Tuesday, 31 October 2023

Summary Offences Amendment (Decriminalisation of Public Drunkenness) Repeal Bill 2023

Introduction

Brad BATTIN (Berwick) (12:06): I move:

That I introduce a bill for an act to repeal the Summary Offences Amendment (Decriminalisation of Public Drunkenness) Act 2021 and to provide for the effect of that repeal and for other purposes.

I speak to this motion in relation to the fact that we have got a huge crisis when it comes to the government’s position. Its reform is not ready to go. We have got a facility at the moment that is not ready, and effective from Melbourne Cup Day, Victoria Police will no longer have the powers to arrest people who are intoxicated. Imagine people coming out of the Melbourne Cup venue and Victoria Police having had their powers removed. That is why it is important that this piece of legislation is put today.

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Berwick, this is a procedural debate. I ask you not to speak to the bill. You are anticipating debate, and I remind other members who may speak on this procedural motion that it is a procedural motion about the introduction of a bill.

Brad BATTIN: The reason that we are introducing this bill today is so important out in the community because it is around community safety. This Parliament has a responsibility. We have a responsibility to guarantee the safety of every person in the community. It is legislation like this that is needed to ensure that the government is aware of the impacts of what will happen, and that is why this piece of legislation is so important today. The government have an option. They can delay the legislation that is currently in place by changing the date. That has been done in the past. It would prevent us being here having this debate on what is happening in relation to the decriminalisation of public drunkenness. We know that the community has called for this. We know that it has a health impact. We know and understand the impacts through the entire community and what happens. We have seen it across other states in relation to this. It is vital that this Parliament today ensures that this is on the government business program. Again the government cannot continue to hide behind the fact that they do not listen to any other person in this chamber when it comes to the procedures and the practices of this place.

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Speaker, your ruling was very clear. This is a narrow procedural debate. I suggest that the member is straying into the details of his bill, and I ask you to bring him back to your ruling that it is a narrow procedural debate.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Berwick was not necessarily straying into the detail of the bill at this point, but I do remind members it is a procedural debate.

Brad BATTIN: When it comes to the procedures of this place it is so important that the government of the day understand that there are more views in this room than just those of the Labor Party. It is vital. It does not matter where you sit in this place, you can have an opportunity to put things forward for debate. But the problem with the government when it comes to this is that they do not want the debate. They will vote this down not because of what is happening, they will vote it down because they do not want to have the debate. If anyone on that side says we have had the debate –

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a further point of order, Speaker, once again the member is anticipating the debate by talking about what the government may or may not do. I ask you to bring him back to his procedural matter rather than anticipating what the government may do.

The SPEAKER: I do not uphold the point of order at this point, but I do again remind the member for Berwick and others who may speak on this matter that this is a procedural debate.

Brad BATTIN: When we talk about procedures – and someone has raised that this has been debated in this place before – it is really important to note that when that debate happened the government had committed to having a sobering-up centre open 12 months ago, and now we are seeing it will not be open in November.

That is why we are seeking to introduce this bill today. We want to make sure that we can have a say on behalf of that community, who were silenced and were not aware of what was happening for a trial in their area. It is so important that the Victorian Parliament is a place to have an open, honest and robust discussion about impacts in the community. That includes ensuring that bills like this, the Summary Offences Amendment (Decriminalisation of Public Drunkenness) Repeal Bill 2023, are on the record and on the government business program, introduced by the opposition, so we can put forward the views of our local communities – particularly those communities in Collingwood and Victoria Police going forward – on how it will impact them when these changes are made. It is really important that this is debated today. We can get this through as quick as we can, and we are willing to support the government to ensure it goes through both houses so the community is safer. That is what the responsibility of the Victorian Parliament is.

Mary-Anne THOMAS (Macedon – Leader of the House, Minister for Health, Minister for Health Infrastructure, Minister for Ambulance Services) (12:12): The government will not be supporting this bill. We are a government focused on delivering for the people of Victoria. We have a much-needed reform ready to implement. I rise also in my capacity –

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Berwick, you had your turn.

Mary-Anne THOMAS: I rise also in my capacity as the Minister for Ambulance Services, and I will proudly let the house know that Ambulance Victoria and Victoria Police people have received the training they need so that we need no longer put people who are intoxicated in public in jail and so that we finally catch up with the other states –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, as you have previously ruled, this is a tight procedural debate, and I would ask you to bring the Leader of the House back to that question.

Ben Carroll: On the point of order, Speaker, you very much allowed the lead speaker from the opposition to bring in different parts of the debate. The Leader of the House has very clearly articulated the purpose of the legislation, which is the criminalisation of First Nations people, and having a health perspective on it. She did. The point of order should be ruled out of order.

Brad Battin interjected.

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Berwick! I ask the Leader of the House to come back to the procedural motion.

Mary-Anne THOMAS: Thank you, Speaker. We have a very full agenda this week, and we have much work to get on with and deliver through this house. Meanwhile, we are delivering on our commitment to decriminalise being intoxicated in public and to lead a health-led response, which is ready to be delivered when we introduce this reform.

Jade BENHAM (Mildura) (12:14): I rise to support the member for Berwick in introducing this bill to repeal the Summary Offences Amendment (Decriminalisation of Public Drunkenness) Act 2021. We are not ready, and there is so much that needs to come into place before this is enacted on Melbourne Cup Day. This does not just affect, as the member for Berwick said, the ability to delay the implementation of the decriminalisation of public drunkenness. It could be delayed. We could get on the front foot and make sure it is ready for implementation before it is enacted. By introducing this bill to repeal the decriminalisation of public drunkenness, we can get ready. This does not just affect the city. This is the house of the people, and the people affected are in all areas of the state, including in regional Victoria, where emergency departments are under so much –

The SPEAKER: Order! This is a procedural debate, member for Mildura, and I ask you to come back to the procedure.

Jade BENHAM: Sorry, Speaker – apologies. As far as the procedure goes, I think this is such an important move to make today – and a responsible move to make. If the government were to take responsibility and say you know what, we do actually need to delay it for many, many reasons, then they too would support the member for Berwick in repealing the decriminalisation of public drunkenness. It is the responsible thing to do. It is reckless to introduce this – and not just introduce it but on Melbourne Cup Day.

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Speaker, you have been very clear that this is a procedural motion. Once again the member for Mildura is straying into the contents of the bill. I ask you to bring her back to this narrow procedural motion.

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Mildura, I know it is challenging for members to talk to a procedural debate – that is very clear – but I ask all members to come back to the procedural debate.

Jade BENHAM: Thank you, Speaker. The procedure before us in this place is one that every Victorian should be concerned with. Every Victorian is concerned with the implementation of the decriminalisation of public drunkenness. This procedure to repeal that act is of vital importance, and not just in the city. This process I am supporting the member for Berwick in is so important. We have to give it some context because, like I said, it does not only affect those in the city. It just defies logic that the government would not support this and just accept some responsibility and say ‘The system’s actually not ready.’ We should get it ready before it is implemented and before it hits the front page of the paper next Wednesday after Melbourne Cup Day and the system completely falls apart. It will be absolute chaos. So this procedural motion that we have before us now is one of absolute importance. I support the member for Berwick in raising this repeal bill.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (12:18): I am very happy to speak on this matter. We get that the opposition have a particular position on what we are proposing here, which is actually a health-led response. They may not agree with it. That is okay. We accept that you may not agree with the rollout of a health-led response. I might remind the opposition that this –

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! I ask members to have some respect for the member on their feet.

Nina TAYLOR: I might remind the opposition that this particular reform was already debated in this house. They have had ample opportunity to debate the subject matter of the bill.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, this is not a policy debate, it is a procedural debate, and I would ask you to bring the member back to the procedural debate.

The SPEAKER: The member for Albert Park is to come back to the motion that is before the house regarding the introduction of a bill.

Nina TAYLOR: Thank you very much for your advice, Speaker. I should say, additionally, no further good will be delivered by the raising of these particular matters at this point in time. What matters is actually delivering on these reforms, which is exactly what we are doing right here as we speak. Forgive my cynicism, but taking the expertise and information of those opposite on this particular matter here and now – I am raising a big question mark.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, you have ruled on my previous point of order in relation to relevance. This is not an opportunity to slag off, and I would ask you to bring the member back to the question.

The SPEAKER: I do not rule the point of order a point of order. The member was giving some contrast, but I do remind members it is a procedural debate.

Nina TAYLOR: Indeed, and on that note, when we are talking about a procedural debate, let us get on with the government business program. There are very important reforms to be debated. The opposition will have plenty of opportunity to debate those reforms in this house. They will not be held back. They can go for their lives, every one of them. If they want to speak on the respective bills, the grievance debate and so forth in this house, they will have ample opportunity, because I know they are always champing at the bit. They are so eager to speak on these reforms. Well, take that opportunity, but do not hold it up now with this pointless, pointless debate. Forgive me, but I query the sincerity of those opposite on this particular matter. I think it is purely a stunt to raise division. It is fearmongering.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, the member is no longer straying, the member is nowhere near the procedural debate – a matter you have already ruled on twice I believe. I would ask that you bring the member promptly back to the question.

The SPEAKER: For consistency’s sake, I ask the member for Albert Park to come back to the procedural motion.

Nina TAYLOR: Thank you for your advice, Speaker. On that note I suggest that the best outcome for all involved, particularly the community, is to continue with debating the particular bills that are being presented before the house this week as part of the government program – noting our extensive reform agenda – rather than obstructing some very important reforms that we are seeking to deliver in Victoria.

Michael O’BRIEN (Malvern) (12:22): In seven days time, not just Melbourne, not just Victoria but Australia will stop for the race that stops a nation. It is also going to be the day on which a massive change to public order laws comes in, and the fact is this government has previously decided to delay implementation of these laws because it was not ready. These laws originally passed in early 2021. They were supposed to come in in November 2022, and the government chose to delay their implementation because the government was not ready. Well, the government still is not ready, and the responsible thing to do is to take the bill introduced by the member for Berwick and debate it this week, because this is a matter of timing. It is a critical matter of timing, because this is our last opportunity to save the government from itself and to make sure that police have the tools to manage people’s health. We do not want to see intoxicated people locked up, but we do not want to see intoxicated people put at risk to themselves or others, and that is why it is so important that we debate this right now. The timing of this could not be more critical.

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Speaker, it would seem that everyone is finding it a challenge to stick to this narrow procedural debate. The member for Malvern is straying into the supposed merits of this supposed bill, and I ask that you bring him back to the narrow procedural motion.

The SPEAKER: Order! I think the member for Malvern realised he was straying a little bit. I do ask him to come back to the procedural motion.

Michael O’BRIEN: As I said, the timing of this could not be more critical, because this is the only opportunity for this house to reconsider this current law, which is due to come into place next Tuesday – on Melbourne Cup Day. What are going to be the consequences if this house does not consider this now? The consequences will be that police will not have powers to manage drunk people who are a risk to themselves and others. That is the fact. That is why it is critical –

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Speaker, this procedural debate is not an opportunity for the member for Malvern to get up and say things that are untrue. We are implementing this reform because we are ready to go. Police and ambulance officers have received their training.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Michael O’BRIEN: The government may not like to hear what I have to say, but the fact is it should be on the record, because timing is critical on this. The government has delayed this change once before because it was not ready. The government should get off its high horse, eat some humble pie and admit it is not ready again, otherwise the consequences next Tuesday and flowing onwards will be on the government’s head. This is not about a punitive measure; this is accepting that the government has not implemented the reforms it intended to make. The government has delayed this by 12 months previously. Through the member for Berwick’s bill we are giving the government the opportunity to admit that it has got it wrong again. It is just not ready. So this bill should be debated, and the government should explain why it is such a good idea to press ahead with such a major change when it does not have the infrastructure in place. Quite possibly we will see people put far more at risk with this change than if they simply delay it, as they have done in the past. This is an opportunity for the government to actually show that under a new Premier – some new leadership – maybe it is willing to listen. We had nine years of no listening. Here is an opportunity for the government to demonstrate –

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Speaker, I am sorry to have to do this again, but this is not an opportunity for the member for Malvern to get up on his feet and show that perhaps he would be a much better leader than the current member for Hawthorn.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Michael O’BRIEN: The Leader of the House simply shows by all her constant interjections and points of order that the government is desperate not to discuss this issue, but the fact is that Victorians need this to be discussed. They need it to be debated. The government needs to admit it has got this wrong. It needs to delay it, and that is why the member for Berwick’s bill should be brought on. Give Victorians the chance to recover from your mistakes, otherwise it will be on the government’s head.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Malvern, through the Chair!

Lauren KATHAGE (Yan Yean) (12:27:317:): Well, we have heard from the member for Malvern that timing is critical, and the member for Mildura warns us of a total system collapse. I think it is evident what we have here. To me it sounds like a doomsday cult, and the date they have set is 7 November. I wish I could see the faces around the table of the doomsday cult strategy meeting on 8 November when in fact the world has not ended.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, this is an important question of public policy. The member has moved an important bill in relation to that matter. On relevance, the member is not speaking to the procedural motion. I would ask you to bring her back to the procedural motion.

The SPEAKER: The member for Yan Yean to speak to the procedural motion.

Lauren KATHAGE: Back to the comments from the member for Mildura, she warned of a total system collapse, and that is why she believes that we should bring forward debate on this. However, I have full confidence in our nurses and alcohol and other drug workers, who have all the training and resources to deliver the outreach services from 7 November – up to 10 teams, not just in metro areas but also in regional Victoria, which I am sure the member for Mildura will be very pleased to hear.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, I understand the member is new. You have ruled on my previous point of order that the member, with respect, is speaking to the substance of the matter rather than the procedural debate.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! I would ask points of order to be made succinctly without any other comments surrounding them. Member for Yan Yean, you will have to come back to the procedural motion before the house.

Lauren KATHAGE: Thank you, Speaker. I also thank the member for Brighton for his advice. My advice might be to buy a calendar from the newsagency and have a look at the year on the front: it is 2023. I fully support the services we have available for the police and ambulance to respond as they normally would to matters of critical emergency health and community risk. Those provisions are still there to provide that support. The member for Malvern talks about previous cautious approaches by this government to the date of this legislation coming into effect, and he somehow believes that now that is not the approach that we will take. I assure those opposite that they can relax, because the adults are in charge in this room. We will continue to –

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! I will remove members from the chamber. Member for Malvern, you had your turn.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, succinctly, the member is not speaking to the procedural motion.

The SPEAKER: Member for Yan Yean, can you come back to the procedural motion before the house.

Lauren KATHAGE: The member for Berwick said that we do not want the debate. Well, we have had the debate. We have passed the legislation, and now we have got other legislation that we want to get through the house – important matters concerning transport, kinder and the circular economy and our environment, things that matter to Victorians, not things that are invented by a local doomsday cult to panic Victorians.

The SPEAKER: By leave, the member for Brunswick. Is leave granted?

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Leave is not granted.

Sam Hibbins: On a point of order, Speaker, I seek your guidance on this. We have now had a very heated debate, and the important principle of not denying the rights of the minority in this chamber has now been breached. The Greens have not had an opportunity to speak to this motion. The standing orders unfortunately have permitted this situation where this is clearly an important debate, yet the Greens have been denied the opportunity to even contribute to the debate.

I ask two things: (1) that the standing orders be looked at to ensure that the rights of the minority are not denied in these important debates and (2) whether there is something that can be done with the call to ensure that the Greens can contribute to these very important debates, because at the moment –

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Prahran will resume his seat. Now is not the time to raise these matters as a point of order. You are welcome to come and speak to me in my chambers or to the clerks, and the matter can be referred to the Standing Orders Committee, but this is not the time for that. Leave is not granted.

Assembly divided on motion:

Ayes (26): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner, Jess Wilson

Noes (49): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, 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, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Belinda Wilson

Motion defeated.