Wednesday, 17 May 2023
Bills
Energy Legislation Amendment (Electricity Outage Emergency Response and Other Matters) Bill 2023
Bills
Energy Legislation Amendment (Electricity Outage Emergency Response and Other Matters) Bill 2023
Statement of compatibility
Lily D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park – Minister for Climate Action, Minister for Energy and Resources, Minister for the State Electricity Commission) (10:55): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the Energy Legislation Amendment (Electricity Outage Emergency Response and Other Matters) Bill 2023.
In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, (the Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Energy Legislation Amendment (Electricity Outage Emergency Response and Other Matters) Bill 2023.
In my opinion, the Energy Legislation Amendment (Electricity Outage Emergency Response and Other Matters) Bill 2023, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.
Overview of the Bill
The Bill makes amendments to the Electricity Industry Act 2000, the Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Act 2007 and the Essential Services Commission Act 2001. These amendments will introduce reforms in the Electricity Industry Act 2000 to mitigate against the significant adverse impact of an electricity outage emergency, clarify how fees are set under the Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Amendment Act 2022, which was enacted in August 2022 but has not yet commenced operation, and amend the Essential Services Commission Act 2001 to clarify the powers of the Essential Services Commission under the Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Act 2007.
Part 2 of the Bill will introduce reforms directed towards mitigating the harm of electricity outage emergencies, by:
• enabling the Secretary of the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) to direct distribution companies to support people impacted by an electricity outage emergency. This support may include, but is not limited to, the giving of specified information to DEECA, or requiring a distribution company to support relief activities and programs;
• providing a process for and requirements relating to, the giving of a direction, including matters that the Secretary must consider before giving a direction;
• providing that distribution companies must comply with a direction, and that failure to do so can incur a civil penalty.
Human Rights protected by the Charter that are relevant to the Bill
The human rights protected by the Charter that are relevant to the Bill are –
• right to privacy and reputation (section 13).
For the following reasons, I am satisfied that the Bill is compatible with the Charter and, if any rights are limited, those limitations are reasonable and demonstrably justified having regard to the factors in section 7(2) of the Charter.
Privacy and reputation
Section 13(a) of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. An interference with privacy will be lawful if it is permitted by a law which is precise and appropriately circumscribed, and will be arbitrary only if it is capricious, unpredictable, unjust or unreasonable, in the sense of being disproportionate to the legitimate aim sought. An interference with privacy will not be arbitrary provided it is reasonable in the particular circumstances.
Provision of affected customer supply information, relevant customer information for payment schemes and prescribed information
In Part 2 of the Bill, new section 109E(1) provides that the Department Head of the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (that is, the Secretary) may give a direction (emergency direction) to require a distribution company to do things specified in the emergency direction where the Department Head is satisfied that an electricity outage emergency is occurring, or has occurred within the previous two months. To issue an emergency direction, the Department Head also needs to be of the opinion that giving the direction to the distribution company is reasonably necessary to mitigate against the significant adverse impact of the electricity outage emergency on affected customers of the distribution company.
Section 109E(2)(a) outlines that the Department Head may, in an emergency direction, require a distribution company to provide information to the Department Head that is specified in the direction. This information may include ‘affected customer supply information’. ‘Affected customer supply information’ is defined in new section 109D to mean information relating to the supply of electricity at the premises of an affected customer. This is defined to include:
• the addresses of the premises at which an affected customers is supplied electricity;
• information as to whether electricity is being supplied to the meter at the premises of an affected customer; and
• information as to whether an affected customer is a life support customer.
‘Affected customer’ will be defined in new section 109D to mean a deemed customer of the distribution company who is or has been affected by a disruption to the distribution or supply of electricity. ‘Deemed customers’ of a distribution company are retail customers who are deemed to have entered into a contract with the distribution company under section 40A of the Electricity Industry Act 2000.
New section 109E(2)(c) also provides that the Department Head may require a distribution company to provide specified relevant customer information to DEECA to support the administration of a payment scheme. Under the Bill, distribution companies may be asked to assist with the processing of applications and making payments under payment schemes that may be accessed by affected customers in an electricity outage emergency. Relevant customer information may include the names and addresses of affected customers, the number of occupants of premises of affected customers, information as to whether electricity is being supplied to the meter at the premises, and other prescribed information relating to affected customers held by the distribution company.
Information that may be required to be provided to the Department Head under an emergency direction issued in reliance on section 109E(2)(a) and 109E(2)(c) may, therefore, include personal information of affected customers.
Section 109L of the Bill will also enable the Department Head to share such information with public sector entities where the Department Head is of the opinion that it is reasonably necessary to enable the recipient to perform functions to mitigate against the significant adverse impact of an electricity outage emergency.
To the extent that the information empowered to be collected under emergency directions and shared with public sector entities for the purposes of mitigating against the significant adverse impact of an electricity outage emergency includes personal information, the Bill will engage the right to privacy.
Any limit on the right to privacy by Part 2 of the Bill is reasonable and justified
Although these provisions permit the Department Head and public sector agencies to deal with personal and identifying information, I do not consider these dealings are unlawful or arbitrary.
The circumstances in which information can be collected is limited to the purposes for which the power is granted. The Department Head may only require provision of such information in a direction if the Department Head is of the opinion that its provision is reasonably necessary to mitigate against the significant adverse impact of the electricity outage emergency on affected customers of the distribution company.
Similarly, disclosure of any information (including personal information) is limited to where Department Head is of the opinion that it is reasonably necessary to enable the recipient to perform functions to mitigate against the significant adverse impact of an electricity outage emergency. Under new section 109L the Department Head may only disclose the information collected under new Part 6AB to public sector entities. Information will be disclosed to these entities to enable them to perform their functions during emergency response operations. The information will not be published or available to the community at large.
The collection of information pursuant to directions under section 109E, and any disclosure of information collected via those directions, are measures only able to be drawn upon in the context of an electricity outage emergency to assist the emergency management response and the planning and management of relief and recovery activities. This is so that they can assist in the mitigation of the adverse impacts of an electricity outage emergency on the customers whose information is collected.
Further, DEECA and each relevant agency that is a public entity or public service body within the meaning of the Public Administration Act 2004 are bound by the requirements of the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 and must ensure that any collection, use or disclosure of information is undertaken in accordance with the Information Privacy Principles set out in Part 3 of that Act.
In addition, information collected under section 109E(2)(c) is to enable DEECA to review this information to assist in confirming whether an affected customer is eligible for a payment scheme for which they have voluntarily applied.
Accordingly, in my view, these provisions will not be an arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, as any collection and disclosure of personal information authorised by these amendments will only occur to the extent considered necessary to mitigate against the significant adverse impacts of an electricity outage emergency.
Hon Lily D’Ambrosio MP
Minister for Energy and Resources
Second reading
That this bill be now read a second time.
I ask that my second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.
Incorporated speech as follows:
This Bill has two important purposes. The first purpose is to amend the Electricity Industry Act 2000 to enable electricity distribution businesses to be directed to provide government with information and assist in relief efforts following energy emergencies and associated prolonged power outages. Electricity distribution businesses hold key information and resources to assist in emergency response and recovery. While we as a community expect them to voluntarily provide this information and resources, there may be instances where they need to be required to do so.
In recent years we have seen the disruption and devastating impacts that storms and associated power outages have on affected Victorians. Unfortunately, the severe weather events that result in these outages are likely to increase in frequency as a result of climate change. The increased likelihood of severe storms and resulting power outages makes progressing this reform a critical priority.
The second purpose of the Bill is to amend both the Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Act 2007 and the Essential Services Commission Act 2001 to strengthen compliance with the Victorian Energy Upgrades program, which delivers cost savings on energy for Victorian consumers and reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
June and October 2021 storms
In June and October 2021, severe storms caused widespread and prolonged power outages across Victoria. Following the June storms, 68,000 customers were without power after 72 hours and 9,000 customers were still without power seven days after the event. Additionally, following the October storms, nearly 24,000 customers remained off supply 72 hours after and just over 2,500 customers were still without power seven days after the event. In both instances, the power outages were more prolonged compared with previous storm events.
The experience of these storms highlighted the limits to getting critical information from electricity distribution businesses to support relief activities and programs for customers. A subsequent external review was undertaken to identify priority reform measures and policies to enable distribution businesses to mitigate the risk of, and better respond to, prolonged power outages in the future.
Review of Victorian electricity distribution businesses’ network resilience obligations
In August 2021, the Victorian Government commissioned the Electricity Distribution Network Resilience Review in response to the devastating storms of June 2021. An Expert Panel was appointed to investigate how distribution businesses can improve their preparedness for, and response to, prolonged power outages caused by storms and other extreme weather events.
The Expert Panel found that the participation of distribution businesses in emergency response and recovery was not delivering positive outcomes for impacted customers. Victorian customers were provided with mixed messaging on power restoration times, insufficient relief measures, and were disregarded during emergency operations. We know there will be more extreme weather events due to the effects of climate change, and so our Government is committed to finding a range of solutions to prepare and protect consumers in energy emergency situations.
Creation of directions power
The Bill amends the Electricity Industry Act 2000 to provide the Secretary of the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action with a new power to direct distribution businesses where there is an emergency power outage. First, a direction may compel electricity distribution businesses to provide information to the Secretary to assist in emergency management operations. Second, a direction may compel electricity distribution businesses to support and administer relief programs and payments to their impacted customers during and following a prolonged power outage. Failure to comply with a direction could attract a civil penalty of more than $200,000, reflecting how serious the impacts of non-compliance can be for affected customers.
Recognising that the core role of distribution businesses during and after a prolonged power outage emergency includes the restoration of power, the Bill provides that the directions power can only be exercised if the Secretary considers it reasonably necessary to mitigate against the significant adverse impacts of an electricity outage. The direction can also only be given if the Secretary is satisfied that an electricity outage emergency is occurring, or has occurred within two months prior to the direction being given.
Other reforms relating to the Victorian Energy Upgrades program
The Bill will amend the Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Act 2007 to allow for the Minister to directly set fees for the Victorian Energy Upgrades program instead of having these fees prescribed through regulations.
The Bill will further amend the Essential Services Commission Act 2001 to clarify that the Essential Services Commission has powers to apply civil penalties in relation to the Victorian Energy Upgrades program.
These amendments to the Victorian Energy Upgrades program will further strengthen the program’s delivery of cost-saving outcomes to Victorian customers and align the program’s effectiveness in lowering greenhouse gas emissions from continued use of legacy equipment in Victorian households and businesses.
I commend the Bill to the house.
Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (10:56): I move:
That this debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
The SPEAKER: The question is:
That the debate be adjourned for six days.
James NEWBURY (Brighton) (10:56): The minister has just moved that a bill be adjourned for six days. This is absolutely outrageous. In the last sitting week we saw the government ram through a bill without proper consultation with the community. Today we have just received a bill, a substantive bill – it is hot off the press; it is still hot after being photocopied – and the minister is seeking to adjourn it for six days. The shame of this government – I am sure that no Victorian thought that the government could do worse than seeking to adjourn a bill for less than 14 days or 13 days. This is now a standard breach –
A member: So arrogant.
James NEWBURY: a standard arrogant breach of the Westminster tradition, a breach that is now happening bill after bill. Bill after bill is being adjourned and rammed through as quickly as possible, partly because the government has not got a legislative program. We know that to be a fact. We know that they do not have the bills being drafted, considered and put through this place in a meaningful way. They do not have the work being done. Ministers are getting lazy, ministers are getting arrogant and ministers are not doing the work they need to do to ensure that the Parliament’s time is being used appropriately. So now we see a bill being put to this place still hot because no-one has had the time to see it. It has just come off the photocopier and is being moved in this place, and the minister has sought to adjourn it for six days. I have not seen this done, certainly in this place; I have not seen it being done since, frankly, the worst days with some of the bills being pushed through the federal Parliament. I am not casting aspersions on only one particular party in that matter. I am saying I have seen this happen in the federal Parliament on both sides, by both parties. It was, I think, some of the worst behaviour of sitting governments in the federal Parliament – the worst behaviour – and it was identified as bad practice. It was identified as a breach of a 100-year tradition to allow the community time to consider these bills.
Why wouldn’t you want the community to look at what you are proposing to do? That is the question. Why would you not want the community to consider what is being proposed in this place? A government should want the community involved in what they are considering doing. Yet this government does not want the community to be part of this discussion. It is outrageous, and it is now the standard practice. It is now the standard practice to ram through bills and not allow the community to consider them.
We know that with the state budget coming up it will be difficult for the community to have the time to consider bills. It will have difficulty. I cannot see any way in which the government and the speakers who respond after me can possibly get up and say that it is fair and reasonable to breach a 100-year tradition of our Westminster parliaments – a 100-year tradition. How could you possibly stand up and say that that is okay when it is not? Again I make the point: this behaviour is something that I have only seen in the worst way in the federal Parliament from, frankly, both sides of the chamber, and it was recognised as such. It was recognised as being a breach and a disrespect to the community.
Lily D’Ambrosio: Do you know what the bill is about?
James NEWBURY: The minister asks if I know what the bill is about – having just received a copy. It is still hot after coming off the photocopier. Of course I do not and neither does the community, and that is why we are standing up to make this point, because we cannot have an opportunity to understand these bills. We cannot have an opportunity because the government is trying to ram it through. It is a disgrace, and it should be seen for what it is.
Darren CHEESEMAN (South Barwon) (11:01): I have just seen a whole lot of mock outrage by the member for Brighton. The absolute reality is that at every single opportunity when the Andrews Labor government seeks to reform Victoria’s electricity system, they get in the way, and the reason why they get in the way at every single opportunity is because they continue to defend their privatisation agenda of the 1990s. That is the reality – at every single opportunity.
James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, this is a tight procedural debate about the government ramming through a bill, not an opportunity to sledge the opposition. I would ask you to counsel the member and ask the member to come back to that tight procedural debate about ramming a bill through this place.
Roma Britnell interjected.
The SPEAKER: Order! Member for South-West Coast, you are not in your place. Member for South Barwon, this is a tight procedural debate, and I ask you to come back to the motion.
Darren CHEESEMAN: The Andrews Labor government continues to do the important work of reforming Victoria’s electricity generation system.
James Newbury: On a further point of order, Speaker, as you just ruled, this is a tight procedural debate. It is not a debate on the substance of the bill; this is a debate about whether or not it is appropriate to ram through a bill in six days. That is what this debate is about.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Manager of Opposition Business is correct; however, I allowed the Manager of Opposition Business some leeway in his contribution, and I will do the same for the member for South Barwon. But I do remind members that this is a procedural debate.
Darren CHEESEMAN: I was making the point that at every single opportunity when the Andrews Labor government brings legislation into this place Liberal Party members get up on their feet and seek –
James Newbury: On a different point of order, Speaker, the member has just spoken to a matter quite extraneous to the procedural debate, and I would ask you to draw him back to the question.
The SPEAKER: Order! Member for South Barwon, it is a tight procedural debate.
Darren CHEESEMAN: Thank you. The point I am trying to make is that the Andrews Labor government has a massive reform agenda. This bill is a critical element to our reform program that we proudly took to the Victorian election. We will continue to reform –
James Newbury: Speaker –
The SPEAKER: Order! Manager of Opposition Business, if this is the same point of order, I will call if I hear him being out of order.
Darren CHEESEMAN: This is an important bill for the people of Victoria. It is important for those communities that have endured electricity outages. We have got a massive reform agenda. We are bringing this bill to this Parliament early in this term –
Roma Britnell: On a point of order, Speaker, I seek your guidance. My understanding is that this is purely about the period of time that is supposed to be given for the legislation to be in the house so we can consult with our community. I am unsure as to the relevance of the reform agenda of this government to that procedural debate.
The SPEAKER: Order! I have ruled on this point of order a number of times. I do ask the member for South Barwon to come back to the matter before the house; however, I will allow some deviation, as I did with the Manager of Opposition Business.
Darren CHEESEMAN: As I said, this is an important reform. We have brought this to this Parliament. We have been actively consulting communities across Victoria. The opposition have been caught sleeping at the wheel again, and of course they only ever come to this place –
James Newbury: On a different point of order, Speaker, in terms of decorum of the house and your capacity to keep order in this house, sledging the opposition is not appropriate debate.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.
Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (11:06): This is again showing the complete contempt for the forms of the house that this government – this arrogant government – that is into its third term and has run out of ideas –
Colin Brooks: On a point of order, Speaker, given the points of order that have just been raised about the narrowness of the debate, for the member for Gippsland South to jump up and jump straight into an attack broadly on the government, I think he should be ruled out of order. If I dare suggest, Speaker, he needs to be brought back to the debate before the house.
Danny O’BRIEN: On the point of order, Speaker, I started with saying this is contempt for the house and the processes. I am talking specifically about the motion before us.
The SPEAKER: Order! I have heard the point of order. I remind members again this is a narrow procedural debate. I would ask both sides of the house to cease from ‘sledging’ each other, as the Manager of Opposition Business has called it, and refer to the very narrow debate before the house.
Danny O’BRIEN: The point that we are objecting to is the process that the government is going through to introduce legislation to this chamber. I challenge anyone who follows me on that side, because the member for South Barwon failed, to explain to the house why this legislation needs to be dealt with in six days time. I challenge them to have just one get up and explain. Do not tell us, as the member for South Barwon did, how important this legislation is and what the government’s agenda is. Just give us one member of the government who can say why this legislation must be dealt with in six days. On the very issue, whilst the previous two speakers were on their feet, I had a very quick look at this legislation, and it is as I expected –
Darren Cheeseman: On a point of order, Speaker, he is wandering off onto the legislation. That is inconsistent with your rulings.
The SPEAKER: The member for Gippsland South to come back to the matter before the house.
Danny O’BRIEN: I am curious to understand why we do not need the full two weeks of discussion and consultation for this legislation. This legislation relates to the storms and the power outages that we had after the June 2021 and October 2021 storms.
A member: It was a while ago.
Danny O’BRIEN: It was a while ago. So why the rush? It is two years, nearly, since those storms. I personally had people in my communities that were without power for two weeks, and I have been writing –
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Gippsland South is anticipating debate on the bill. I ask him to come back to the procedural motion before the house.
Danny O’BRIEN: The procedural motion is about how long this Parliament gets to debate this legislation. We do not know what this legislation entails. The context that the minister has given us so far, in the couple of minutes we have had, indicates that this is really important legislation for my electorate. I had people who were without power for two weeks, which is different to what the minister’s second-reading speech indicates. The point I am trying to get to is that –
Lily D’Ambrosio: You’ve read it then. You know what it’s about.
Danny O’BRIEN: I have had 20 seconds, Minister, to read it. Once again –
Lily D’Ambrosio interjected.
The SPEAKER: Order! Through the Chair.
Danny O’BRIEN: Where was I? I was writing to the minister time and time again about these issues, and I got nothing from the minister. And I hear from the member for South Barwon that there has been extensive consultation. The department had consultation in Traralgon, which was not even affected like South Gippsland was, and six people turned up. And you are saying now that six days is enough for us all to consider this legislation. This is a government that has run out of ideas. They have run out of ideas. They have got nothing for their budget day.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for South Gippsland will come back to the procedural motion before the house.
Danny O’BRIEN: They have run out of ideas. That is why they are desperately trying to bring this forward, as we discussed yesterday in the procedural motion on the government business program. ‘We’ve got no legislation, so we’ve got to put up a couple of motions.’ In eight years prior to this the government had never put up a motion for debate in the government business program, but they have got nothing left. So it is the Victorian people that suffer, because if this is the sort of legislation that I anticipate it is from what the minister has given us so far, we need to actually consult properly.
I know the member for Sandringham will tell members that we were mocked in the previous discussion on this two weeks ago with, ‘You’ve got to get your act together.’ We are still getting feedback from stakeholders on the gambling bill this week, because they have not had enough time to look at it. The same applies here. This is a government so out of ideas and so out of direction it is filling gaps, and it is costing the people of Victoria adequate consultation.
Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (11:11): Goodness me, that was a fair effort, wasn’t it. I reckon the member for South Gippsland needed to speak a little louder, because none of us could hear him. Isn’t it extraordinary when you say on procedural motions ‘The government has run out of ideas’, but the government is then bringing bills in that have ideas that you know about and you are complaining that you do not know about them? That is a great way to tie yourself in all kinds of knots, and –
Members interjecting.
The SPEAKER: Order! I am having trouble hearing the member for Mordialloc.
James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, I note you were unable to hear what was occurring. This is a tight debate, not an observation time, and I would ask you to bring the member back to the motion at hand.
Colin Brooks: On the point of order, Speaker, the member was simply referring to issues in debate that were raised by those opposite. He is entitled to do that.
The SPEAKER: Order! I was unable to hear the member for Mordialloc. I would ask the house to come to order so I can hear the member for Mordialloc. There is no point of order.
Tim RICHARDSON: I am happy to reiterate some of the views of the member for South Gippsland, which were not ruled out of order: the government has run out of ideas but then is bringing ideas through to the Parliament. The importance of this bill and its time frame is that it has, as the member for South Gippsland alluded to, gone through an extensive consultation journey, whether it is through Traralgon or other journeys, to this point. And so in context, no bill in that space is equal in that sense. Some will have other journeys. We have seen 13 days, 14 days and the six-day limit that has been put through here.
James Newbury interjected.
Tim RICHARDSON: The member for Brighton can interject and say ‘Oh, well, it’s nice, the journey’, but this is serious work, the legislation that has been put forward. It is not then –
James Newbury interjected.
The SPEAKER: Order! Manager of Opposition Business, you had your turn.
Tim RICHARDSON: It is all right. You have had your go. It is okay. I am sure you are speaking on the matter of public importance and you can have a bit of camera time later on. It is our contribution time. But I think we just put forward the point that this has gone through a significant journey – its process here, the consultation that underpins the bill and how it comes through as well. The bill will have its journey through this place and the other, and there will be multiple inputs from a range of different members of Parliament in their contributions on bills. I note the point around consultation, a bill’s journey and the time that it gets introduced. But at the moment in Hansard we see 13 contributions in the month of May from Liberals – six, sorry. Six contributions, and the member for Eildon has done half of them – literally half of them. So when you talk about consultation and that journey –
Danny O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, I ask you to bring the member back to the narrow procedural debate. He has got the opportunity to tell us why six days is required.
The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Mordialloc, this is a procedural debate, and I ask you to come back to that.
Tim RICHARDSON: Six days on the urgency of this bill and its consultation journey speaks for itself. It has been a significant journey to this point in its engagement: a panel process that has been put together that has had an 18-month journey from the impact on those communities and the storm-affected communities through to here as well. What would discernibly change from that massive consultation and engagement journey in the six days that we talk about the bill here? What materially will change?
As the member for Gippsland South has eloquently put forward, his awareness, and that of his community, has been long running on this bill, the process to get to this point and its engagement. It was not a surprise, because the member for Gippsland South was able to speak in great detail on the substance of the bill. He was aware of those issues and he was aware of the panel. He showed that after 30 seconds. He does read a lot for the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, but he had a lot more knowledge than a 30-second read. That shows that the ability to engage on this in six days is sufficient for this bill.
As I said before, the bill will have a significant journey from this place to the other place, and it might take on different iterations. We will see how that goes. There are shadows in this chamber as well as in the Legislative Council to get it underway. The notion that this actual bill is just six days and there has been no journey to this point is disingenuous, particularly when members have shared with this chamber that they have been on this journey. We look forward to the debate and the six-day engagement and how this gets underway.
A member interjected.
Tim RICHARDSON: Mate, stick to Postcards. Seriously. The journey that this has taken, and how it has gone through, has been really significant. It has been 18 months through that time. What will discernibly change? I am of the view ‘nothing’, because no-one on that side is doing any consultation and engagement on behalf of their community – no second-reading speeches at all.
James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, this is a tight debate, not an opportunity to sledge, which the member is now doing.
The SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.
Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (11:16): As I look around the chamber, I figure that I have been in this position a lot longer than most others here; there are still a few that have been here for longer than me. Today we are faced with quite an extraordinary situation. We are debating the period of adjournment of debate on bills. Typically this period of adjournment is 14 days. In the last five years I have sat in this chamber at this time when bills are introduced. Far and above most bills are given 14 days. Those 14 days allow us the period of time that we need to go to the stakeholders and to get their feedback so that the stakeholders can come back and tell us what their position is on the bill – whether they like it or whether they do not like it. The reason we have to consult with them is because the government consultation is often telling, not listening, and there is a very big difference. When we go out and talk to the stakeholders, they need to take their time to have a look at the bill and to understand what it means for them and its implications for them. Very often we find that they cannot come back in that 14-day period if there is a lot that they need to look at and consider.
We know that this bill is very hot off the press. It was warm when we picked it up not so long ago – only 20 minutes ago when this first arose. As I said, I have been standing in this position in this time slot for probably the last five years. We have had issues that have required a shorter period of adjournment. There have been some immediate issues that have needed to be dealt with, and those bills are second read and third read very quickly and moved through the chamber. In those instances we have had absolute consultation with the government. We have been advised and we have worked with the government to allow that very smooth and quick transition where that has been the case.
There have been periods where the government has said that they are only going to give 13 days. That is just one day less. When in the last sitting of Parliament we had 13 days we were advised in advance. The government had the good grace to speak to the Leader of the Opposition to let us know that they would be requesting to adjourn the debate on the bill for 13 days. I think it was Minister Horne on the Gambling Regulation Amendment Bill 2023, which we did yesterday. Minister Horne had the good grace to engage with us and let us know that that was going to be 13 days. But today I was absolutely gobsmacked when the minister said six days. I had to stop, I had to look and I had to think, because that was far less than what I would have expected. I would have expected that with the budget coming on they would have a fairly strong agenda. They have got a couple of notices they are prosecuting at the moment that they could easily run into the Tuesday of next week rather than have to ram this bill through.
On the issues that the bill deals with, just from having a very scant look at the second-reading speech and the bill while I have been sitting here, it refers to the storms in June and October 2021. There have been some huge issues and some very slow clean-ups, and I know that Yarra Ranges have been really left high and dry –
Lily D’Ambrosio: On a point of order, Speaker, this is way outside a procedural motion.
Cindy McLeish interjected.
Lily D’Ambrosio: It is. You are going into the substance of the bill, and it is not appropriate.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Eildon was anticipating debate on the bill. I ask her to come back to the procedural motion.
Cindy McLEISH: The issue we have before us is that there is no pressing reason why this bill should be treated exceptionally differently from other bills. We know when it has an urgency about it that we are consulted and that things do get second and third read and moved through the chambers very quickly in those matters of urgency and importance. We understand that. But when they are trying to crib a day from 14 to 13 days, that gets us pretty hot under the collar because we do not get that time to do stakeholder consultation. But now there is no pressing reason – there is no burning platform – that this has to be done in six days. The period of adjournment should not be six days. We need time to consult. They are making some changes where they are directing businesses, and I think where businesses are being directed they do need time to consider what that may mean and to feed us that – (Time expired)
Will Fowles: On a point of order, Speaker, during the member for Mordialloc’s contribution there was a little instance of drive-by heckling from the member for Nepean, and I would ask that he be counselled to refrain from shouting at people when he is walking through the chamber and on his feet.
The SPEAKER: Order! I did not hear any contribution from the member for Nepean as he was leaving the chamber. I therefore cannot rule on that matter. The member for Melbourne, by leave? Leave is not granted. The house will divide on the question that the debate be adjourned for six days.
Assembly divided on motion:
Ayes (52): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Daniel Andrews, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, 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, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Belinda Wilson
Noes (29): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Gabrielle de Vietri, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, 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, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Jess Wilson
Motion agreed to.
Debate adjourned until Tuesday 23 May.