Thursday, 23 March 2023

Bills

Statute Law Amendment Bill 2022

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Danny Pearson:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Brad ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (10:25): I rise to lead the opposition’s contribution to the Statute Law Amendment Bill 2022 debate. I know that my time allocation is 30 minutes. I just want to flag with the chamber that I do not intend to take my fully allocated time of 30 minutes. I know, Deputy Speaker, that will be a disappointment perhaps to you and others. However, on this occasion it is quality not quantity that I am aiming for.

Colin Brooks interjected.

Brad ROWSWELL: Indeed, minister at the table, you will be the judge of that, I am sure. I have said kind things about you previously. I am hoping for a return favour at some point.

There are just a few points that I want to make in relation to this bill. The first is around the process of the bill arriving in this chamber. I have not compared the bill that was presented in the last Parliament to this bill, but I am told it is identical. It was presented in the last Parliament, and as is customarily the case, the government offered a bill briefing to the then Shadow Treasurer Mr Davis in the other place. At the start of this new Parliament, the 60th Parliament, the government introduced this Statute Law Amendment Bill into the Legislative Council. I am of the understanding that the government, which is their right, introduced this bill in the Legislative Council as opposed to the Legislative Assembly really to get something on the Council notice paper. Again, it is their right to do so, and I guess it is important for the Council notice paper to look like it has got something on it as well.

At that point we as the opposition would have thought, as it is a new Parliament with new shadow ministerial arrangements which have been provided to both this chamber and the other place as well, and not being informed by the government that the bills in their view were identical – the bills in the last Parliament and in this Parliament – that a bill briefing would have been offered. It is of concern to me that this bill was considered and passed as I understand it on the voices in the other place without the opposition receiving a bill briefing on the bill that we are currently discussing today. It was only after I reached out to the Treasurer’s office and then to the Assistant Treasurer’s office that a bill briefing was offered just yesterday. I am grateful for the work of the Assistant Treasurer’s staff and the departmental officer from the Department of Premier and Cabinet for providing that briefing to me and to the opposition.

Another point: I just wonder why the bill briefing or the thought of a bill briefing was not offered. It has been well publicised in this place and outside this place the fact that the Assistant Treasurer is perhaps occupied with other matters at the moment, and I have drawn the conclusion that it is perhaps because of the Assistant Treasurer’s occupation with other such matters that his obligation – in accordance with the standing orders, I might say, as I am informed, unless I am informed otherwise – to offer the opposition a bill briefing on this particular matter was not offered.

Nick Staikos interjected.

Brad ROWSWELL: Member for Bentleigh, if you were listening to my earlier contribution, I gave a fulsome explanation as to the circumstances. Yes, we were briefed but only after I instigated the briefing. This bill was passed by the Council before it actually came here, and we were briefed in the intervening period. I think it is because the Assistant Treasurer has been occupied with other matters, and for me that is a real shame. I come to this place – I have said this any number of times before – and we are not here for ourselves, we are here for others. We are here to do the work of and for the people who sent us here, and the fact that we have got some government ministers focusing more on themselves than their parliamentary and ministerial obligations is of deep concern to me and the opposition.

In large part the Statute Law Amendment Bill, as is customarily the case with bills of this kind, largely makes minor and technical amendments to a number of acts, ensuring the meaning of those acts is clear and accurate and reflects the intention of the Parliament. I am informed that, as with other bills, this bill was referred to the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee. I understand that the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee is still currently reviewing this bill and inquiring into this bill. They have reported initially, and I am expecting that another more fulsome report will be delivered to this Parliament, to this chamber. But I am also informed that that will not happen this week, which is interesting. The government has brought on this bill for consideration without receiving the good work of the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee. During the course of that parliamentary committee process it is ordinarily the case that parliamentary counsel appears before that committee and more or less certifies that in their view there are no funny buggers and there is no funny business proposed in this bill, that in fact the bill as drafted is in line with its stated intent, that it makes minor and technical limits to a number of acts to ensure the meaning of those acts is clear and accurate and reflects the intention of the Parliament.

I am informed by the minister’s office that the chief parliamentary counsel has in fact provided a certificate to the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee on this bill and that was provided to that committee yesterday. As I say, I do not mean to anticipate due committee process. The fact that the executive arm of the government is able to inform me on a parliamentary committee process before that parliamentary committee process has been finalised is interesting in itself. Nonetheless, that certificate has been provided, which is an assurance not only to the government, not only to the committee but to the Parliament that there are no funny buggers in this bill. On behalf of the opposition, I inform the Parliament that the opposition will not be opposing this bill, and I am looking forward to the brief contributions of my colleagues the Leader of the Nationals and the Shadow Minister for Finance, the member for Kew, on behalf of the opposition. I conclude my comments.

Nick STAIKOS (Bentleigh) (10:32): I too rise to make a contribution on the Statute Law Amendment Bill 2022. As has already been noted, this is a bill that makes minor amendments to various acts of Parliament, and I am not going to go through each and every one of those amendments. It covers a wide range of areas, including the Housing Act 1983, matters related to the Domestic Animals Act 1994, the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Act 2022, terrorism legislation and competition legislation.

I really will be focusing my remarks on the amendments to the Housing Act. While those amendments are administrative in nature, they do feed into the significant work that the Andrews Labor government has done in embarking on the historic Big Housing Build. But before I speak on those matters I will just take up a few of the points made by the opposition’s lead speaker, the member for Sandringham. The member for Sandringham claimed that the opposition was not offered a briefing. My understanding is somewhat different to the member for Sandringham’s. The opposition was offered a briefing. The offer was put to David Davis when the bill was introduced in December last year, and that is another point – I think I heard the member for Sandringham say that the bill was introduced in the last Parliament; it was introduced in December last year. The government offered a briefing to David Davis and the government reached out to Ms Crozier in the other place in the last sitting week when this was debated in the Council, and no issues were raised. But I think the member for Sandringham just wanted to pad out 10 minutes on this bill this morning and thought we would just go into those issues.

Needless to say, while the opposition are not opposing this bill but complaining about what they see as a process that was not followed, when it in fact was, I will focus on the Big Housing Build, because as I said, the amendments to the Housing Act in this bill feed into that historic investment by this government. My electorate has been an early beneficiary of the Big Housing Build. It was my pleasure to join the Minister for Housing very recently over in Cheltenham, and the Minister for Housing is in the house today. In Cheltenham the National Affordable Housing Consortium, with the strong financial support of this government, constructed a magnificent apartment building right next door to Southland shopping centre with 120 dwellings. Recently, at the opening, the Minister for Housing and I had the opportunity to meet with new tenants of that building. I think I speak for the Minister for Housing when I say that this particular development has changed lives – it absolutely has changed lives. We met various tenants. We met tenants who, because they now have stable and secure housing, are able to pick up studies that they had been undertaking on and off but due to a lack of stable housing had not been able to complete. Now they are able to put themselves back on that path of progress.

I think that is the significant point about housing. Having a roof over your head, having stable housing, is really the basis for being able to progress your life and having that dignity in life. We have a very significant free TAFE policy in this state, and this particular development in Cheltenham is located not too far from Holmesglen TAFE’s Moorabbin campus, where a lot of our free TAFE courses are offered. But without a stable roof over your head, without secure housing, you really do not have a hope of enrolling and being able to complete a free TAFE course. If you do not have stable housing, you really will struggle to get yourself a job. Without stable and secure housing, you will struggle to contribute back to the community, and this is why the Big Housing Build is going to be life-changing for so many people.

I would like to say the Big Housing Build is bipartisan, but sadly it is not. Last year we heard some disgraceful comments from Wendy Lovell in the other place, herself a former housing minister, with regard to public housing tenants. And that is what I am absolutely fed up with: the vilification of public housing tenants, which we hear time and time again. Wendy Lovell actually said – and the comments are just disgraceful:

There is no point putting a very low income, probably welfare-dependent, family in the best street in Brighton where the children cannot mix with others or go to school with other children or where they do not have the same ability to have the latest sneakers and iPhones.

Now, there was a lot of outrage when Ms Lovell from the other place made those remarks, but I have got to say I was not surprised. I was not surprised because Ms Lovell has form.

Brad Rowswell: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member for Bentleigh is very welcome to cast aspersions on other members of this place or the other but in accordance with standing orders can only do so by substantive motion. Also, in relation to the member’s comments, I would ask you to draw the member back to the topic before the house, and that is the Statute Law Amendment Bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I would ask the member for Bentleigh to return to the bill, please.

Nick STAIKOS: I am being directly relevant to the bill. This bill makes amendments to the Housing Act around Homes Victoria. But I was not surprised by Ms Lovell’s comments, and it is because I recall in 2010 some Rudd government stimulus money was used to construct two significant housing developments, one in Moorabbin and one in Bentleigh, both in the Bentleigh electorate, and at the time local Liberals, Liberal candidates and Wendy Lovell, who was then the Shadow Minister for Housing, ran a significant campaign –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I understand you just ruled and called the member back to the question at hand. The member has now strayed again after your ruling, and I would ask you to bring the member back to the question.

Colin Brooks: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, this is a statute law revision bill. Item 3 relates directly to the Housing Act and substituting the title of the director of housing for Homes Victoria. Members will be aware that Homes Victoria is the body that is reforming housing in Victoria, and it goes directly to the work that the member is referring to. So it is relevant for the member to raise these issues in this debate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the point of order, the Housing Act is definitely a part of this bill. I would ask that members be careful about imputations on other members of this house or the other.

Nick STAIKOS: The act provides Homes Victoria with the powers it needs to grow Victoria’s supply of social and affordable housing. I am simply demonstrating that those opposite have undermined efforts to grow social and affordable housing in this state, and I can give you firsthand experience of Wendy Lovell, when she was the shadow housing minister, opposing a social housing development in the Bentleigh electorate. Months later she was the Minister for Housing. When it was built, she turned up to cut the ribbon – just absolutely shameless. Sadly, the Big Housing Build is not bipartisan in this state. Thankfully, the opposition are so irrelevant that it does not really matter, because we are going to get on and build it. We are already well into the delivery of 12,000 dwellings. We are proud of that. Only this side of the house cares about Victorians having roofs over their heads so that they can live lives of dignity and progress. I commend the bill to the house.

Peter WALSH (Murray Plains) (10:42): I rise to speak on the Statute Law Amendment Bill 2022. In starting off, as our lead speaker said, we will not be opposing this legislation. I think the process of actually getting to this piece of legislation, as the member for Sandringham articulated in his contribution, just shows how arrogant, how out of touch this government is and how disrespectful it is to the processes of the house. As this bill has come through there have been a number of processes that have not been followed, normal processes of this house, and as I understand it the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee has not even given a final report on this piece of legislation. SARC is supposed to actually go through legislation, make sure it is correct, make sure that the detail is right and have a report tabled in the house so that those that are making a contribution on whatever the piece of legislation is have that detail from SARC. SARC is a very important part of the legislative processes of this house, and the fact that SARC has not done a final report just goes to show, as I said, how arrogant the Andrews government is in treating the processes of this Parliament.

I take up what the member for Bentleigh was talking about with the housing part of this piece of legislation. What the member for Bentleigh did not say is the fact that, yes, there has been a lot of money invested in public housing in this state under the Big Build, but it actually has not increased the net number of public housing dwellings by very much at all. To think that there has been $2.8 billion invested in public housing since 2018 – my understanding is there is only a net increase of 74 houses in this state.

A member: How many?

Peter WALSH: Am I dead wrong? Well, you prove it then. If I think about public housing in my own electorate, there is always an issue around people getting public housing. Particularly people who are in crisis cannot get public housing. We constantly have issues, particularly with young single mums who are fleeing abusive relationships. They cannot get public housing. They get put up in a motel. They get shunted around. They just cannot get the housing they need, and that situation is even worse for the Indigenous population. Yes, there is money being spent, but the question I would ask of the Minister for Housing is: is it actually being spent in the right place? Is it actually delivering the right outcome for those most disadvantaged in the community?

Public housing is not a right; it is a privilege, and those that really need it are the ones that should be getting it. Whatever the net number is, there is still a huge waiting list, and my understanding is that the priority waiting list has gone up significantly since 2014 when the Andrews government was elected, and the list last year grew by 3000 people looking for priority housing. So let us be fair about this. There is money spent, but is it being spent in the right way? I also understand there have been no published waiting list figures since June 2022, so the government needs to update those figures so we actually know what is going on with those people that need public housing.

My other understanding that the member for Bentleigh did not touch on either is that prior to 2010 the then Minister for Housing regularly cleansed the list so the numbers did not get too great. So again, you can play ducks and drakes with numbers any way you like, but if people go through and actually cleanse the list because people have been on that list for too long, all of a sudden the list is a lot less than it really is. It is about having the hidden demand rather than the actual demand that is there for public housing. So the member for Bentleigh talks the big talk, but I would put forward to the house that he is not factually right. My recollection is the minister he talked about in the other place, who was the housing minister between 2010 and 2014, actually got more properties to market and changed the maintenance regime for public housing, because what you find in a lot of country towns is there is a significant number of public housing properties that need maintenance. They sit vacant for six to 12 months and you have people on the public housing waiting list who come to my office and say, ‘That house in X street, X number in Y street, has actually been vacant for six months. I desperately need a house. Why can’t I get into that house?’ My understanding of former Minister Lovell’s role in 2010–14 is that she and the department put a lot of effort into actually getting the maintenance regime functioning properly and getting more existing properties rentable so people could move into them. So the member for Bentleigh can slag off all he likes, but if he is going to rewrite history, he will be called out for that. He will be called out for rewriting history on those particular issues.

Steve McGhie interjected.

Peter WALSH: It is not an embarrassment to actually stick up for people in your electorate who want public housing. It is not an embarrassment to stick up for people in country electorates that want public housing.

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I should be able to hear the member.

Peter WALSH: The member for Bentleigh has form on standing up in this house and trying to rewrite history and particularly to slag off those that went before.

Colin Brooks: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the Nationals knows – he has been here quite some time – that this debate is not an opportunity to reflect on other members.

Peter WALSH: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member for Bentleigh continually reflected on Wendy Lovell in the other place. I ask you to rule the minister at the table’s point of order out of order, because all I am doing is responding to the assertions that the member for Bentleigh made on Wendy Lovell in the other place.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the point of order, and I think I said this about 7 minutes ago, I would ask all members to be careful about imputations on other members. The member to continue, and we should be able to hear each other.

Peter WALSH: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. The point I have been making, which those opposite seem to ridicule, is that as a country member – and I speak on behalf of all other country members in this place, and no doubt a lot of the suburban members as well – we would like to see that the Big Build, the billions of dollars of money that is being spent on public housing, actually delivers for those most disadvantaged in our communities and that those young mums, people fleeing domestic violence relationships, actually could get a house at relatively short notice rather than being shunted around motels and rather than being shifted to another town.

I personally think it is very important that children in those relationships can stay in the school that they are in or the kindergarten that they are in, so they can keep their friendships rather than being put in a different town or having to move a long way away to get public housing, because that breaks up the family relationships that they have. Those on the other side of the house might think those aspirations on behalf of our constituents are not something we aspire to. Well, we do. Those on the other side of the house might say that those on this side of the house do not care about public housing tenants. We do care about them. They are the people that come through our offices day after day after day and that we spend a lot of time working to help, and despite all the interjections, the Big Build is not delivering for those people.

The member for Bentleigh wanted to make the debate on this bill about the Big Build, and I am pushing back saying it is not delivering for the people in regional Victoria who most need it. As the member for Sandringham said, while we are not opposing this legislation – but I will go back to the thing I started with as well – the processes to arrive at this legislation in the house here have shown the arrogance, how the Andrews government has a lack of respect for the processes of this house. I am appalled by the standards and the way the Andrews government has treated Parliament. Executive government should be answering to the Parliament. That is the tradition of the Westminster system, not executive government treating Parliament like a nuisance and something they just have to do so they can then go and do what they want to do anyhow. We will not be opposing this legislation.

Iwan WALTERS (Greenvale) (10:52): It is great to follow the member for Murray Plains after his contribution. He came in off the long run. He is coming down the hill at Cohuna telling us how the government is abrogating standards in this Parliament and how it is not treating the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee with due respect, and I am just going to inject a little bit of fact and truth into the debate, because as the chair of SARC –

A member interjected.

Iwan WALTERS: And Cohuna is a bit flat, but even so –

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I cannot hear the member.

A member interjected.

Iwan WALTERS: With the wind. As the chair of SARC, I tabled the report that that committee wrote, considered, in relation to this bill, so to suggest that SARC has not considered the Statute Law Amendment Bill 2022 is fanciful.

Peter Walsh interjected.

Iwan WALTERS: The report is here. It was tabled in the previous sitting week. The report is here, member for Murray Plains, and while the member for Sandringham has touched upon some of the internal processes of SARC, he did also rightly say that they are subject to committee processes. I am going to respect those and not talk any further about the ongoing work of the committee until the time is right and I table the next report.

But I want to come back to the purpose of my remarks today. As a member of SARC, as the chair of SARC, it has afforded me an appreciation for the extraordinary complexity of the legislative process and the nuance, the detail and the incredible care that is involved by drafting teams and by processes such as SARC that support all parliamentarians within this place and the other place. It is important that that care is involved. There should be that care. The laws that we make here have real consequences for people in communities, and the courts of course pay very close heed to the wording of our laws in adjudicating disputes. So I want to thank the secretariat of SARC that support me, that support other SARC members and that support ultimately all members of this place to understand and interrogate the laws that are being proposed by the government and by other members through private members bills, to make sure that those bills are right and proper and that the consequences of them have been thought through.

So it is a pleasure to rise to speak on this bill, which does tidy up some oversights, some inadvertent consequences of other laws being introduced at various points and various typos as well. One of the acts that this bill seeks to make minor amendments to is the Competition Policy Reform (Victoria) Act 1995. It does not make substantive changes, but I do just want to reflect on the importance of competition and open markets, because these are critical to the prosperity of Victorians.

Competitive markets are what deliver good outcomes for consumers. They increase innovation and productivity. They lead to better outcomes for primary producers and small businesses. Competition incentivises the flow of resources away from unproductive and less productive firms towards more productive firms in a process known as dynamic reallocation.

Members interjecting.

Iwan WALTERS: The Alert Digest is on the table. The Australian Treasury has found that competition in Australia has deteriorated over the last decade – a decade in which those opposite were in power federally, where macroeconomic levers are of course set. That has been measured by indicators such as industry concentration, incumbency and firm mark-up. Excessive market power or the absence of competition can contribute to economic inequality by promoting the interests of the few with power over the interests of the many. It undermines trust in the operation of markets, encourages wasteful rent-seeking activities and protects monopoly profits.

In a previous generation the reforms of the Hawke–Keating governments, which led to the removal of anti-competitive regulations, contributed to an explosion in productivity growth through the 1990s and early 2000s. The average Victorian household as a consequence of those competitive reforms became $5000 better off. By contrast, as a result of increasing market concentration and a slowdown in competition under the Libs and Nats federally across the last decade, consumers are now paying more than they should for a wider range of goods and services. And this impacts the poorest the most. Market concentration benefits those with capital and incumbent market power. Recent RBA research has examined how remarkably impervious large Australian companies –

Members interjecting.

Iwan WALTERS: I would invite the member for Nepean to contribute to this debate in due course as well. Of the top 10 largest Australian companies in 1917, five of those were still in the top 10 at the end of August 2021. By contrast, only one of the top US companies in 1917 was in the top 10 a century later. For a young market economy, we have got a remarkably old set of listed companies which still largely reflect the economic geography of the 19th century in Australia – banks and miners. Weighted by market cap, the average listed company in Australia is 105 years old, compared with 82 in the US and 95 in the UK.

As I say, market concentration benefits the owners of capital, who are allowed to become complacently profitable, and it restrains productivity. Competition policy in Australia has been perhaps overly influenced by the Chicago school approach in recent years. It suggests that it does not really matter what firms charge or how large they get, competitors will take their market share. Predatory pricing will not occur because firms would never be able to recoup their losses as new competitors enter the market. But in recent decades we have got a newer movement among economists which recognises that too much market concentration leads to a less innovative and more sluggish economy. Just take the phones that members are currently using in the chamber: 60 per cent of mobiles in Australia are on the Apple iOS, and the Apple App Store accounts for around 60 per cent of downloads as a consequence. Google provides 95 per cent of search services in Australia. Facebook and Instagram supply 80 per cent of social media services. We think of technology as being at the cutting edge of economic change, but in reality the scope, scale and concentration in tech markets is unprecedented, at least perhaps since the break-up of monopolistic industries in the early 20th century.

Across the board it appears that market power is increasing in Australia. This trend has been observed in many advanced economies and by the IMF. Without action, market power in Australia will become further entrenched and will certainly not reduce prices for consumers. Market power is hurting Australians and Victorians across many walks of life, and a proxy for market power that is increasingly significant is the mark-up a firm attaches to its product. Fundamentally, that is its profit margin. This is a direct measure of a firm’s market power, since it provides insight into a firm’s own abilities to influence the price it receives for its goods and services.

In June 2022, after nine years of coalition government at a federal level, the share of national income going to profits climbed to an all-time high of 31.1 per cent. As a result, even though more of the population was in work than ever before, the share of national income going to wages sunk to a near all-time low of 49.8 per cent. Before COVID that wages share was 53 per cent. At the start of the 2000s it was 56 per cent. Of course profitable businesses matter. They employ Victorians and they underpin our economy, but the important thing for economic dynamism is that a firm’s profits reflect the value they add to society, not a margin inflated by inadequate competition and monopolistic rent-seeking. When firms can charge inflated prices in the absence of effective competition from other firms, it is the poorest who wear the greatest hit as a proportion of their incomes. That is why effective competition policy is not an arcane concept but one that directly impacts the hip pockets of Victorians.

The Australian Treasury recently estimated that lower competitive pressures have led to Australian firms becoming slower to adopt the inventions and practices of frontier firms and that the associated reduction in that dynamic reallocation accounted for one-fifth of the slowdown in Australia’s annual labour productivity since 2012. We need more competition, not just in the digital space but across the board. Competition boosts dynamism in the economy, it drives businesses to innovate, it creates an economy where new businesses can start up, where consumers have choice and pay less for more, where workers are empowered, where wages are higher and where workers can switch jobs more easily and find the job that works for them. We need competition, and that is why I am really glad that the Statute Law Amendment Bill today touches upon competition law and reminds us of those things.

Michael O’BRIEN (Malvern) (11:01): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The reason why this debate should be adjourned now is that as useful as the legislative housekeeping contained in the Statute Law Amendment Bill 2022 may be, it does not hold a candle to the issue of corruption in the state of Victoria. We need to adjourn this debate because there is a far more important issue on our notice paper. Motion 14 on today’s notice paper in my name is about whether we as a Parliament, we as Victorians, are prepared to sweep serious corruption allegations under the table or prepared to confront them. That is the question before us today. Let us be very clear about this. The allegations raised in the letter of the then IBAC Commissioner dated 15 December 2022 go to corruption. There is no other word for it. There is no doubt that the then IBAC Commissioner wanted us and wants us to deal with this issue. In fact his letter starts:

I am writing to you as the newly elected Parliament to bring to Parliament’s attention, IBAC’s concerns …

So the limp excuse proffered by the Premier that the letter was not for him is exposed as an absolute monstrous falsehood in that very first line, because the IBAC Commissioner said:

I am writing to you as the newly elected Parliament to bring to Parliament’s attention …

The last time I looked, the Premier was a member of Parliament. You would not necessarily know it because he is very much part-time in terms of attendance in the chamber for commencements and for votes, but he is a member of this Parliament, and that letter from the honourable Robert Redlich AM KC was directed to him just as it was directed to the other 87 of us here and the 40 members in the other place. All members of the 60th Parliament are engaged in this issue, and that is why we need to adjourn this debate now and we need to move to motion 14 now.

What does motion 14 do? It seeks to establish a select committee of members of this place to inquire into the very serious corruption allegations put in the letter from the outgoing IBAC Commissioner. We cannot sweep it under the carpet, because it is monstrous what has been alleged. What has been alleged? I will quote directly from the letter so I cannot be accused of embellishment:

IBAC first became concerned at a meeting on 14 June 2022, when Callida provided IBAC with alarming advice that they had been directed by the IOC –

that is the Integrity and Oversight Committee –

Audit Sub-committee to ‘find dirt on IBAC and data that is not readily publicly available’.

Who goes out and tries to undermine the anti-corruption watchdog by digging up the dirt on it? Who tries to nobble the organisation that is out there fighting corruption?

A member: I know the answer: Labor.

Michael O’BRIEN: Well, we do know the answer. People who are under investigation by that anti-corruption watchdog seem to have an incentive to try and nobble it, to try and dig dirt on it and to try and discredit it. Why would you want to do that if you were not guilty? It is not good enough. It is not good enough that this government may have done a deal with the Greens and a deal with the Legalise Cannabis Party to try and head off an inquiry. We are going to keep bringing this up, because it is too important to sweep under a carpet. We must get to the bottom of these allegations. Commissioner Redlich deserves an opportunity to speak to them, he deserves to speak to them before Parliament and he deserves to speak to them with parliamentary privilege, because we cannot let this slide.

If members opposite had any concern about integrity, they would want to find out what has gone on. Maybe the allegations are misplaced? It is possible, I suppose. But you are not going to know unless you ask the question. You are not going to know unless you actually hear from those people who are named in the letter as being able to provide evidence. So let us get to motion 14 on the notice paper. Let us have a debate about establishing a select committee to get to the truth. Let us have a debate about whether corruption matters in this state or not. I say it does. Members on this side say it does. We do not think Victoria should be the corruption state, but that is fast where we are heading. This government is starting to make Joh Bjelke-Petersen look like the Archangel Gabriel. How many corruption investigations are there into your government?

Peter Walsh: How many IBAC investigations?

Michael O’BRIEN: Correct. They have gone very quiet now, haven’t they? They have gone very quiet now. They all want to sweep it under the carpet. They would rather cover it up, look after their mates and look after themselves. Well, we say it is not good enough. Corruption is too important and integrity is too important, and that is why this debate should be adjourned. We should move directly to the motion 14 and establish a select committee to find out what really went on and start cleaning up the stench of this government in Victoria.

Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (11:07): What a time-wasting exercise this is by the member for Malvern. What is really at play here is that he has got a little bit of relevance deprivation. Everyone is talking about the current Leader of the Opposition and his dismal performance this week in calling out absolutely outrageous conduct, and we have got here an adjournment motion that is just wasting the time of the Parliament. This is not part of the conventions of the house. This has not been moved forward as well. Then we have got the member for Malvern putting forward a grandstanding exercise. He has got a bit of relevance deprivation because he was the 11 per cent person in this Parliament, wasn’t he? Oh, they do not like this. They do not like being reminded of this.

Cindy McLeish: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member full well knows that this is not an opportunity for him to slag off at the opposition. This is narrow. He needs to get on to integrity, because is not showing any. He does not understand. I ask you to bring him back to the motion.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): That is not a point of order.

Tim RICHARDSON: If only your contribution was so inspiring when you were Deputy Leader. Anyway, here we go. We step forward – oh, it is like, ‘Get on the hook here.’ Here we go.

Cindy McLeish: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I would ask you to ask the member to withdraw. He cannot say that. He is well out of his place, and he knows it. I would actually caution you to counsel him, because his behaviour is appalling.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): I ask the member for Mordialloc to withdraw.

Tim RICHARDSON: I withdraw. This is the kind of tactic that we see from those opposite, who do not have depth in their bill speeches. We have seen their contributions. I talked about this in the government business program. They do not want to contribute to the legislation of this place. They did not want to contribute to the Suburban Rail Loop motion or speak up on behalf of their local communities or contribute to the speeches. What we see as well – when you look through the 60th Parliament you would not have seen a coalition group who have had a slower start on their bill contributions on behalf of their community. The second-reading speech record through there – there are some that have not even got on the list yet, there are some that have not even spoken up for their local communities and they are begging for time to elapse throughout the week.

This diversion tactic is more about giving time to the coalition to think about the numbers that they are trying to craft right now about what they do about Moira Deeming in the upper house. This is what this really is about: to get on the phones, to not have to do the preparation on statute bills –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I would ask you to bring the member back to the question. The question is about a very important matter. It is about the integrity of our state. What the member is doing is disturbing; it is an outrageous abuse of this house both in the way that he spoke to a member previously and also the way he is speaking now. I would ask him to return back to this important issue of integrity – a tight debate – that we are considering.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): The member for Mordialloc to continue. He should bring it back to the motion that is being discussed.

Tim RICHARDSON: I will tell you what an outrageous abuse is: standing with people who demonise trans and gender diverse people within our community. That is an outrageous abuse. If only the member for Brighton had that much courage to step up and stand up and defend those people rather than grandstanding, as he is doing now.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, you have already ruled on this matter. You have ruled that the member should return to the question at hand. What he is doing now is outrageous. It is a flagrant breach of numerous standing orders. I would ask you to counsel him and return him to the question.

Tim RICHARDSON: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, we are free to talk about the motivations for adjourning the debate and wasting the time of this Parliament and blocking time that could be spent on this bill. That is an important point around motivations and the fact that they do not have contributors on this bill. This is why it is being adjourned. It is not actually about what has been put forward. They do not have the depth and the contribution to make contributions on this bill – that has been clear over the last few weeks of Parliament.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): The member for Mordialloc to continue and keep his reflections to the motion.

Tim RICHARDSON: We have here now more time wasting from the opposition. We have seen it consistently throughout as well. Maybe they should be looking at how they contribute for their communities.

Members interjecting.

Tim RICHARDSON: The member for Malvern can interject and rant and rave. If only he had that much passion when he was Leader of the Opposition, when no-one believed in any contribution that he was making. No-one had any thought –

Members interjecting.

Tim RICHARDSON: And he can make personal attacks and slights as he likes. He talked about factions, in his interjection, in the Liberal Party. If only he had the support of his party room at that time. This time-wasting exercise right now is a diversion from getting on with the important work of this Parliament. We have seen this time and time again from those opposite. It is disappointing. Let us get on with the work on the bill and let us stop wasting the time of the Parliament and the Victorian people.

Peter WALSH (Murray Plains) (11:12): I am just amazed – it is the only word I can say – at the audacity of the member for Mordialloc and what he said: that it is actually time wasting to want to talk about integrity, to want to talk about rooting out corruption in this state. For the member for Mordialloc to say it is a waste of this house’s time to talk about rooting out corruption in this state, whether it be soft corruption, whether it be hard corruption, whether it be nepotism, whether it be jobs for mates or whether it be having 90 ministerial staffers buried into the public sector here so they can have their tentacles everywhere – it is an absolute audacity to say that that is not something that is important to this house. It is absolutely critical for this state.

One of the things that I took personal pride in Victoria for throughout my parliamentary career was that we used to be better than New South Wales and Queensland. Victoria used to have a reputation for having integrity, for having honesty in this state. Particularly over the last four years of the eight years of the Andrews government we have seen Victoria slide down the scale in Australia of the standards that we actually accept in this state. So for the member for Mordialloc to say we are wasting time talking about these issues, he could not be more wrong about it.

I support the motion from the member for Malvern that we should adjourn and that we should go on to debate item 14 on the notice paper. There is no more important issue on the greens, on the notice paper, than item 14, and we should spend time on that. And if those on the other side had nothing to hide, they would actually support the motion. What have the Andrews government got to hide that they are so frightened of motion 14 on the notice paper? If they believed that they were as clean as they say they are, if they believed they are doing the right thing in this state, they would welcome this motion, they would allow this motion to go through, they would allow a select committee of this house to be set up: a house where we can get quite a few senior ministers of the government to appear before it –

Members interjecting.

Peter WALSH: and the Premier – where they cannot hide behind the issues between houses. It would be a committee of the lower house that could actually have lower house ministers appear before it to be questioned under oath.

If the government have not got something to hide, they should support this motion. I think Victorians want the lid lifted on corruption in this state. They want a process that can actually cleanse this state of any accusations of corruption. If people are doing things wrong, they need to be called out, they need to be found out and they need to be punished accordingly. Having honesty and integrity in government is the most important tenet of the Westminster system of government. We do not want to be like Third World banana republics where governments just do everything they want and they are not accountable for what happens in a particular state.

We know the Ombudsman is having an inquiry at the moment into politicisation of the public sector in this state. But before that is handed down it is even more important that motion 14 is passed by this house, as the member for Malvern has moved, and that we actually have a committee that does not have a majority of government members on it. Everything we see that happens has a majority of government members, where they cover up for each other all the time. It is just a game: ‘We’ll have an inquiry, but we’ve stacked it with government members and they’ll find that nothing has gone wrong.’ This actually puts in place an investigative committee that has two government members, two opposition members and one from the other parties and is chaired by a non-government member. That is what we need in this state so that we can get to the bottom of corruption.

Former Commissioner Redlich did Victorians a favour when he wrote to the Speaker and wrote to the President with his letter. I think the only mistake Commissioner Redlich made was he did not personally write to every member of Parliament, including the Premier. Because the Premier hiding behind the fact that ‘Well, it wasn’t addressed to me, so why would I read it?’ is just absolutely fanciful. As someone said, it is effectively the Sergeant Schultz defence, and it is wrong.

Sonya KILKENNY (Carrum – Minister for Planning, Minister for Outdoor Recreation) (11:17): Yes, I absolutely agree that integrity and transparency is absolutely crucial in government, which is why we will absolutely be opposing this motion for what it is. This is a political stunt by those opposite. It is the Andrews Labor government that has delivered stronger powers and record funding to IBAC, because we have always said that integrity and transparency in government is crucial. We will be opposing this motion. I ask those opposite: why was this motion adjourned off in the Council yesterday? It was adjourned off because you did not have the support of the Greens. And if the member for Murray Plains is here –

The SPEAKER: Order! Minister for Planning, through the Chair.

Sonya KILKENNY: If the member for Murray Plains is here to talk about standards, let us talk about standards. Let us talk about what happened on the weekend on the steps of Parliament. That is talking about standards. So we will be opposing –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, this is a tight procedural debate. This is the second government speaker who has abused this house in the way they are speaking to this motion. This is not an opportunity to slag the opposition and avoid any discussion about integrity. What the speaker is doing is an outrageous abuse of this house.

The SPEAKER: Order! I would ask members to be succinct when they are making their points of order. I understand what you are implying through your point of order. This is a narrow debate, and members should be respectful of each other and particularly the members who are on their feet.

Sonya KILKENNY: Thank you, Speaker. As I was speaking about integrity and standards, I think it is entirely relevant to be talking about what members in this place might be doing on the steps of Parliament House. So the government will be opposing this motion. We recognise this as a complete political stunt.

John Pesutto interjected.

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition is warned.

Sonya KILKENNY: We will be opposing this motion today. As I said, it is the Andrews Labor government that has invested –

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: The member for South-West Coast is warned.

Sonya KILKENNY: record amounts into IBAC to support the functions of IBAC. We oppose this motion today.

Kim WELLS (Rowville) (11:20): I support the member for Malvern in regard to the motion on the notice paper. I am a bit surprised by the member for Mordialloc, who I have a lot of time for, accusing the opposition of time wasting. I know it has probably wrecked his preselection, but time wasting, when one of the fundamentals of government should be integrity. The cornerstones of any government should be governance and integrity and honesty. To say ‘We should be able to shut this down’ or ‘We don’t want to talk about it’ I think shows the quality of the government and that they have no interest in integrity.

Let us remind everyone in the chamber that it was the Baillieu government that brought in the IBAC legislation. For years and years, the mushrooms over there were never going to have anything to do with integrity and honesty. But it was the Baillieu government that brought it in, and they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to support the legislation in the end. Even when they were in opposition you could see that there was that resistance to supporting anything to do with integrity.

Former Commissioner Robert Redlich, out of absolute frustration, wrote to the Speaker and to the President to outline his concerns that the system in this state is being corrupted. Can you believe it? The system to investigate corruption is being corrupted, and it all gets back to the running of the Integrity and Oversight Committee. With the IOC, there is no question that it was being directed by the Premier’s private office. The Premier’s private office was dictating what had to happen in that committee, because there is no way known that the IOC was going to have a breakout and start investigating the Premier. The classic example, as we have said in this house a couple of times, is that issue where we had the Commissioner come before the committee in a public hearing to talk about different issues. He was asked the questions: why was the Premier being questioned or investigated in private? Why wasn’t it being done in public? He wanted to answer that question, but guess what, he was gagged by the Labor members. And guess what, they were all looking at their phones checking the text messages for what the Premier’s private office was saying.

We have got the situation now where there has been a deal done between the Greens and some bloke from the marijuana party, so we are going to have a new composition that is going to be set up. We are going to have a member from the Greens, the guy from the marijuana party, one Liberal, one National Party, but there are going to be four from Labor on that committee. All it is going to take is for the guy from the marijuana party to side with Labor and nothing is going to get done, even though the member from the Greens is going to be the chair, which is all predetermined. Nothing is going to get done. There might be the Greens, there might be the National Party, there might be the Liberal Party, but if the person from the marijuana party sides with Labor it all gets shut down. So even the investigation into the letters that have been sent through to the Speaker will not be investigated. There will be nothing about integrity or corruption that will be investigated because it is all going to be shut down. So I really struggle with the deal that has been done –

Jackson Taylor interjected.

The SPEAKER: The member for Bayswater is warned.

Kim WELLS: He should be thrown out.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Rowville will not be disrespectful to the Chair.

Kim WELLS: The issue is quite clear. The concern that Robert Redlich raised about the composition of the committee should have shown that there was a need to favour members from opposition parties or a respectful situation where all investigations would be conducted properly, and that is not the case.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (11:25): Just to provide some clarity on the situation, in this particular context the appointment of the Integrity and Oversight Committee members in the Legislative Council was unanimous. You might want to pay bit of attention to what happens in that other chamber, instead of just making it up on the spot. They talk a big game in the lower house and are pretty quiet in the upper house when they can actually do something, hey? Why don’t you do something when you have the chance? It is all very well to whinge, whinge, whinge now. You had the chance; you didn’t take it. Too bad, too late. Talk about integrity –

Brad Rowswell: On a point of order, Speaker, I know the member on her feet is at the start of her contribution, but she must not reflect on the Chair. She used the words ‘you’ and ‘your’ several times. I would ask you to bring her to order.

The SPEAKER: Member for Albert Park, through the Chair.

Nina TAYLOR: Yes, and respectfully, I meant no disrespect whatsoever. Let us see this for what it is: it is just a desperate stunt. It is a stunt. They are a shambles. Their leadership is a revolving door. Each week on the phones: ‘Who is it this week? Who are we going for? Ooh, we don’t want to be talking about that, quick, quick, quick, find something. Oh, let’s jump on –

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for South-West Coast!

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, I am not sure what that was, but it certainly was not a narrow debate on a narrow procedural question, and I would ask you to bring the member back to that question.

The SPEAKER: The member for Albert Park will come back to the motion before the house.

Nina TAYLOR: Absolutely. Absolutely, I will speak as loudly as I want. I am a female. I have every right in this chamber to be forthright. On this side of the house we want to speak to issues that matter to the people of Victoria, and that is why we want to continue on the Statute Law Amendment Bill 2022. Let us continue on the statute law bill as is on the notice paper instead of these ridiculous distractions – completely disingenuous; they know very well we have put record funding into IBAC so what is this nonsense? We are wasting the time of Parliament, and if they really, genuinely cared about the issues that matter to Victoria they would actually put up a steady flow of speakers.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Nationals!

Nina TAYLOR: Sorry, I got distracted myself. But in any case, if they actually cared about the issues that matter to the people of Victoria, then show it. Put up proper speakers, debate the bills, debate the issues that matter to the people of Victoria and maybe think about the people that you put up for preselection. They knew very well that the member for Western Victoria was going to deliver something pretty terrible and pretty damaging, but they still let her run, and that has been very embarrassing for those opposite.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! I would ask members to be a little more respectful.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, I again ask you to bring the member back to the motion.

The SPEAKER: I ask the member for Albert Park to come back to the motion before the house.

Nina TAYLOR: I should clarify, Western Metro. That is a very good point; I should have said Western Metro. I said Western Victoria. No disrespect to Bev. Moira Deeming was the member that I was referring to, so thank you very much for making that clarification. So –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, as much as it pains me, I am not sure the member heard your direction when you ruled on that point of order.

The SPEAKER: The member for Albert Park was clarifying, but she will come back now to the motion before the house.

Nina TAYLOR: We were very much in the depths of this very serious debate on the statute law bill. We know that these kinds of changes and amendments are customary and required from time to time in Parliament. They are a very important part of parliamentary processes, and we would very much appreciate if those opposite would take the processes of Parliament seriously and actually work here on behalf of their constituents and do the right thing, put up speakers on the bills and debate as we work through the parliamentary sitting week, instead of these ridiculous stunts that are trying to take away the attention from their revolving door of leadership and, frankly, members of Parliament who are disrespecting some of the most vulnerable people in our community. That is what this is really about.

Tim READ (Brunswick) (11:30):(By leave) I will just speak briefly to clarify that the Greens will support this motion from the member for Malvern because it is a motion to suspend debate on the Statute Law Amendment Bill 2022 to discuss something far more important, and I do not mean to disparage the Statute Law Amendment Bill, which is obviously quite a page-turner and a controversial piece of legislation indeed. But I feel that the issues raised on the notice paper in this motion from the member for Malvern are critical, and they refer to the non-receipt of the letter by the Parliament and to the adequacy particularly of the legislation governing IBAC, the state’s anti-corruption agency.

Now, I will not go through the entire motion, which is very detailed. Part of the motion, however, refers to appointing a select committee, and this part of the motion has obviously been overtaken by events. Nevertheless the content of the motion, the subject matter that the select committee would have been inquiring into, is critical, is important and should remain on Parliament’s agenda. I would think that, whether it is a select committee or indeed a newly reconstituted Integrity and Oversight Committee, whichever committee looks into these matters would benefit from Parliament’s direction as to which of all these matters should be looked at. In my view there is nothing here in this motion that should not be discussed, and all of it seems more important than the unfortunate Statute Law Amendment Bill. So we will support this motion because we think it is important to debate the questions of government interference in IBAC.

Assembly divided on Michael O’Brien’s motion:

Ayes (32): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Gabrielle de Vietri, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, Sam Hibbins, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Tim Read, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, Ellen Sandell, Ryan Smith, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Jess Wilson

Noes (50): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Daniel Andrews, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Jordan Crugnale, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Will Fowles, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Danny Pearson, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson

Motion defeated.

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Speaker, I would ask that you take some time perhaps to review Hansard in relation to these debates on adjournments that have been moved by the opposition. As you well know, these are very narrow procedural debates, and I would ask that you have a look and reflect on whether or not that is the way in which procedural motions are being used in this house. They are not, as you well know, an opportunity for the opposition to get up and make a series of unfounded allegations and to slander the government. So once again I ask that you take this point of order on notice and perhaps, as I said, have a look at Hansard and make a suggestion to the house on how we might proceed into the future.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Berwick is being very amusing this morning. However, this is a serious point of order.

James Newbury: On the point of order, Speaker, to assist the Leader of the House, who was not here during the debate, there were several occasions when members did need to be drawn back to the debate, and on each of those occasions I did raise that point of order. So I think that the issues have been dealt with and were dealt with at the time.

The SPEAKER: Order! Any motion on the notice paper can be brought forward at adjournment of debate; that is without question. I will take on notice the Leader of the House’s point of order and come back to the house later today. The house will now move back to the Statute Law Amendment Bill 2022.

Richard RIORDAN (Polwarth) (11:40): In the words of the member for Brunswick, I too am pleased to resume debate on this scintillating piece of important statute reform. I specifically refer to the sections where we are going to tighten up the Housing Act 1983. Of course as the Shadow Minister for Housing I am absolutely in favour of tightening up anything we can about housing here in the once great state of Victoria.

Members of the government in the last session before the adjournment debate spoke about the importance of what the Labor government calls the Big Build. Victorians are slowly waking up to the fact that this is not a big build, it is a big rip-off. What they are finding is that with their hard-earned taxes that this government has collected it has managed to spend $2.8 billion in five years to create 74 new homes for Victorians. While the opposition is not opposing this legislation, we would support it hand over fist if reform to the Housing Act put in criteria to say that when we are going to spend taxpayers money and do a big build, we are actually going to do a big build and not a big evaporation. That is what this has amounted to over the last five years. In some magical twist of disappearing money and houses, this government has absolutely, fundamentally failed in its obligation to the homeless here in Victoria to create new homes. It really is of epic proportions. Just think about that: 74 homes in five years with the use of $2.8 billion. In fact it works out to something like $35 million per home, and that is something that no Victorian could be happy with.

We would absolutely fall over ourselves to support this bill even further if there was some reform to the way Homes Victoria actually measures its success. Because press release after press release, one shiny white construction helmet photo after another shiny white construction helmet photo after another, this government has lined up to talk about its dollar spend, but it never mentions how many homes it has actually added to the list here in Victoria.

Why do we need to add to the social and affordable housing list here in Victoria – because of the priority homeless rate. I am glad there are a few government members left in the chamber today, and I hope they are listening, because I do not know how they front up to their constituents with such an appalling outcome. Since this government has been in power, they have been adding in excess of 3000 families a year to the homeless priority waiting list.

We are not talking about the people that are in aggregate unhappy with the housing the government is providing. That list had grown to nearly 64,000, but because we have not seen it for a year – and that is another whole issue – we can only imagine it is probably north of 70,000-odd families. But let us just talk about the families that are sleeping in cars, sleeping in parks, sleeping under tents, sleeping on people’s couches – families that do not have a place to call home. Three thousand of them have been added to the most recent figures, which are now almost 12 months old, mind you. Because this government is so afraid to release the figures, we are having to run blind off 12-month-old figures. That list is growing, and what has this government been able to do for the nearly 15,000 families that have found themselves homeless over the last five years? This government has created 74 new homes for them to go to. Seventy-four out of 15,000 are the only families looking to get any benefit from the $2.8 billion this government says it is going to spend. The Minister for Housing went on ABC radio on Friday and tried to defend these appalling figures, and he could not, because they just do not have the figures. They do not have the understanding.

They have gone rampantly spending and wasting billions of taxpayers dollars on a problem they have no way of solving – they are incapable of solving in fact. They have allowed their departments to run rampant with demolitions, with asset sales and with private sector joint ventures, and they have forgotten about why they exist. Homes Victoria exists to help people get a roof over their head, to have somewhere to call home, a space that they can feel safe and comfortable in, so that they need no longer call an awning in the main streets of Melbourne or a park down on the Mornington Peninsula home. The member for Nepean is here; that is a constant issue in his electorate. Or there are the people in my own electorate that are finding that they are having to sleep in cars out the front of police stations in country towns because there is nowhere to live. The waiting list for people: there are at least 3000 people being added annually to the homeless list. Eight years ago you would wait about six months to get a home allocation. That is now in excess of two years; more than two years people are waiting before they have any hope of having a home. And that is simply because this government has not put its eye to the outcome of its spend but on the cheap media announcements and photo opportunities.

We heard the Premier himself telling us that the reason he has been absent from Parliament all morning is that he was down doing a photo shoot – probably with some make-up and cameras and his extensive social media team, down making an issue of it, just like they do with their Big Housing Build. It was appalling to hear on Friday the minister say on ABC Drive that there must be more houses than 74. He could not tell us how many, he could not tell us where we could refer to any published document about where the extra homes are, but he said, ‘There must be homes because I go to the openings and cut ribbons all the time.’ I mean, fancy that being the measure of success of this government: ‘We must have more homes because we cut the ribbons.’ Well, yes, Minister, you have in fact cut ribbons on many developments, I have no doubt about that, but it is not the ribbons you cut, it is the net increase in homes: how many extra homes, how many extra beds, how many extra roofs? I can tell you that the people sleeping in the parks down on the Mornington Peninsula, the people living in caravans, the people living in single-bed motel units with their three children and the women escaping domestic violence that have nowhere to go except back to a dangerous and inhospitable roof – those people do not care how many ribbons the minister has cut, they do not care how many press releases the government has put out that say ‘We’re going to spend $5.5 billion on a Big Housing Build’.

Sonya Kilkenny: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I have sat here for some time and I have let the member opposite continue on, but I would suggest that the Statute Law Amendment Bill 2022, which sets out to make some minor amendments to the Competition Policy Reform (Victoria) Act 1995, is a relatively narrow bill. I am sure many members of this place would like to talk to the record investment that we are putting forward on the Big Housing Build to deliver 12,000 new and upgraded social and affordable homes for all Victorians, but in this case I would suggest that you remind the member to come back to speaking on the bill before us.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): The debate has been fairly wideranging, but I do remind the member for Polwarth to keep his comments within the confines of the bill.

Richard RIORDAN: Yes. Thanks, Acting Speaker. We did hear many speakers from the government side trumpet their Big Housing Build. I think it is only right, in keeping with that wideranging debate, that we continue on. But I guess the desire of government ministers and government members to shut down any form of criticism is the theme of the day, and we have seen that continuing on, I guess, in this debate. The minute a scintilla of light, a speck of light, shines upon the actual performance and outcomes of this government we always see them being quick to leap to shut it down. Even if it is a corruption letter by the most eminent jurists in the state sent to the Parliament to say, ‘Look, there’s something going wrong. It’s not right,’ they want to shut it down.

When we finally get to the work that the government should be doing, which is figuring out how many homes we actually have for Victorians, only to discover that they have not got them at all and they have vanished, then I can understand why the government seeks to push that down.

Anthony CIANFLONE (Pascoe Vale) (11:50): I rise to speak on the Statute Law Amendment Bill 2022, a bill which, while not the most high profile in terms of media and publicity, certainly is, despite what those opposite attempted to do earlier with the attempt to suspend standing orders, critically important in terms of public policy substance and outcomes in many ways, particularly around the safety of women and children, which I will turn to in the substance of my contribution. As I said in my first speech, I am committed to building a better and fairer Victoria, and underpinning this aspiration is ensuring that we always strive for better and fairer legislation that accurately reflects and responds to the needs of the community.

When legislation is drafted, it is done with the utmost care and to the highest possible standards. However, despite the best endeavours of all involved, occasionally minor errors and omissions arise as new legislation commences or as further reforms are implemented which, as identified, need to be ironed out and updated accordingly. The bill therefore is required as a matter of good legislative practice and housekeeping to ensure that the clarity, relevance and accuracy of statute law in Victoria is maintained. The bill seeks to rectify a collection of minor errors contained within a number of acts. It is an omnibus-type bill to ensure Victoria’s legislation across respective policy areas continues to remain robust and fit for purpose as we strive and work to respond to community needs through the work of this chamber. The bill seeks to update, modernise and correct minor ambiguities across a number of acts, including the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, the Domestic Animals Act 1994, the Housing Act 1983, the Terrorism (Community Protection) Act 2003, the Competition Policy Reform (Victoria) Act 1995 and the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Act 2022.

However, it is one of the amendments contained in this bill that I would like to focus my contribution on and which I believe is of particular importance in helping to keep our communities safe, particularly women and children. This relates to the amendments being made to the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004. The bill amends and updates the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004, an act which supports Victoria Police to actively monitor registered sex offenders to reduce the risk of reoffending. It requires offenders to report to Victoria Police at the commencement of their registration period and periodically over that time allows Victoria Police to record the personal details of an offender.

These amendments complement a wider multilevel tapestry of state and federal legislation all aimed at cracking down on sexual offences and on child sexual exploitation. The focus of state and federal government legislation and policing practices in response to these issues has increasingly sought to align with the realities and evolving risks emerging from advances in communication and technology. One key step in this regard was in 2019, when the Commonwealth amended the term ‘child pornography material’ to ‘child abuse material’ to more accurately reflect the harm and seriousness of such material, in that it does in fact depict the abuse of a child rather than the sexualisation of that abuse.

The Andrews Labor government is committed to preventing and reducing sexual offending in all its forms and also improving the experiences of victim-survivors through the justice system. However, despite growing efforts at the federal and state levels, sexual harm remains a significant issue faced by too many Victorians, particularly women. According to the ABS, 2.2 million women – that is 23 per cent of women aged 18 years and over – have experienced some form of sexual violence in their lifetime, including childhood sexual abuse or sexual assault since the age of 15. In this regard I draw the house’s attention to the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s review into Victoria’s laws relating to rape, sexual assault and associated adult and child sexual offences, which was tabled in Parliament in November 2021. The Victorian Law Reform Commission’s report Improving the Justice System Response to Sexual Offences highlights the need for ongoing and wideranging reforms, including improving police and justice system responses to victim-survivors of offending.

Following the report, the Victorian Labor government progressed some landmark reforms that overhauled the way sexual offences are reported and dealt with in Victoria. As announced in August 2022, the Victorian Labor government passed historic laws through this Parliament through the Justice Legislation Amendment (Sexual Offences and Other Matters) Act 2022, which saw Victoria adopt an affirmative consent model – a model that makes it clear that everyone has a responsibility to get consent before engaging in sexual activity. For their belief in consent to be reasonable, a person must have taken active steps by saying or doing something to find out if the other person consents. Simply, there must be a clear and enthusiastic go-ahead. The reforms also clarify the circumstances where there is no consent to an act, including that the removal of, the non-use of or tampering with a condom – commonly referred to as stealthing – without the other person’s consent is a crime. The reforms also include stronger laws to target image-based sexual abuse, which includes taking intimate videos of someone without their consent and distributing or threatening to distribute these images, including deepfake porn.

The reforms also include new jury directions to address misconceptions in sexual offence trials and reforms to better protect the confidential health information of sexual offence complainants. Combined with the reforms contained in this Statute Law Amendment Bill, the Victorian government will continue to ensure we are doing what we can to keep the community safe, particularly women, by preventing and deterring sexual offending from taking place whilst also strengthening legislation around the active monitoring of convicted offenders by Victoria Police.

All women should have the fundamental right to feel safe living in their own homes and walking the streets of local communities, regardless of the hour of the day. However, sadly even today, despite the progress we have made as a community in raising awareness about violence against women, the truth is we still have so much more to do not only in terms of legal reforms but through community awareness, particularly by men, who need to increasingly be the ones to step up and speak up to prevent and reduce men’s violence against women and children. As a male member of Parliament but also as a husband and a father of two daughters I will be making a concerted effort through every opportunity I have both in public and in private to raise awareness about these issues as I strive to help build a better, fairer and safer community for all.

My electorate in Melbourne’s north, like many other parts of the state, has sadly experienced some extremely tragic events with respect to men’s violence against women. September 2022 marked the 10-year anniversary since Jill Meagher was brutally raped and murdered on Hope Street in Brunswick by the most evil of men, and to her family and former ABC colleagues I say we stand with you and will never forget. I vividly recall these events of 2012, which occurred almost a month out from when Anna, my wife, and I were due to marry. We were still local residents back then. I recall the pain, the anger and the mourning felt by our community at that time, as we joined literally thousands who marched down Sydney Road to stand in love with Jill Meagher and her family and to stand against everything the evil male perpetrator stood for and did. Despite the progress we have made in raising awareness since then, the sad truth is that women’s safety today continues to be compromised by and large by men with misogyny in their hearts and in their minds.

In this respect I would like to draw the house’s attention to another distressing event which sadly occurred in December 2019 along the banks of the Merri Creek in Coburg, a matter which is being heard by the courts this week. The attack was described in the media as appalling, degrading and terrifying, as the female victim was simply jogging during the late afternoon and evening along the Merri Creek when she was allegedly attacked from behind by the male perpetrator and sexually assaulted in what went on to become a prolonged assault, described in the media as horrifying. I am sure that I speak for all of us in this chamber in saying that our thoughts and support stand with the female survivor, who has reportedly experienced anxiety, depression and PTSD since this incident.

While this bill cannot, sadly, change what happened to this courageous local female survivor back in December 2019, it certainly can help become part of the legislative architecture we need to continue building as a Parliament as we strive to prevent such incidents in future and to build safer communities for all women. However, along with these reforms around strengthening the sexual offenders register, it is also the ongoing advancements through online and internet-based communications technology which require us as a state to remain ever vigilant in deterring and preventing online sexual crimes, particularly to protect under-age young people and children. Sadly, as we know, while the internet has continued to evolve it has increasingly created another environment and platform for sexual predators and the exploitation of young people, whether through paedophiles connecting with and grooming innocent young victims or whether through young people obtaining and distributing or threatening to distribute images and material amongst their own age brackets, which have also gone on to have devastating consequences.

That is why I welcome the measures contained in this Statute Law Amendment Bill which seek to establish a new class 2 offence under schedule 2 of the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 to include preparatory offences such as grooming for sexual conduct, loitering near a school by a sexual offender and preparing for or planning an offence against the Criminal Code Act 1995. It is the position of the Ministerial Council for Police and Emergency Management and Standing Council of Attorneys-General that states and territories should expand registration and supervision schemes to apply to Commonwealth child sex offenders as soon as practicable. This amendment does precisely that.

Reports of online child exploitation to the Australian Federal Police have more than doubled since the AFP-led Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation was launched in 2018. According to the AFP, after four years of operation there have been, sadly, increasing levels of reporting in this regard, and since its inception in 2018 the ACCCE has been instrumental in the AFP’s fight to combat exploitation of children and contributed to significant outcomes, including removing 517 children from harm, identifying 429 victims, receiving nearly 100,000 reports that have resulted in more than 2000 referrals to law enforcement and developing key relationships with stakeholders.

I am absolutely committed to and commend this bill to the house. It is all about women and children’s safety in many respects, something that I will always stand up and fight for in this chamber and outside this chamber.

Sam GROTH (Nepean) (12:00): I rise to make a brief contribution to the Statute Law Amendment Bill 2022, and I thank the member for Polwarth for his contribution. I want to speak about the item relating to the Housing Act 1983. The member for Polwarth raised some points that are very, very crucial to my electorate as well and for the whole Mornington Peninsula. We know across the state the government is investing $2.8 billion, but we still have more than 36,000 families with no roof over their heads. The current numbers, from speaking to groups who do this work on the Mornington Peninsula – and there are any number of them, including a group I met with last week, Vinnies Kitchen, who feed a lot of the people who live rough and are homeless down there – are that there are more than a thousand rough sleepers right across the Mornington Peninsula. When you add the number of families across the state with inadequate housing – and that number goes up over 64,000 – you would hope that the $2.8 billion this government is spending would lead to more than the two completed houses that have currently been delivered. With, as I said, the thousand people sleeping rough, two houses completed on the Mornington Peninsula under the Big Build is not going to quite cut it for those members of my community.

The government wants to spruik how many houses they are building, how much they are spending and how many ribbons they are cutting. It has actually got to lead to real solutions for those people, and at the moment – we are seeing it across the state but especially on the Mornington Peninsula – those houses are not being delivered where they are needed. There is no accommodation for women trying to escape domestic violence. Currently they have to head to Frankston or across to Dandenong. You know, we are seeing people choose – as the winter months come now, and this happened last winter – to clean out wheelie bins and sleep in those with the lid closed to escape the winter elements.

So in my brief contribution I urge the government, while we are not opposing this bill, to continue with their Big Build but to do it in a way that is actually going to benefit those in the community that need it most. And I hope that we see that number start to come down. Instead of 3000 people being added to that housing waitlist every year across the state, that the number starts to reduce, that we start to see real solutions for the people that need the houses, that the thousand-odd people sleeping rough in my part of the world actually start to have some suitable accommodation for them and that through the winter period we do not once again see those people left without something. We do not want to see people having to live in tents on the Rosebud beach. That is not suitable accommodation for people. So instead of skirting around the edges of the legislation like they have done here in the Statute Law Amendment Bill relating to the Housing Act, I want to see them really deep dive and get things done and start to deliver for those people that are the most vulnerable in my community.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (12:03): I do think it is intriguing being lectured by the Liberal Party about social housing and the needs of the most vulnerable in our community, but I will come back to that point shortly. I just want to correct a couple of issues. Due to a copy-and-paste error the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing is aware of figures that were not updated in the 2021–22 annual report and confirms they will be correct in the 2022–23 report. I am coming back to a point that was made earlier about the number of homes built. The correct data was provided on page 49 of the 2021–22 annual report. The copy-and-paste error is in table 9 on page 94 of the 2021–22 annual report. Anyway, let us get to the point.

The Big Housing Build is delivering exactly what was intended: more homes for more Victorians. Across the two-year period of 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2022 when the Big Housing Build got underway, in 2021 social housing in Victoria increased by 1776, and we are continuing to do what matters through completing more homes in the Big Housing Build this year. We will have even more stock available for renters at Dunlop Avenue at Ascot Vale and the Markham estate in Ashburton in the coming weeks. Everyone in this place will recall the objections from those opposite to the Markham estate, because as far as they are concerned they do not want it in their backyard. So they talk the big talk here, but when it comes to actually being in their electorates, ‘Oh no, no, keep that away.’

The member for Mornington recently had the bright idea of replacing public housing in Mornington with the Mornington aquatics centre. The Shadow Minister for Housing tried to block a women’s housing project in his own electorate, making the claim that residents who would call the development home should be ‘spread across the shire’. This is an attack on the skills and expertise of a community housing provider that knows and understands the benefit of creating community for older women.

I should say also – and there is more that I could say in a moment – that I do recall, because I used to be in the Legislative Council, the day when member for Northern Victoria Wendy Lovell was making very strange comments about where you should place social housing. You should not put it in Brighton – and I am paraphrasing – because they might not be able to have the right sneakers or otherwise. And let me tell you, there is a fantastic new rebuild going on there courtesy of our government – because actually there has been social housing there I think since the 1960s; it is well established. And guess what? The kids went to Elsternwick Primary School and they mixed with all the local kids there and it worked. Funny that – mixing of kids, all different socio-economic situations, did not matter because I guess they knew how to talk to each other, they got along, they played and they learned together.

On our side of the house we know that there is no reason why you should not build social housing in Brighton. Why wouldn’t you? I mean, it just goes against the grain of who we are and our values, but it speaks to the values of those opposite, doesn’t it, when you reflect on the incredibly offensive comments that were made at that time? And as I say, I was in the upper house at that time so I can attest to those comments being made, and that is why I could not understand why there was such opposition from those opposite to factual events that had taken place. So I think they might just want to tone it down a little bit when they are trying to build their street cred in here and maybe actually translate it out there where it matters on the ground.

I should say that under the Big Housing Build we have 7600 houses either delivered or underway, okay? And the Big Housing Build only started –

Sam Groth interjected.

Nina TAYLOR: I said it at the outset, but you were not listening, were you? You can read back Hansard and see what I said there.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Through the Chair, member for Albert Park.

Nina TAYLOR: Sorry. In any case, I was just making a point that if the learned member had actually listened to me from the outset when I did make my comment, he would have known that I clarified that point as well. It was 1776, so you can read Hansard, or actually, I am repeating it for the member. On my behalf I am doing it – for the benefit of the learned member, I should say. I hope that satisfies that question, because I know there have been some extraordinary claims that have been made here that grossly underestimate the enormous and extensive investment that our government is making in our wonderful state of Victoria for the most vulnerable Victorians. We know that the Big Housing Build will deliver more than 12,000 homes, including 2400 affordable homes for the Victorians who need them most.

I think I did mention before the Markham estate and others. It is par for the course that when social housing is being built in their area – in the area of the Liberal opposition – that is when they jack up, but they are happy to talk about it in the chamber. Talk the big talk until it is in their neighbourhood – but it is not only the Liberal–National opposition. Can I also flag there are some members of the Greens who take many opportunities to jack up to just about every new housing build that we have. What I cannot understand is they claim to be the party that reflects the environment, biodiversity and otherwise, but guess what, they are opposing us having energy-efficient homes and disability access. Why would they oppose this time and time again? They come in here with their big talk – ‘Yeah, yeah, yeah, we love social housing; it’s great, but just keep it out of our area’ or ‘We don’t want energy efficiency’. I have even seen the suggestion that people should refurb while they are living there. Who wants to live in a building site? I mean, it just does not make any sense. Why would you do that? This is the point, why people get relocated for the period of the build – so they do not have to live in a building site. I think that makes perfect sense – and with the right of return as well. What is wrong with that? It happens over and over, and it is completely disingenuous, because I am well known for having a deep passion for sustainability and for making sure that –

A member interjected.

Nina TAYLOR: Well, yes, I can’t help myself. I am a rabid environmentalist. I think that is very well known. But for those Victorians who are arguably least able to afford heating and cooling bills, surely building homes that are energy efficient makes really good sense, because that means in the future they are not going to have to pay the same amount that they would have to pay in buildings which we know were built back in the 1950s and 60s when we did not have the same consciousness of the impact of weather and making sure that we were not pumping out coal and other things. We have obviously shifted the focus now to being much more energy efficient, and it starts with the actual properties themselves because in that way you can actually prevent the blowouts. I know that our government has instituted many significant reforms in terms of being able to support the most vulnerable Victorians. I know even when I was doorknocking through the election period – it was really exciting – I was doorknocking on some of the social housing, and some of the residents were pointing out, ‘Oh, look, there is the energy-efficient heater up on the wall. We are no longer using the gas heater, we are actually using the new two-way aircon heating and cooling –

Sam Groth: Split system.

Nina TAYLOR: split system.’ Thank you very much. I like that. See, we are sharing and caring. This is good. That really buoyed my spirits, because this is actually on-the-ground, grassroots reform you can see right there, helping the people who need it most. This is how we will transform our energy sector – it is house by house, unit by unit. You could see it there physically on the wall, and this is what it is all about because that is also our government’s aim. Well, here are the people who are arguably the least able to afford upgrading their appliances to the most energy efficient. Yes, we are going to help them. That is why we have got the grants, that is why we are there supporting them every step of the way, because that is who we are. I know I have got a little bit emotional on this subject, but I know it is very close to –

Juliana Addison: Passion!

Nina TAYLOR: Well, passion, yes. I am not short of passion. This speaks to our values, and that is why I get so deeply offended and insulted with some of the aspersions that are cast when in fact this is coming from an absolutely authentic and genuine space. We want to on the one hand rebuild some of the very tired, very outdated old social housing properties that very much need upgrades in terms of energy efficiency and disability access, but also specifically target and support some of the most vulnerable in our community, like people with mental health challenges and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. So you can see that this really is coming from a very authentic space, and just a little respect in that regard would be much appreciated.

Darren CHEESEMAN (South Barwon) (12:13): It is with some pleasure this afternoon that I rise to speak on the Statute Law Amendment Bill 2022. On reflecting on all of the various elements to this bill I must say that it certainly provides a vehicle to tidying up a whole lot of different legislative provisions in the Victorian statute book. Before I go there I want to very much put on the record that I was expecting to make this contribution much earlier this morning, but indeed the Victorian Liberals in this place chose to hijack the Parliament for a period of time with a whole lot of procedural debates that took place particularly around the make-up of various committees of this Parliament and, to be frank, wasted a whole lot of our time. I think the backdrop to those procedural debates –

Sam Groth: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, obviously it has been a wideranging debate, but it is not an opportunity to bring up a procedural motion that was debated earlier. It is not a part of this current debate, and I ask you to bring the member back to the current topic.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It has been a very wideranging debate, and I have been here for a bit of it. If the member could come back to the bill, that would be nice.

Darren CHEESEMAN: Indeed. As I was indicating, I was anticipating my contribution on this matter to have been made much earlier in today’s debate, but of course the Parliament’s time was occupied by other parliamentary business, which I would argue was very unnecessary and indeed was very much put in place as I think a distraction to the media because of the various leadership conversations that have been happening.

Sam Groth: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, you have asked the member once to come back to the bill at hand, and I ask you to remind him that he is here to speak on the current bill, not the state of our leadership.

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Could the member come back to the bill and its surrounds.

Darren CHEESEMAN: Indeed. Of course leadership is indeed very, very important in bringing any legislative reform process to this place, and indeed I have wondered very clearly through the course of the last few days what the previous Leader of the Opposition Matthew Guy –

Sam Groth: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member has been going for coming up to 4 minutes now and has not even slightly touched on the bill at hand. I ask you to bring him back to the bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have asked the member twice now. If the member could come to the bill, it would assist the house.

Darren CHEESEMAN: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. With fluid movements in the Parliament, I wondered whether the position that the Liberal Party might take on these particular important provisions might change over the course of this bill moving from this chamber to the other chamber. Of course people quite rightly might take a different position on this bill depending on who is leading the coalition on these things, and I think we have seen through the course of this week there having been all sorts of different, flexible positions taken by people –

Members interjecting.

Darren CHEESEMAN: Fluid.

Sam Groth: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I may be giving the member more time to come up with more ways to try to avoid speaking about this bill, but it is now three or four times that you have had to bring the member at least to the bill – not even back to the bill – for the first time. Halfway through his contribution, I think three warnings is probably enough, and I ask you to bring him to the bill, please.

Ros Spence: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, to be fair, the member for Nepean may have liked getting up to make points of order on this bill, because he has probably spent more time talking on points of order then he did speaking to the bill. However, the member for South Barwon did actually refer to the bill in his most recent contribution, so I would rule the most current point of order by the member for Nepean out of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the point of order, I suggest the member comes to the bill. Given previous rulings, he is coming close to a warning, and I would appreciate him assisting the house by coming to the bill at hand.

Darren CHEESEMAN: Thank you. Part 3 of the bill goes to competition policy – and there are of course lots of competitions that happen around the place. But in all seriousness, this particular bill is exceptionally important, and indeed it deals with a whole lot of very, very important provisions.

The Andrews Labor government indeed does have a very, very significant reform agenda, and if you broadly reflect on that reform agenda since we were first elected in 2014, you can certainly see that reform agenda very clearly spelt out in the Victorian statute book in a whole lot of different areas. The point that I want to make is that we have had very, very clear leadership from Daniel Andrews as the Premier of this state in terms of the rights and responsibilities of Victorians, and we of course have set out a very, very clear plan for Victoria.

This particular bill has a whole lot of different provisions within it and does provide all of us a very broad opportunity to contribute. I think the important thing to recognise with this particular debate is that we will, as the Andrews Labor government, continue to bring important reform to this place. We have a very clear plan. That clear plan was set out for the people of Victoria in 2014, it was set out in 2018 and indeed it was set out in 2022. I have no doubt we will go to the people of Victoria in four years time again with a very, very clear plan.

This bill is important in terms of tidying up and inserting a whole lot of new provisions in a number of different acts of Parliament and providing very, very clear rights and responsibilities in the statute book for every single Victorian. Competition law is important, because consumers have a right to understand what their rights and responsibilities are, as do those that sell services in this state, and I commend those elements to this place. Years ago as a young union official I had the opportunity to represent workers who worked in Consumer Affairs Victoria. I had the opportunity to see firsthand the work that they undertook, and I very much appreciate the work that they do on behalf of all Victorians.

This week in this chamber we have seen a rabble on the other side. We have seen them all over the place with respect to leadership, and the point that I wanted to make in my contribution is that we have had very clear leadership. We have offered that to the people of Victoria, and we will continue to offer that to the people of Victoria going forward.

Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (12:23): It is an absolute pleasure to rise to speak on this Statute Law Amendment Bill 2022. What a day this is. It is a day that we have finally learned in this place that the member for Nepean has a voice – absolutely fantastic – although I would echo the comments of the minister that he may have contributed more on points of order than he has on debate in this place.

But no, on a serious note it is absolutely fantastic to rise to speak on this bill. It is some of the more stimulating work that we are able to do in this Parliament. This Statute Law Amendment Bill is obviously a time for reflection on statute law in Victoria, and it corrects some of the minor errors, some of the anomalies, throughout our legislation to make sure that it is fit for purpose and working to its current time. This bill covers a whole bunch of different areas in Victoria, and it is incredibly important that we revise statute law as we go along in this place. One of the acts that this bill covers is the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. Obviously when addressing the Aboriginal Heritage Act it is only right to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we meet today, and I would like to pay my respects to the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin nation and also their elders past, present and emerging, but also the Bunurong and Wadawurrung people, who are the traditional owners of the land of Tarneit and Hoppers Crossing.

How absolutely appropriate that we do this when later in the year we will consider a referendum for an Indigenous Voice to Parliament – a referendum and a yes vote that those on this side of the house will most certainly be supporting, and I would urge our colleagues on the other side of the house to do the same, to be on the right side of history for a referendum that plays such an important role in reconciliation in this country.

The Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 addresses the ownership and custody of Aboriginal cultural heritage, and the bill will act to make minor language changes but will not have a substantive effect on the act itself. From ancestral remains and sacred objects to land protection, this works to ensure ongoing protections for places and objects of cultural significance and empowers the traditional owners as protectors of their cultural heritage as the world’s oldest continuing culture. This government is dedicated to ensuring ongoing support for our Indigenous communities through acts like this.

The government has also recently provided further support to traditional owners by empowering them to study Aboriginal cultural heritage management. Just last September the Minister for Treaty and First Peoples welcomed 18 new graduates for this course. The year-long program offers on-country classroom and skills-based learning by fusing formal traditional and industry knowledge with hands-on experience in culturally appropriate ways. It is always fantastic to see the government pursuing ways to further empower traditional landowners, and this bill will make sure that our implemented acts continue to work effectively.

Another really important and major part of this bill is the Housing Act 1983, and there have been several contributions in respect to this during this debate. I will point out that it is odd to come into this place and to listen to those opposite lecture us on social and affordable housing. Others have reflected on contributions from the opposition in previous governments, particularly in the other place, on this issue. For those opposite to come in and lecture us on this issue is nothing more than disingenuous. They are all for affordable housing, they are all for social housing – unless it is in their own patch. Those on this side of the house are most certainly on the right side of history when we speak about social and affordable housing.

This act aims to ensure that every person in Victoria has adequate, appropriate and affordable housing, and it encourages the provision of quality public and social housing and the distribution of housing assistance. It also promotes the orderly planning, assembly and development of land. As I said, those on this side of the house walk the walk when it comes to social and affordable housing.

The Andrews Labor government is delivering more homes for people who need them, because we know that a safe and secure home is the foundation to a good life. That is why this government has committed $5.3 billion to the Big Housing Build, which is not just the biggest single investment in Victoria’s history but the biggest single investment of any jurisdiction in Australia. The Big Housing Build will deliver more than 12,000 homes, with 2400 of those homes being affordable homes for those in our community that need them most. This will boost Victoria’s social housing supply by 10 per cent and provide a stable foundation for thousands of Victorians that need affordable housing. So these benefits are not just for the city of Melbourne. They will flow on to regional Victoria as well, and we know how important that is. We understand that the needs of regional Victoria can at times be complex and different from those of Melbourne, so 25 per cent of these social and affordable houses will be located in regional Victoria.

The Big Housing Build will create an average of 10,000 new jobs each year, which is a significant component of this program, and will create new employment opportunities for local communities, including Aboriginal Victorians, people with disabilities, social housing renters and people from diverse backgrounds. This fantastic project has been a major benefit to my community in Tarneit and Hoppers Crossing, helping to keep low-income families in affordable homes. $49 million was provided across the Wyndham area to help build more than 100 new social and affordable homes – really transformational stuff for my community. It is acts like this one that help our local communities thrive.

Another important aspect to this bill is the Domestic Animals Act 1994. The Domestic Animals Act aims to protect domestic animals and pets as well as their owners by putting into place regulations for the sale, ownership and breeding of domestic animals. The amendments discussed in the proposed bill seek to clarify section 84M(1) but do not substantially change the act, as we spoke about before. The Andrews Labor government has been committed to improving the wellbeing of people and animals by modernising the way that we care for animals in this state. The most recent round of the individual pet rehoming grant offered $1.25 million to pet rescue and rehoming organisations to support the rehoming of cats and dogs. This means that rehoming organisations were able to be reimbursed for things such as veterinary treatment, including desexing, microchipping, vaccinations and other medical treatments, making it easier for these organisations that are rehoming cats and dogs but also easier for those people in the community who are going to do the really important work of adopting these animals. In its first round this grant provided 464 grants to contribute to the rehoming of more than 4000 cats and 1400 dogs. Last year the Taskforce on Rehoming Pets report also came out with 17 different recommendations, all of which the government has supported. It is acts like this and grants programs like the individual rehoming grant that have been working towards the goal of giving our rehomed animals and pets all the necessary care to lead a healthy and happy life.

It is for all the reasons that I have put forward through the different acts that are included in this Statute Law Amendment Bill that I commend the bill to the house.

Ros SPENCE (Kalkallo – Minister for Prevention of Family Violence, Minister for Community Sport, Minister for Suburban Development) (12:33): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day.