment, to read it through, to compare the amendment to the legislation that is under consideration, to make a judgement and then to vote. Really we are being put in a position here where we are being asked to immediately deal with something that we have not had the chance to look at and consider. I would have to abstain from a vote on an amendment such as this if we do not get the chance to properly consider it. I do not see how we can be expected to do our job properly if we do not do it. Now, it is all very well to say, ‘Ah, the upper house have looked at it, it’s been reviewed’ and all the rest of it, but we are elected to do our own jobs, to look at the legislation on behalf of our own communities, and that is what we should be doing. The upper house has an entirely other job. This would not be coming back to us if we were not being asked to look at it, to scrutinise it and to make a decision on it. It would not even be here. It is here. It is our job to consider it properly. It is our job to look at it in the context of the current legislation—

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Mordialloc and the member for Gembrook will cease yelling at each other across the chamber.

Ms SHEED: Without going on too long about it, it does reflect part of the way that this house has come to operate. We have no non-government business program. We do not get to consider bills in enough detail. There are many other issues. Let me tell you that in a situation where we have a different make-up of the Parliament these issues will be looked at. They will be dealt with. They need to be taken to a parliamentary committee to look at better ways of running this place. This is just an example of what is not working well. So I support the Manager of Opposition Business’s proposal on this issue.

House divided on motion:

Motion agreed to.

Message from Council relating to following amendments considered:

1. Clause 3, page 18, after line 2 insert—

“Mental Health Workforce Safety and Wellbeing Committee means the Mental Health Workforce Safety and Wellbeing Committee established by the Health Secretary under section 327A;”.

2. Clause 12, page 36, line 9, after “wellbeing” insert “including alcohol and other drug support services and treatment”.

3. Page 264, after line 24 insert the following heading—

“Part 6.5A—Mental Health Workforce Safety and Wellbeing Committee”.

NEW CLAUSES

4. Insert the following New Clauses to follow clause 327 and the heading proposed by amendment number 2—

“327A Mental Health Workforce Safety and Wellbeing Committee

(1) The Health Secretary must establish a Mental Health Workforce Safety and Wellbeing Committee in accordance with the regulations.

(2) The Mental Health Workforce Safety and Wellbeing Committee consists of members appointed by the Health Secretary.

(3) The Health Secretary may appoint 2 of the members of the Mental Health Workforce Safety and Wellbeing Committee to jointly chair the Committee.

(4) Members of the Mental Health Workforce Safety and Wellbeing Committee must have experience, skills or knowledge that is relevant to the objectives of the Mental Health Workforce Safety and Wellbeing Committee.

(5) The regulations may make provision for or with respect to—

(a) the appointment of the Mental Health Workforce Safety and Wellbeing Committee, including the number of members; and

(b) the powers and procedures of the Mental Health Workforce Safety and Wellbeing Committee.

327B Objectives of the Mental Health Workforce Safety and Wellbeing Committee

(1) The objectives of the Mental Health Workforce Safety and Wellbeing Committee are to provide advice to the Health Secretary and the Chief Officer in relation to—

(a) the prevention of risks to health, safety and wellbeing in the mental health and wellbeing workforce; and

(b) approaches to monitoring and responding to risks to health, safety and wellbeing in the mental health and wellbeing workforce.

(2) The Mental Health Workforce Safety and Wellbeing Committee may appoint a sub-committee to assist the Mental Health Workforce Safety and Wellbeing Committee to achieve its objectives under subsection (1).”.

Ms WILLIAMS (Dandenong—Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Treaty and First Peoples) (12:43): I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

The bill that has been put before the house, as we have all acknowledged across both sides of the Parliament, is extraordinarily important and delivers on a key recommendation of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System. It is an important milestone in the 10-year mental health reform program that is required to give effect to the royal commission’s vision and the enormous amount of work that it did.

The bill sets out the foundations for the future of the mental health and wellbeing services in Victoria, one where lived experience voices are at the centre, as they should be, and where mental health professionals are also supported to deliver the best treatment, the best support and the best care in facilities that actually help people recover and facilities that actually enable that new model of care. The bill puts people, as I have said, with lived and living experience of mental illness and psychological distress, their families and also their carers and their supporters at the core of our mental health and wellbeing system. It establishes key new elements of the system’s architecture, including the chief officer for mental health and wellbeing; statutory regional mental health and wellbeing boards, which will provide advice on the planning and commissioning of services at the local level; and the new Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission and Youth Mental Health and Wellbeing Victoria as well.

Of course this bill is just one part of a broader context for reform and sits alongside record service investments—more than $5 billion in just the past two budgets alone, something that we on this side of the house are very proud of and understand the significance and importance of; and also a massive expansion of the workforce, with over 2500 more mental health workers in the next four years. Delivery of this bill acquits in full recommendation 42 of the royal commission’s final report, getting us another step closer to full delivery of every single one of the royal commission’s recommendations, as we committed to. Just by way of update on that, today work has commenced on over 90 per cent of the recommendations, generating very real momentum and hope for the reimagined mental health and wellbeing system that was envisaged in the royal commission, one that we know all corners of the sector are desperate to see rolled out.

In terms of the amendments that have been put before the house, I will touch first on Ms Patten’s amendments in the other place. I understand that Ms Patten proposed an amendment to enshrine requirements for a workplace safety and wellbeing committee in the bill during debate in the other place. The government supported this amendment and it becoming part of the bill now returned here to the Assembly. We were pleased to agree to this amendment and commend both Ms Patten and the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation for proposing and moving it. This government is deeply committed to supporting those who work in mental health and wellbeing and knows that nothing can be achieved without a strong, committed but also safe workforce. As the former Minister for Mental Health noted in his second-reading speech on the bill, the clinical, community and support staff that make up the mental health workforce are true heroes. They really are at the core of us being able to deliver on the promise of this reform. We have already established the Mental Health Workforce Safety and Wellbeing Committee in line with recommendation 59 of the royal commission. Enshrining this committee in legislation will ensure its important work of monitoring and providing advice on the physical safety and psychological wellbeing of the workforce and ensure that that continues throughout and beyond the system reforms, as it should do.

In terms of the opposition amendments that are before us, the opposition, I understand, proposed an amendment in the other place to include a reference to alcohol and other drug services within one of the objectives of the bill. I understand that the government also supported this amendment and it has now been incorporated into the bill. We are also committed to ensuring that mental health and wellbeing services are closely connected and working in coordination with alcohol and other drug services in recognition of the overlap that occurs there. This is consistent with our delivery of recommendation 35 in particular of the royal commission, which called for integrated treatment, care and support for people living with mental illness and substance use or addiction. It also aligns with our commitment to establish a new statewide service for people living with mental illness and substance use or addiction challenges as well. The proposed amendment is consistent with the existing health needs principle in clause 22, which requires that the medical and other needs of people living with mental illness or psychological distress are identified and responded to, including any medical or health needs that are related to the use of alcohol or other drugs.

We appreciate the bipartisan support that the bill has, by and large, received in both houses and thank both the opposition and the crossbench. We thank them for their engagement and consideration so far, but as always we are focused on making sure that we meet the promise of the royal commission—that we continue to implement all of its recommendations and, most importantly, to invest where it counts and to invest in the people that will ultimately deliver this reform and ensure that we are rolling out new models of care, recovery-focused models of care, that will ultimately better meet the needs of our community, which we know has to happen, particularly given the stark realities that were given to us by the royal commission into mental health, which very much painted a picture of a system that was broken and desperately in need of repair. That is exactly what we on this side of the house are committed to doing.

Ms KEALY (Lowan) (12:50): It is fabulous to be able to speak today on the amendments that were brought down from the Legislative Council to the Mental Health and Wellbeing Bill 2022. In particular I am very, very supportive and so pleased to see that the amendment that I brought forward in the Legislative Assembly when this bill was first debated a month ago has been supported in the Legislative Council and is now coming back to the Assembly for consideration. I think that it is essential that the alcohol and other drugs sector is appropriately recognised as an essential component of the mental health sector, and therefore I am very, very pleased that we have been able to get support from the government for this important amendment.

As the minister has referenced, it is so important that we do see an overhaul of Victoria’s public mental health system. It is something that absolutely has the support of the Liberals and Nationals. We have supported this legislation, we support all elements of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System’s recommendations and we look forward, when in government, to working with the community and the mental health sector, working with all of the stakeholders and working with those people who have put in so much time and effort, whether they are part of the mental health sector, whether they are volunteers, whether they are carers in the community or whether they are people who are seeking mental health support services or have a loved one that is showing some of those red flags and needs some support but has nowhere to turn at this point in time. These are people who definitely need our support, because we know so well that mental ill health and mental illness still in some areas cause an enormous amount of stigma. While some people are willing to disclose elements of their mental ill health, such as anxiety and depression, they are not yet quite as accepting and willing to share a diagnosed mental illness where they feel they may be judged by their workforce, they might be judged by their friends or they may be judged at their local sporting club. Often, as a result of that, people withdraw from the community, which is perhaps the worst thing that people can do when they are seeking to manage and look after their own mental health.

One of the bigger challenges that we have got when it comes to implementing the royal commission’s recommendations is to have a workforce that can actually deliver these support services, particularly when we know elements of the royal commission will enhance greatly the number of services that are available. At the moment on Seek, if you look for mental health jobs in Victoria, there are about 6000 jobs vacant in the mental health sector. It is all well and good to announce that there are going to be new services, but if we do not have the people in there we cannot deliver additional services. That is why I think it is essential that there is a full mental health workforce plan so that we can attract people to Victoria by providing scholarships to people and ensure that people who have dropped out of the sector are encouraged and supported to get back in but also that we have other opportunities to look in every single nook and cranny to ensure that we have got the mental health workforce immediately, not years down the track like we would achieve through training. This is where there were some ideas that were raised through the Pandemic Declaration Accountability and Oversight Committee as part of their considerations of the pandemic orders. Recently they tabled a report, in July 2022, which was a review of the pandemic orders for visitors to hospitals and care facilities. For those members who have not yet had an opportunity to read through the reports of the pandemic oversight committee, I strongly recommend that they do so.

The SPEAKER: Member for Lowan, I ask you to come back to the amendments, please.

Ms KEALY: I am happy to do so, but I do note that the minister strayed quite broadly from the amendments. And therefore—

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! This is a narrow debate on the amendments from the Legislative Council. I ask members to stick to the amendments.

Ms KEALY: In regard to the amendments, there is one in particular which is very similar to the one that I put forward in the Legislative Assembly:

Clause 12, page 36, line 9, after “wellbeing” insert “including alcohol and other drug support services and treatment”.

The reason I brought forward this amendment was that too often the alcohol and other drugs sector has been completely ignored as part of the mental health reforms. If you speak to the alcohol and other drugs sector, they say that they feel like they have not been in the room. They just want to be in the room when it comes to discussing how the royal commission’s recommendations will be implemented. This is because there is such a high overlap of people who have mental illness or mental ill health who are also battling the challenges of alcohol and other drugs addiction. This is something that is often referred to as a dual diagnosis—that is the official term—where often people vary between the two, and one can trigger the other.

One of the challenges in accessing Victoria’s public mental health system is that too often people are told, ‘Well, you can’t access alcohol and other drug treatment until you sort out your mental ill health or mental illness first’, and vice versa: people cannot get admitted into a mental health bed unless they sort out their addiction issues first. So you end up where people are in absolute crisis, where often they have not been able to get the mental health support that they desperately need, and they are turning to alcohol and other drugs to self-medicate. This is a critical problem and a massive gap that we are seeing in Victoria because, as we saw over the pandemic, there have been massive impacts on Victorians and harms done to people’s mental health and wellbeing. And because they have not been able to access mental health support services, they have fallen into this cataclysmic gap in service delivery.

We know that over the pandemic there was a massive growth in the number of Victorians waiting for alcohol and other drug treatment services and specifically residential rehab. In the 12 months from December 2020 to December 2021, the number of Victorians on Victoria’s alcohol and other drug residential rehab waitlist grew from 2600 at the end of 2020 to over 4000 Victorians on the waitlist at the end of last year. Sadly, we know that many, many more Victorians have been added to this list, because the mental health harms did not finish as soon as the pandemic orders finished—when people could go back to work, when they could start to get some level of normality back. People are still very, very much struggling to manage their mental health and to make sure that they are getting their routines back and scheduled and finding hope again in the world without the fear of being locked down again. This is very, very real, and unless we can deal with these issues in a way that incorporates the alcohol and other drug sector, we are going to leave so many Victorians behind, and this mental health lag—the shadow pandemic, as it has been labelled—will continue to inflict an enormous amount of harm across the community. It is not just related to the individuals who are battling with their own addiction; it also impacts their family members, their friends and their workplaces and of course can lead to other antisocial behaviour. It can be interactions with police. We know that family violence rates have also escalated, which in part is due to people being locked down in the same house with their perpetrator and the accessibility of alcohol in particular over that lockdown period.

We also know that there is a complete gap when it comes to the treatment options that are available in Victoria. I am very, very proud that the Liberals and Nationals have recognised this gap in working with the sector and we have been able to bring forward election commitments that would help to close this gap. In particular we have made a commitment to build 180 residential rehab or detox facilities across the state. This includes some facilities in corners of the state which are completely under-serviced when it comes to alcohol and other drug treatment. It provides support for an alcohol and drug treatment facility in Mildura, and I do commend the previous member for Mildura, Peter Crisp, who is a very good friend of mine. I caught up with Crispy just a few weeks ago. He is still a very, very strong advocate for his local area, and I am really proud that at the last election we were able to make a commitment to build a residential rehab facility up in Mildura. This has been something that we have fought for for a very, very long period of time, and I wish that there was more fierce advocacy in that local area to make that happen. Perhaps if we had a member who was able to prosecute that, they would have that facility available in Mildura right now. But it is four years later than it would have been—four years when people have not been able to access treatment on site and on country.

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Lowan, can you come back to the amendments before the house.

Ms KEALY: The reason that we put forward an amendment, which has been supported and will be debated today, which makes a specific reference to the alcohol and other drug support services and treatment is that there simply is not enough consideration of alcohol and other drug treatment and not enough access to alcohol and other drug treatment across the state.

Other facilities that the Liberals and Nationals have committed to include the Lookout down at Warrnambool. The member for South-West Coast has been a strong advocate for that facility, and she has done a power of work over the past seven years to secure funding down in that region. There is simply no access to alcohol and other drug treatment in that local area. Recently I was very proud to be down in Warrnambool with the member for South-West Coast to announce that funding. It is very, very important in the Warrnambool community to have access to this. It is something that Geoff has been a fierce advocate for. He really has been a tireless champion when it comes to promoting the need for AOD treatment services in the local area. One of the key things that is so important for people in the Warrnambool area is that the local Indigenous community have access to alcohol and other drug treatment on country. This is something of course that came through the main structure of the bill when it was put to the chamber—recognition of Aboriginal people through the legislation and with treaty—so I absolutely see the announcement by the member for South-West Coast as so important in delivering on the objectives of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Bill 2022. I strongly commend her great work in advocating for that, and I look forward to being able to cut the ribbon on that in a couple of years time when we are in government.

Other facilities across the state include a facility at Shepparton, again another area where there is simply limited access to alcohol and other drug treatment. There are some limited beds in Shepparton in the hospital; however, they are simply not nearly enough to be able to provide that localised support close to home for people who live in that local area. The Latrobe Valley is another area where there are simply no adult services. While it is great that there is a youth facility, it is for all of the state and not just the people who live in the Latrobe Valley, and the nearest other services are at Maryknoll to the west and over in Bairnsdale to the east, so there is a real gap in the Latrobe Valley, but there is a fierce demand for services in that area. The other area of course is Frankston. We know that that area desperately needs AOD services, but we have not seen the delivery of any of that support by the Labor government.

The sixth facility that we have announced is a withdrawal facility, and this is in recognition of the fact that there is a massive bottleneck in the state of Victoria when it comes to accessing a residential rehab bed. There simply are not enough withdrawal facilities or detox facilities to be able to provide a smooth flowthrough of people so that they have completed their detox period, have completed their withdrawal and are then acceptable to the residential rehabilitation units in the state. Because of this bottleneck there often is not a smooth flow. It becomes very, very difficult in terms of the timing.

I remember speaking to a man a couple of years ago now who was participating in the ReGen program and was speaking of when he finally got to his moment where he realised he wanted and was seeking treatment for his alcohol addiction. He spoke of this scenario where he would have to white-knuckle it for weeks at a time until he could actually access the support services and get into a treatment program. We know now that that period of white-knuckling has absolutely blown out. The waitlists are not managed well because there is not a good way to have that oversight. There is an intake model, but it is simply not working. It means that people are falling on and off the list. It is basically up to the individual AOD rehab providers to keep in touch with people while they are on that waitlist, and they are not sufficiently funded to do so. There is a lot of pressure on the AOD sector at the moment, and they know that they simply have not got enough resources.

Access to resi rehab is only part of the puzzle, though. I am very, very pleased that recently I was able to announce at the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association (VAADA) AOD forum, which pulled in some of the key stakeholders from AOD services across the state, that when in government the Liberals and Nationals will launch Australia’s first gold-standard opioid treatment model. We will launch a hydromorphone trial. This is so important. It is a really groundbreaking thing when it comes to dealing with opioid addiction, particularly heroin addiction of course, and it has such an amazingly high success rate.

This is not just about treating heroin addicts and giving them another option as opposed to methadone or going through a rehabilitation program; it is actually more about ensuring that that individual has the best possible opportunity to get their life back on track. This includes ensuring that they have got access to housing, that any issues around homelessness are dealt with in that scenario, making sure they get mental health support and that they do have access to family violence support—and of course other health issues that might arise and so often do arise. When people are right in the depths of heroin addiction and often are living rough they are reliant quite often on illegal activities to support illicit substance use, and it is an extraordinarily difficult scenario for these individuals to break out of that cycle.

Without more treatment options, without things like this gold-standard, world-leading hydromorphone trial in Victoria, we are really not providing a good option out for people who are battling heroin addiction. So I am enormously proud that the Liberals and Nationals have been able to make this announcement, to be the first to commit to this, and I absolutely look forward to making that a reality in government. It is something that I think will be transformational when it comes to the options that are available for AOD treatment in the state of Victoria.

Another aspect around monitoring alcohol and other drug treatment has been around the rollout of SafeScript. Now, there was an article in the Herald Sun today which highlighted some of the really concerning rates of what are called red flags in the SafeScript system. When a pharmacy identifies through their dispensing of drugs that there have been too many drugs, an opioid or a benzo, prescribed to an individual—if the rates are outside what the normal limits and the set limits are—then this will create a red flag in the system. It is absolutely amazing to consider that over 1.2 million red flags have been raised in Victoria over the past two years—1.2 million alerts. This is very, very concerning from the point that there simply has not been the back end of the system put in place in regard to SafeScript. The IT system has been rolled out, which is great, but we have not seen the support mechanisms put in place.

It has been so sad to hear from pharmacists who know that they are unable to dispense to somebody who has been given this red flag, but they have not been given any structure over where they then refer them—what alcohol and other drug support can they provide to them and what treatment options are available to them. Sadly, as a result, I have heard of instances where people have turned to the black market. This is something that came out through a VAADA media release. They actually provided a comment within the Herald Sun article today as well around people turning to the black market when they are not able to get the TGA-approved drugs dispensed from the pharmacy.

The challenge of this is that I have actually heard of people turning to heroin because they have not been able to access the pain medication that has otherwise been prescribed. We cannot just cut people off, leave them to their own devices and let them go cold turkey without any support at all. It is a critical failure in the rollout of SafeScript, because it is so much more than just an IT system. It is absolutely an alert system, but we need to make sure we have the support at the back end to make sure individuals who are battling with addiction to pain medication have got the support to reduce their use of that pain medication or be given alternatives and not be forced to just go cold turkey.

The reason that I really strongly believe we need to get SafeScript right and why I am so disappointed that this government has not got it right is because I have got fabulous constituents in my electorate, John and Marg Millington, who have been amazing advocates when it comes to making sure that SafeScript works well. Sadly their son Simon died of a prescription drug overdose, and I would just like to read through the Millingtons’ story, which I was able to read through when the SafeScript legislation was brought through this chamber in the last term of Parliament:

Following a single car accident in 1994, our 18-year-old son Simon, sustained life-threatening injuries, requiring a lengthy period in hospital, followed by many ongoing operations to improve his way of life. In the end however, it would be medications, given to help him, that would prove to be the biggest problem, not just his injuries. He had become addicted to the opioids and benzodiazepines which he had been given so freely after his accident, to relieve his pain. After courageously battling his addiction on & off for 16 years, Simon died of an overdose of the legal drug/pharmaceutical, oxycontin combined with alcohol in 2010, he was 34.

He left a daughter behind. I just feel so strongly for the Millington family. I know them so well. They are so giving and caring, and they have been so generous in sharing their personal story, not just with Victoria but with Australia and worldwide. They have been fighting for a really long time to get SafeScript in place and working. They have also been fighting at a national level to ensure that this program is rolled out so that people cannot cross the border to go pharmacy shopping.

I commend the Millingtons for their fabulous work in this sector. I acknowledge the great work that they have done, but we owe it to them, if no-one else, to make sure that people who are in the midst of an addiction to prescription medication do have the opportunity to have alternative treatments put in place so that they are not just simply cut off from the dispensation of painkillers that they are addicted to. They need to be treated as a human being and as an individual that has absolutely every right to access treatment and support rather than just saying, ‘You can’t have that anymore’. It is not fair, and it is not delivering what was promised by the SafeScript program.

I actually remember back—it would be nearly eight years ago—when I was first a candidate for Lowan and I was driving back from a day out on the hustings. I was listening to the ABC news, and I heard a grab from the then health minister, David Davis, who was announcing funding for the SafeScript program. I think it was late in the campaign, and it just meant so much to me because I knew how much it meant for the Millingtons that that funding would be delivered and that we would be able to make SafeScript a reality. It made me realise how important it is to make the most of your time in this place and that you can make a real difference, but I do not think that we have delivered on the full outcomes of what SafeScript was supposed to deliver. So I urge the government to put that greater focus on the back end of SafeScript. If we have the opportunity when in government, we will certainly ensure that SafeScript is more than just an IT system, more than just a computer program that flags somebody when they have had too many prescriptions given to them for opioids and benzodiazepines. We want to make sure that they actually get the support to reduce their reliance on addictive pain medication and that they can be given assistance to deal with their pain as well.

We know that parts of the amendments that have been brought before us are around the Mental Health Workforce Safety and Wellbeing Committee. This is so important, particularly in relation to improving the safety and wellbeing of staff who all too often see violence in the workplace because people are unable to get mental health support. There are simply not enough workers around to be able to provide alternatives to restraint and seclusion, and there is an element of this wellbeing committee which will focus on that.

We know that the government has made the decision to not deal with restraint and seclusion in this iteration of the bill. It is expected there will be further consultation with the sector on how we can get that balance right between ensuring that people who are in the midst of mental ill health or mental illness and who are in a situation where they need interventional treatment and who choose not to be restrained or secluded have a right to get the care and treatment that they need and that they know is right for them, and at the same time, making sure that clinicians are provided with support so they do not have that as the only tool in their toolbox.

Sadly, what we hear all too often is that there are simply not enough workers in mental health. There are not enough nursing staff, there are not enough psychologists or psychiatrists, there are not enough support workers of any kind, particularly in emergency departments but also on the ward, to be able to provide more intensive support for people when they are in a crisis, as opposed to restraint or seclusion. That is why we need to make sure that not only do we get the legislation right, we actually get the workforce right, because again, unless we deal with the mental health workforce critical shortages—and as I referenced earlier there are currently 6000 jobs available in Victoria for mental health workers—it is going to be extraordinarily hard to reach the aspiration of the royal commission to remove restraint and seclusion in Victoria’s public mental health system within 10 years. Absolutely that is something that is achievable and something that we should aspire to, but until we get the workforce right then we are simply not going to be able to deliver on that.

In relation to the other amendments, there is of course the inclusion of another committee. There was one amendment that did not come through, and that was the one that we were unable to put forward in the chamber because it included an appropriation. That was to look at an older adult mental health and wellbeing entity in the same way that the legislation sets out a youth mental health and wellbeing entity. I understand that it was raised in the Legislative Council and the feedback from the government in the upper house was that it was not required because it would be covered through the Victorian Collaborative Centre for Mental Health and Wellbeing. While I acknowledge that, I still believe that if we are going to do something focused on youth, because we understand the impact that lockdowns and restrictions have had particularly on the youth of Victoria, we also need to recognise that older Victorians have suffered an extraordinary amount and all too often are forgotten people when it comes to ensuring there is an appropriate response, not just in mental health but in all stages of life and in all different areas that the government have oversight of. I still believe that we need to have a greater focus on the mental health and wellbeing of older Victorians, particularly for those who have suffered so much through loneliness over the lockdowns and restrictions and who continue to do so even in aged care. Even though there are so many facilities that are doing a fine job of that, others are not, and I think there has been a lot of focus on that. There are actually a lot of aged care facilities that do a great job in helping people manage their transition into older age and into end of life, and sometimes the workers are the only visitors and people from outside the facility that people see as they get older.

I believe that there are also changes required in transition in terms of finding your place in the world as you lose a loved one, either through death or a breakdown of a relationship, or friends—you go to more funerals than you do to weddings. There are also people who have stepped out of the workforce and retired and therefore have lost their place and lost the feeling that they are putting back into the community. There are a whole range of elements where we really need to make sure the government is focusing on ensuring Victorians are looked after, not just when they are young but also as they become older, because they are equally valuable to the community and are equally important no matter what age they are.

Just as a summary, I do support the amendments. I am particularly pleased to see that we have had support for our amendment, which will ensure there is a specific mention of alcohol and other drug support services in the obligations of the bill. This will of course open up access to funding through the mental health surcharge, which will provide funding security for the mental health sector, who really do feel like they have been left behind between these behemoths of mental health funding and health funding. They need security of funding. At the last budget they had a $40 million cut. They had 100 jobs cut out of their sector. They do not need that at the moment. There is more demand than there has ever been for alcohol and other drug treatment support services in the state of Victoria.

I commend all mental health workers for the fabulous job that they have done, particularly over the past three years with the pandemic restrictions and lockdowns, and I also commend all of the alcohol and other drug workers. Simply put, at the end of the day they just want a light at the end of the tunnel. They know that they have a job to do. They love doing what they do and they want to help people, but they know they need more resources. They need more workers in the sector to be able to deliver the services they know Victorians need. They need more workers to be able to deliver on the recommendations of the royal commission. That is why unless we support the workers in mental health and show that it is a desirable place to work—that they are paid fairly, they are treated fairly and they can make a real difference in the community—it will be very, very difficult to see substantive change through the royal commission’s recommendations. The Liberals and Nationals absolutely support all recommendations of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System, and we commend the amendments to the house.

Mr EDBROOKE (Frankston) (13:20): It is indeed my pleasure to rise and speak on the amendments to this bill. I will just put it plainly: my bullshit detector has been going off amazingly for the past half an hour. I sit here and I listen to the words coming out of the opposition’s mouths, but unfortunately the action does not relate to those words.

Ms Staley: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, that is unparliamentary language.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just caution the member on unparliamentary language.

Mr EDBROOKE: I withdraw. It was not long ago that we were hearing in the news about the opposition voting against this bill that was introduced into Parliament last May, with Matthew Guy telling a whole press conference that he was going to scrap the tax, or the levy, worth billions of dollars, to fund the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System. He said that in the context that he does not want to introduce any new taxes.

Ms Kealy: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, as was raised during my contribution to the bill, this is actually a very narrow debate. It is in relation to the amendments put forward by the Legislative Council. I ask you to bring the member back to the amendments.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Frankston, can I just caution you to get back. I know it is wideranging, but please contain yourself just to the amendments before the house.

Mr EDBROOKE: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. As always you are doing an amazing job. It is a narrow field, but we do need to provide context, especially for those at home that are listening to this debate thinking, ‘I could actually believe the words that are coming out of those mouths’. But the facts are different. We had a backflip from their colleague David Davis in the other place and also from the member who was just on her feet, saying, ‘We won’t backflip on the tax, we will have the tax’, which was music to people’s ears, but it might have just been because there was an election in South Australia that the Liberals were smashed in.

Ms Kealy: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I ask you to direct the member to adhere to your ruling—this is a very narrow debate—and to limit his contribution to the amendments before the house.

Ms Blandthorn: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, I appreciate the point of order of those opposite, but I do think that the member is being relevant. As he indicated, for those listening to this debate the context is relevant to the debate at hand. He is providing context, not debating the substance of the bill as opposed to the amendments.

Ms Staley: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, none of the amendments go to the levy. They are simply about establishing another committee, the Mental Health Workforce Safety and Wellbeing Committee, and including alcohol and other drug services. The member is well outside the scope of this debate.

Mr Richardson: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, the lead speaker made a number of points, including, in conclusion, about the levy as well as the performance of the members for Mildura and Shepparton during that debate. It is customary to respond to actions of debate and respond to some of the points that have been raised by the members opposite in the contributions that they have made. The member for Frankston is simply responding to the points that have been put on the record by the member for Lowan in her contribution to the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: At this point there is no point of order, but I will just caution the member to use correct titles as well. I know we have a number of amendments and you are providing some context, so continue on, on the note that you please contain yourself to speaking to the amendments before the house.

Mr EDBROOKE: Thank you, Deputy Speaker, and I do appreciate the counsel. We stand here today, and we divided before on the question of whether essentially the opposition has had enough time to look at the amendments that have come from the upper house. They argued that they did not, and then we had someone from the opposition rise and speak with prepared notes for half an hour on these amendments. Something does not smell right to me, and this is I think where those people at home who might be interested in this debate and might be listening to this debate—mental health might be something that is very, very close to their hearts—want to see honesty and want to see clarity. I am very familiar with the amendments that were put up on this bill, the amendments from the Reason Party member, Fiona Patten. I believe that amendment was about a page and a half in total, and that is for a bill that is nearly 3 inches thick. This is the work of the Andrews Labor government, and it is going to take our mental health system from—

Ms Staley: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, you actually still cannot use a bill as a prop. Props are not allowed.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Frankston, continue on. The bill is not a prop. You can use the bill.

Mr EDBROOKE: I have no tinfoil hidden in here to make a hat, so I am not sure what is going on here, Deputy Speaker. But I do note that the amendment from the Reason Party was about a page and a half long. It was a considered amendment; it was considered in the upper house and voted on and accepted. The amendment that the opposition put forward in the upper house is one line:

Clause 12, page 36, line 9, after “wellbeing” insert “including alcohol and other drug support services and treatment”.

We have been delaying Parliament for at least half an hour now based on one line. The issue that I have got is that there has not been much consultation by the opposition with those who work at the coalface. I spoke to some mental health workers in Frankston the other day in Spray Street—fantastic people, salt of the earth—and they have never met that crew over there. I spoke to the health and community support workers union, HACSU. They have basically never been approached by these people. These are the people that they are purporting to represent with these amendments. What everyone at home and what everyone here wants to hear is, one, that you not just support all the recommendations from the royal commission, which came from the blood, sweat and tears of so many Victorians, but that you fully support the levy that will pay for those recommendations to lift our mental health system up from a broken system, for some people a disastrous system—and we have heard about all those lived-experience examples—to a system that works and a system that is informed by lived experience.

We had some members from the opposition talking about me not speaking on the bill, but we got two medically supervised injecting rooms, I believe. This is a bit of a bugbear of mine, because in this place we have heard the medically supervised injecting room in Richmond spoken about so, so often, and I am only just responding to the lead speaker’s repertoire on this. We have heard those people victimised. We have heard the way that they have been portrayed in that area: as people that are criminals, not people that have health needs.

Now we hear the opposition saying that they support medically supervised injecting rooms and drug rehab, and also I note that in the announcement for more rehab beds there was no announcement of a critical piece of that infrastructure, which is actually the withdrawal treatment. Rehabilitation is not so much about the beds being a blocker; there are beds out there, but there are only a few services that provide the seven-day or more—depending on the substance that has been taken and that the person is relying on—clinical hospital kind of setting treatment that is required before people are ready and physically able to undergo rehabilitation. So mentioning that you will make a commitment to a million beds will not matter unless these people can get the right clinical treatment to actually be in a space where physically they are able to undergo a rehabilitation program, and there are plenty of good examples out there.

We have also heard ‘We do not want to see this politicised’, yet they will go around the world to all the independent seats, Mildura being one. I thought the member for Mildura was probably unfairly victimised there. She has done a whole lot as far as health goes in her community, as have I in my community. We can hear Frankston being spoken about, but we are building a $1.13 billion hospital. We have just taken over a private hospital, which will provide 9500 elective surgeries a year, and we have also got a whole floor in the new hospital committed to mental health. This is what our community asked for.

I just come back to that notion of consultation: you really, really need to listen to people, like we did with the royal commission. And here it is: we listened and we produced. We actually deliver. The levy, which the opposition seem very confused about, is needed to actually fund all those reforms that are needed. I commend the amendments to the house.

Ms BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (13:30): I rise to speak on the Mental Health and Wellbeing Bill 2022 amendments made by the Legislative Council. I am pleased to focus mainly on the amendment that was brought into the Legislative Assembly by the member for Lowan, a very simple and very clear amendment, which brings alcohol and drug support services and treatment into the wellbeing bill. The reason I would stress this is such a good amendment is that in my experience, whenever I was working with clients with mental health or drug and alcohol issues, whilst they do not always come together, it is not unusual or uncommon for people with mental health issues to have drug and alcohol issues. They do not always, I understand that, but it is certainly not uncommon. When we had patients who we would call dual-diagnosis clients or complex clients, it was very frustrating to be told by the mental health team that they could not take them as an inpatient until their drug and alcohol problem was addressed. It was absolutely crazy stuff when your client was at their wits’ end and really needing assistance and that was standing in the way. So I am not surprised to hear that the organisations that work in the drug and alcohol and mental health sectors agree that these are things that should go together. I commend the good work of the member for Lowan to put such an obvious amendment in, and I am very pleased to talk about its importance and the improvements it will bring to the Mental Health and Wellbeing Bill.

In South-West Coast we have been asking for improved services for many years. When I was first elected, one of the issues that was brought to my attention, and it had been an issue that I was well aware of, was the need for drug and alcohol rehabilitation beds. The Lookout project was born. The community got right behind it and raised a lot of money in a very short period of time, showing the Labor government that this was a need that the community were prepared to put their money behind. It is also where Infrastructure Victoria said there was a need, and their 30-year strategy released last year highlights South-West Coast as one of two places in Victoria in need.

So why is it important? If you have got a drug and alcohol issue and you want to rehabilitate, it is incredibly important that you do it around family and friends, where you have the support to see success actually as sustainable and to get your life back on track. That is a really obvious finding where we have seen it in other places. Why does south-west Victoria not have one yet? We have had a committee, headed up by Geoff Soma at the wraparound services of the Western Region Drug and Alcohol Centre, with some fantastic people who have been advocating in the community for seven years and getting all the ticks and crosses and i’s dotted and t’s crossed, yet the Labor government just continues to ignore it. I urge the Labor candidate to come out and support our announcement. The member for Lowan came recently with the Leader of the Opposition to announce our 30-bed rehabilitation centre commitment so that we can once and for all address this need that is so glaringly obvious in South-West Coast. All the Labor candidate has to do is meet that commitment and match it so that we can put the politics to bed and get on with helping the community of South-West Coast address those issues. Those mothers, those aunts, those cousins, those sisters and those brothers who really want to help their family member and support them in their own environment in South-West Coast in their rehabilitation journey beg you to assist us to get on with doing this. You would not leave someone with a broken leg on the street. Why on earth are we leaving people with health issues like drug addiction out in the cold like we are in South-West Coast?

The Labor government in Victoria does not have a great track record of providing residential rehab beds. Figures from Victorian drug and alcohol services show that in 2021 the ratio of beds per 10 000 people in Victoria was only 0.74. That was compared to 2.52 for the ACT, 1.39 in Western Australia, 1.86 in Tasmania, 1.2 in New South Wales, 1 in Queensland and 9.55 in the Northern Territory. Only South Australia had a lower ratio than us here in Victoria. That is a terrible track record, especially when you have got a community right behind it. It really does please me to see this obvious omission from the bill being rectified.

I cannot commend it more highly when I look at the Lookout and how important that is, and also when I see things like the SafeScript findings in the Herald Sun today: that over the last two years we have had 1.2 million red flags. When someone goes into a pharmacy, a red flag is raised when they have sought too many scripts for opioids or benzos or have been doctor shopping. But the problem I see with this is that despite that and despite this government saying they are doing so much, there are no wraparound services to help those people. So what do we expect? If you have got an addiction that has been supported with scripts and then you are left completely high and dry, do you expect people to just say, ‘Oh, it’s time for me to give it up’? Well, no, it is actually quite dangerous. The risk of cardiac arrest and the risk of seizure are quite high and quite real. That is why we have detox beds in hospitals, because before rehab you need that. To have a SafeScript system and then not put the wraparound services in place—which this government promised—is absolutely criminal. It is dangerous, and it is why we see people dying.

Mr Richardson interjected.

Ms BRITNELL: Well, it is. It actually is really, really wrong. And people die.

Mr Richardson interjected.

Ms BRITNELL: Well, if you have a seizure from withdrawal—the member for Mordialloc is questioning my statement that this is really quite—

Mr Richardson interjected.

Ms BRITNELL: People withdrawing without supervision is dangerous, and that is my point.

The hydromorphone trial that we have announced will be launched here in Victoria when we are elected as a Liberal-Nationals government—the first in the Southern Hemisphere but very much part of the treatment in Belgium, Spain, Canada, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK—and is something I think we should all be very proud of being able to actually see happen. It will be a gold-standard hydromorphone trial, and opioid agonist therapy is a gold-standard treatment in the primary treatment of opioid dependence. They are the sorts of things we need to put in place so we do not have people literally left high and dry when they are simply seeking access to a drug that they have been put on probably because they are in pain or have been in an accident—or perhaps they are on a waiting list for surgery like we are seeing in Victoria now for nearly 100 000 people. If you have ever had the need for a knee replacement or a hip replacement and you are in incredible pain, you usually need to have opioids, such as oxycodone, OxyContin or Endone, and they are addictive. If you have got to wait two years or four years or what we are seeing here in the state of Victoria, not only are you going to end up having to rehabilitate and learn to walk again when you get your new knee or your new hip, you are probably going to have to go through withdrawal and find a way to get back the life you had prior to having to have so many opioids to get through that terribly long waiting period. I think the government has a responsibility to take on these issues when we have waiting lists that are blowing out—and to not use excuses but instead put plans in place, support resources for the nursing staff and listen to the advice of the doctors, who over the last two years have been completely ignored and now have blown-out waiting lists. The Andrews Labor government have absolutely missed the mark, and the health system is now in a massive crisis as a result of that mismanagement. They simply did not listen to the people who know—the doctors, the surgeons and the nursing staff—and that has resulted in this critical blowout of the waiting list and is leaving people addicted.

In summary, I support the Mental Health and Wellbeing Bill 2022 with the amendments, particularly the amendment brought forward by the member for Lowan. We would not be here having this debate if it had just been sensibly thought through when we had the first debate, and we would be showing and demonstrating that when you scrutinise a bill, if there is a good improvement, just adopt it instead of being arrogant and throwing it out and wasting all the time that we have wasted when we could have got on with this. People with addictions, people with mental health issues and people with dual diagnosis deserve the right to caring treatment from the community, and that is simply all the amendment does. It recognises the importance of complex clients, dual diagnosis and making sure the sector—which is asking for this—is listened to, which is why this amendment was moved by the member for Lowan. I again support the member for Lowan and thank her for the good work she has done with the Lookout, and we look forward to being in government and delivering on that.

Mr RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (13:40): It is a pleasure to rise on the Mental Health and Wellbeing Bill 2022 amendments and talk a little bit about some of the changes and the journey that has happened. There are 885 clauses in this bill and over 650 pages of work that has gone in, underpinned by the 65 recommendations of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System.

I do not discount the sincerity of the member for Lowan—not only the personal experience but the experience she has as a member of Parliament that she detailed in her important contribution—but the surrounding issues that we have had in moving this discussion forward this morning for a slight but important amendment, a symbolic amendment that the government agreed to, have been extraordinary. The opposition were there as part of the Legislative Council debate. They were clearly briefed on the government’s intention to incorporate nine words in clause 12, page 36, line 9—nine words that apparently needed 250 hours plus 1 hour of engagement for clauses that number 885. That is a bit of an extraordinary thing, but maybe that goes towards some of the challenges they are facing in working out what is going on. I am assuming the opposition were there during the votes that were taken in the chamber. That amendment of nine words to a bill that is 650 pages long and has 885 clauses—I hope that they are quite clear on what those changes are.

The contributions of the two speakers from those opposite have been important, but they need to be clarified, because when you talk about alcohol and other drug treatments and support as well, the royal commission underpins a lot of that support and those recommendations. In fact the previous Minister for Mental Health went through in great detail at the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee some of the investment that has already been made—$10 million for the recent grants to the Mental Health and Alcohol and Other Drugs Facilities Renewal Fund that built on the $20 million committed to the Mental Health and Alcohol and Other Drugs Facilities Renewal Fund in the 2020–21 state budget, and with more than $50 million invested over the last few years. That is the record of the Andrews Labor government. We did not just tune in recently. There has been $50 million of that investment, and there is more to come.

When those opposite talk about bipartisan engagement and commitment, what really stresses out Victorians, particularly those that experience mental ill health, is one comment by the Leader of the Opposition that they do not support the $3.7 billion mental health levy, and then on the other side they come back a little bit later and say that they do support it. When we are looking for bipartisanship and clarity in policy, it is really disconcerting when you see those changes in debate, when you see those changes in policy for something that was recommended by one of the biggest and most substantial royal commissions. How can Victorians have confidence that all elements of this bill will be protected in perpetuity beyond this Parliament and supported into the future? That is the big challenge with this bill. There has been a substantial amount of work to get to this point. It is enshrined in legislation and underpinned by a levy—the equivalent of what we see with the Transport Accident Commission, where we have that support through ongoing funding certainty. We need that in this bill. These amendments will be undermined if that change happens under the opposition.

To bring all these recommendations to Parliament has been an extraordinary effort. I have to say this is 650 pages of legislation, 885 clauses, so to get to a double-sided page of what would be changed is a pretty extraordinary effort. In fact it speaks to some of the bipartisan nature of the approach to this bill, and it is important. This should be above politics. It should be multipartisan support. We should all have a shared investment in lowering the suicide toll in Victoria. We lose 700 Victorians each and every year, 2½ times the road toll. It is a devastating tragedy that is preventable. The failure in the system and the challenges that we faced led to the royal commission and led to the Premier stepping forward and saying that despite the billions of dollars of extra funding that were put into mental health and wellbeing, the system is broken and we need to do better. That is underpinned by the 65 recommendations and dozens of subparts that underpin each and every one of these recommendations. It bursts off the page. It provides chapter and verse of what we needed to do. The interim report was quite telling as well. This is where this bill finds itself now.

It is a real credit to this Parliament, and I really do want to commend those in the Legislative Council for the way that they engaged in that debate and the spirit with which they approached it. Very different to having just five speakers across the Liberal-Nationals—27 members of Parliament in this house represent their parties but could not even muster more than 20 per cent. It was less than 20 per cent of their members who contributed to this landmark legislation. So when we talk about consultation and engagement in this place, when we talk about fronting up on behalf of, on average, 50 000 constituents and all the community groups that we represent—if this bill meant so much to those opposite, they would have fronted up more than five speakers and would have had more than 20 per cent of their people contributing to this bill, because it matters; it is generational. In fact it is intergenerational, and that is why the work done here is so important.

The amendments go to a couple of key areas. I think both the member for Frankston and the Minister for Mental Health importantly touched on Legislative Council member Ms Patten’s amendments. The amendments were proposed to enshrine the requirement for a workplace safety and wellbeing committee in the bill during the debate in the other place. That was played out and ventilated in some detail. The government did support this amendment. It is an important amendment and an important addition to this incredible legislation, and we are pleased to agree with that and commend both Ms Patten and the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation for proposing and moving this important amendment.

The government is deeply committed to supporting those who work in our mental health and wellbeing sector. We will recruit, train and support a further 2500 workers. I want to take this opportunity to give them a shout-out. They are extraordinary people. During the pandemic it has been substantially challenging for our mental health and wellbeing workforce. The Health and Community Services Union (HACSU) do an incredible job in representing their workers. They are an outstanding group of people supporting that workforce who are doing everything they can to support the mental health and wellbeing outcomes for our communities.

There is such a purpose and a feeling of energy coming forward to get this work. You do not want to waste a day when you have got such a landmark reform, and each and every day right at the front line in services across our state and across our communities HACSU and their members do an extraordinary job in supporting the mental health and wellbeing outcomes in our communities. They know they have got a government in the Andrews Labor government who backs them—not only in every single element in funding, but we support their union and we support the work that they do. We are not cutting services. There is no ambiguity on where we stand in investing in mental health. That is what we call for here today—the change in opposition policy simply because of the pressure that came from media needs to be clarified more. There are people really scared and concerned in the mental health and wellbeing sector that the opposition will cut funding again in the future. The $3.7 billion—how much was it ridiculed during debate? How much was it ridiculed during the budget? Opposition speakers undermined, during the state budget, the contributions that would be made through the mental health and wellbeing levy. Suddenly they had an epiphany and agreed to it based on political pressure. We know deep down this is one of the biggest concerns: that if you undermine the mental health and wellbeing levy and you take that funding away you are risking lives and risking the support of people who are debilitated with mental ill health.

I want to also just touch briefly on the opposition amendment. It was in a bipartisan nature that the nine words were included in the bill. I think the member for Lowan, to her credit, articulated the importance of that addition, and hopefully, despite a bit of sledging from the member for Mildura and the member for Shepparton, we can acquit that, because that is more about Nats and independent stuff rather than truly the substance of the issue. The member for Lowan, in a number of her contributions, listening through some of her comments—it is a really important discussion point. The particular reference that the member for Lowan made to her community and a family that were deeply impacted—you could see that passion and energy. Let us have that in our bipartisan approach to this landmark reform. Let us bank it in, lock it in and work together regardless of who is in government or what Parliament it is. Let us work together on these really important policy areas. This is a 10-year agenda. It will be across multiple governments and multiple representations into the future. So let us put our shoulders to the wheel and work well as we embark on this landmark reform.

So that amendment, in good faith, was agreed to. It is important to incorporate it into this bill, 885 clauses long and more than 650 pages, that will change the lives and save the lives of Victorians.

Motion agreed to.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: A message will now be sent to the Legislative Council informing them of the house’s decision.