Tuesday, 30 May 2023
Bills
Victorian Future Fund Bill 2023
Victorian Future Fund Bill 2023
Statement of compatibility
Tim PALLAS (Werribee – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Trade and Investment) (12:19): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the Victorian Future Fund 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 Victorian Future Fund Bill 2023.
In my opinion, the Victorian Future Fund 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
1. The purposes of the Bill are to establish the Victorian Future Fund as a statutory trust account within the Trust Fund under the Financial Management Act 1994.
2. The Bill also:
• amends the Duties Act 2000 so that the fund manager is a “qualified investor” under that Act;
• provides parameters for money to be credited to, and applied from, the Victorian Future Fund;
• sets out a framework for the administration of the Victorian Future Fund, including the appointment of a fund manager; and
• outlines auditing and reporting requirements that apply to the Victorian Future Fund.
Human Rights Issues
No Charter rights are impermissibly limited by the Bill.
Clause 10(1) of the Bill enables the Treasurer to appoint a person to manage the Victorian Future Fund.
Clause 11(2) of the Bill requires the fund manager to give the Minister or Secretary any information that the Minister or the Secretary reasonably requires to comply with reporting obligations in respect of the Victorian Future Fund.
Clause 12(2) of the Bill requires the fund manager to give the Treasurer or the person carrying out an audit any information that the Treasurer or person reasonably requires in carrying out the audit.
The Victorian Future Fund reporting obligations are set out under Clause 11(1) and include information on the Fund’s opening and closing balances, details of contributions made to the Fund, and details of payments made from the Fund in the financial year. As such, the information requested by the Minister or Secretary is unlikely to include any personal information.
Even if the fund manager is required to provide personal information in response to a request from the Minister, Secretary or Treasurer (for example, relating to its employees), in each case the request must be made reasonably (and not arbitrarily) and must be lawful in accordance with the Bill. Additionally, the fund manager and its employees would reasonably expect that some limited personal information would be requested by an auditor or otherwise recorded, and that they may be identified in publicly available documents, including in the Department’s report of operations.
Accordingly, no person’s privacy is either unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with because of any of the provisions in the Bill. As such, in my opinion, the right to privacy in section 13 of the Charter is not limited.
TIM PALLAS
TREASURER
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:
The Victorian Future Fund was announced in the 2022–23 Budget as part of the Government’s debt stabilisation strategy.
The purpose of the Fund is to help manage the fiscal impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and deliver positive outcomes for Victorians by reducing the debt burden on future generations.
Contributions to the Fund from the upfront proceeds received from the VicRoads Modernisation Joint Venture, and any additional contributions made to the Fund in the future, are invested to receive a financial return. Over the long term, this investment return is expected to exceed the State’s cost of borrowing, meaning it improves the State’s fiscal position more than simply paying down debt would.
This Bill seeks to establish the Victorian Future Fund as a Trust Account and clearly define its purpose, which is to provide funding for reducing the State’s debt.
The establishment of the Fund in legislation is an important step to providing certainty regarding the governance and purpose of the Fund, which will support the State’s credit rating agencies with assessing the impact of the Fund for credit rating purposes. Legislating the Fund is also aligned with the practice of equivalent funds in New South Wales and Queensland.
I commend the Bill to the house.
James NEWBURY (Brighton) (12:21): I move:
That debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
That debate be adjourned until tomorrow.
James NEWBURY (Brighton) (12:22): This is a dark day for democracy – a dark day for democracy. I am sure that no Victorian could have believed that the government and the Treasurer would try and ram through a second bill on the same day and guillotine it within 24 hours. This is a very dark day for democracy, and not just for democracy but for our system of Parliament, our system of government. For 100 years it has been a tradition not only of this place but of other places around this country and internationally that parliaments have the right to consider bills put before them, that people have time to consider – in our case that Victorians have the right to consider – what is being proposed by a government, and every government should want that to be the case. Why wouldn’t you want your community to look at what you are doing? Why wouldn’t you want to allow more than one day so that your community can look at what you are proposing to do and consider it, so that stakeholders can be part of that conversation, so that members can consult with their community and stakeholders and can come back into this place, because this is the people’s place, and they can represent those views in the chamber – they can put those views in this chamber. But that is not the case here.
We have seen a slow degradation of systems of integrity in this place, and we have seen it just now. We have seen it this morning with two instances of a government trying to ram through the most egregious changes – in the previous case, taxes being imposed on Victorians without giving the opportunity for Victorians to see it. As I said on the earlier bill, the bill was still hot because it had just been photocopied, and the government is trying to ram it through this place without Victorians having the chance to see it. I am up on my feet speaking in relation to the timing of a bill before having even had the opportunity to see it. This is outrageous. We have seen in recent weeks a degradation of the traditions of this place, the systems of integrity. Because that is what this is about – this is about government having respect for the community and showing a level of integrity in the way they do business, in the way they do government. This motion seeks to, within 24 hours, introduce a budget measure and not show it to Victorians in a reasonable time that they can take to read it, in a reasonable time for stakeholders to consider it.
This particular bill that we are debating – as to whether or not 24 hours is a long enough delay – is a significant bill around a potential future fund and billions of dollars. It is only reasonable that the Parliament and the community understand what checks and balances are in place. I think every Victorian, when it comes to taxpayers money, their money, would want to know that there are adequate checks and balances in big spending measures – or in this case a particular fund that the Treasurer has oversight of. What are the checks and balances? Who would know, because no-one has had the time to read the bill.
We have seen over recent weeks a speeding up of the time in which governments are ramming bills through this place, and the Victorian public have figured it out. They have seen what the government is doing in this place. It is outrageous that the government is now pushing through bills without even allowing Victorians time to read them. And this is the second time today – first on the state taxation measures, which introduce a set of punitive taxes, very punitive taxes that are going to hurt renters and that are going to hurt schools, and now we see this future fund bill. What are the checks and balances on this bill? Who would know.
The coalition certainly does not support the degradation of integrity in this place. It certainly does not support the way that the government is ramming through bills and guillotining them – guillotining them day by day in a way we have never seen before. This is a disgrace. We will call it out, and we will vote against it.
Vicki WARD (Eltham) (12:27): I want to firstly make it very clear that we are not a government who are ramming things through willy-nilly. We are actually a government who are steadfast on getting things done – and getting things done when they need to be done. The people of Victoria want a government that will actually act in the interests of Victorians and get things done. This is why we have been elected three times, because we get things done in this state.
Those opposite want to throw things around about being arrogant. There is a difference between being arrogant and actually doing what you say you are going to do – actually sticking to your guns and making sure that you get things done, and this is what we are doing on this side of the house. So we can have lots of comments about trying to ram through and have lots of faux outrage, but it is important for this government to get on with it. People of this state want us to get on with it. They want us to develop the agenda that we were re-elected to undertake in November last year, and this is what the Premier has committed to do. It is what everybody on this side of the chamber has committed to do. Every day we are working towards our outcomes, our goals and our achievements on behalf of the people of this state.
The Victorian Future Fund is something that is going to be terrific and important for our state. There is opportunity for us to discuss this. We have a lot to do. This is a busy government with a busy agenda that really wants to get things done, and I would suggest to those opposite, as we have had to suggest to them before, to get on with actually getting things done, to get a part of the energy that this government creates, to be a part of the achievements of this government, to get on with it and to let things happen.
Roma BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (12:29): I rise to also oppose – and to support the Manager of Opposition Business in the position of opposing – this procedure. The bill cannot be put through with just one day when we have had for a very long time the respect of the people – that is why we are here – to be given the opportunity for consultation. I stood in Parliament last week talking about the disrespect of not having consultation with our communities who elected us to be here. I have seen the period of time go from 14 days, which we were doing for almost a century, to 10 days, last week six days and now one day.
The member for Eltham had the audacity to say it needs to be done, but this Victorian Future Fund was in the budget last year, a whole year ago, so what have you been doing for a year that this could not have been organised? What is the point in this legislation coming to the Parliament today and being voted on tomorrow – very important legislation that looks at using responsibly the funds given to Victorians from the sale of their assets, their land sales and their registration of their licensing?
Why is it that this government is so disorganised? Well, that is probably just the exact reason it is. We saw the manager of government business this morning introducing the wrong bill and having to rescind it and read it again because she had got it wrong. We constantly see this place in chaos because they are changing things before they even know what they are doing. They are guillotining tonight – never done that before. We have always had time for debate until this government. Now, they are not a new government trying to find themselves and get their feet under the table, they are an old and tired government and now a chaotic government and one that is running out of puff and running out of things to put to the Parliament. We saw the upper house go home early like kids from school because there was nothing to talk about. So this government has run out of things to do.
That is why we are seeing bills coming into this Parliament disrespecting the normal respect we should be giving to the community, who are the experts on many of these things and who will be affected by the changes that these substantial bills will make in Victoria. Yet we give them no time – no time. They have not actually been allowed to see this bill until today. The communities that will be affected by these changes in legislation are not being given the time to read it. There are two bills here. That is two bills in one day that we going to ask them to put their heads around – things that will affect Victorians.
This is a very tired government. It is a government who promised things that they could not deliver and now is having to tax Victorians to try and find some money to fix their debt and still will not reduce it. We have got kids being taxed, education being taxed and rental properties being taxed – people who cannot find a roof over their head having to be taxed. This is the most extraordinary budget we have ever seen. And these bills will be given one day of discussion through our community. It is a complete sham. But we have seen now, like I said when I stood up last week when we had six days to debate a bill because the government had run out of things to do, they have to put things in in a rushed manner. And there is no question. It is definitely ramming things through. It is not getting things done that matter. It is a fact that they have stuffed up so badly the debt is extraordinary, and we are having to tax kids to actually get through. No wonder there is not an expert out there who is saying this is a good budget, except for the member for Frankston, who said about the last bill that it is ‘an amazing bill’. Well, if more taxes are amazing, I do not think that is a quote I would be too proud of.
But they say we are wasting time – wasting Victorians’ time. Is it a waste of time to show people respect, to give them the ability to make comment or to say, ‘Please, just listen to the experts, you are making a big mistake here,’ and give them that opportunity to feed it back to us, the members of Parliament who represent them and who they voted in here, and not ignore them as this government do, who now have decided they know everything? They do not need time for consultation, they do not need any discussion and the Parliament is to be used simply to ram things through. That is the trend we have seen. We have gone from the respectful 14 days to 10, to six, to one and to no time for any reasonable person to digest a bill, or these bills, which are quite complex and large. To have a guillotine just means no debate; that is what it means.
Steve McGHIE (Melton) (12:34): I rise to speak in this debate. Firstly, I just want to remind people that in November last year we were voted in by the Victorian public to look after them and support them for a third time. So we are going to get on and get things done, and we are doing what matters. We will continue to do that.
I want to contribute by just referring to some of the facts about sharing the bill with the opposition. Last Friday Shadow Treasurer Brad Rowswell, the member for Sandringham, was provided with a copy of both the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2023 and the Victorian Future Fund Bill 2023 – on Friday morning – and was encouraged to pass them along to his colleagues. I do not know whether Mr Rowswell did that. The coalition was also offered a briefing on both bills, and a mutually agreed suitable time was arranged for Friday afternoon. Brad Rowswell, Roma Britnell, Jess Wilson, Ann-Marie Hermans and Nick McGowan were all present.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I remind the member to use proper titles.
Steve McGHIE: The Greens were also provided with both bills and attended a briefing on Friday. So it seems to be more than one day, as has been suggested today. Maybe weekends do not count. The other thing is that bills are not made public until the second reading, and that is happening today, but the government in good faith shared the bills and offered briefings to all members prior to this. Whether they took that up only they can speak to, but I doubt that they did. There is no departure from the practice of debating the budget bills in the first sitting week after budget day, and this ensures debate occurs as soon as possible.
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, on the tight procedural question, the member has strayed. The member would know that last year these bills were given two weeks for the community to see, and this year they are being given one before they are being rammed through, so a little bit of fact would not go astray.
Ben Carroll: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member for Melton is being very factual, highlighting the number of briefings that have been provided to the opposition parties. He is completely on the procedural motion, outlining all the detail that has been provided to date, and I urge you to rule this point of order out of order.
Bridget Vallence: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, if the Andrews government thinks that one business day for members of Parliament to be able to consult with their stakeholders and communities is enough –
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Evelyn knows a point of order is not an opportunity to debate. The member will resume her seat. This procedural debate has been relatively tight, which is very pleasant. I encourage the member for Melton to continue on the procedural debate.
Steve McGHIE: I have only a short bit to go. This seems to be clearly time wasting by the opposition to prevent the Shadow Treasurer from being up on his feet and doing a budget-in-reply. We would encourage them, rather than wasting time here in Parliament today with this ridiculous process that they are carrying on with, to allow this to move on and try and get the Shadow Treasurer to actually come into the chamber and speak to his budget-in-reply.
Sam HIBBINS (Prahran) (12:37): The question before us here in this motion is for the bill that has been second read today to be debated tomorrow and be voted on tomorrow instead of the usual two weeks, and the answer simply is no, regardless of the merits of either of the bills that are being rushed through today. The government has been at great pains today to assert its control over the house, far beyond what is reasonable, far beyond what is the practice I think of any other Westminster parliament. We have got no time for non-government business. We cannot even have a non-government business bill put on the notice paper. We have not had, historically throughout this whole time they have been in government, any amendments to bills. Now we are going to have no time to actually consider a bill, let alone let the community consider a bill. In previous debates, when the member for Richmond has sought to introduce bills, the government was at great pains to talk about due process: ‘Governing, you have got to do everything with due process’. Apparently now due process for a bill gets you a briefing on a Friday, introduction on a Tuesday and debate on a Wednesday. That is not due process. That is absolutely appalling.
I have got to say one thing the government actually does have control over is the sitting days of the house. It is entirely within their power to arrange sitting days and arrange their legislative program to allow for the much-vaunted due process that they so revere over there – I know when it comes to legislation – to allow due process with legislation. They have not done it in this case, and there are a number of serious concerns with this bill that I am sure the community would want to have a look at and see addressed. How does this bill relate to the government’s privatisation agenda? How will this bill relate to the pressure the government is putting on land sales and the revenue raised from land sales? You just need to look at the Auditor-General’s report into land sales. Now it is going to be in legislation – when you are setting monetary targets for land sales; this is now going to be baked into legislation, putting pressure on governments to sell off land instead of considering it for community uses, using it for other purposes such as housing.
There are also concerns around just how this money is going to be invested. Will it be invested in fossil fuels? There are a number of massive questions over just this piece of legislation, so the idea that we should have it introduced here, after a briefing on a Friday, on a Tuesday – the general public have not been able to see it – and then have a debate and a vote on a Wednesday is an absolute disgrace, and it should not occur. We will not be supporting it.
Assembly divided on motion:
Ayes (54): 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, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, 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, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson
Noes (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
Motion agreed to.
Debate adjourned until tomorrow. Debate adjourned until Wednesday 31 May.