Tuesday, 5 March 2024

Business of the house

Program

Mary-Anne THOMAS (Macedon – Leader of the House, Minister for Health, Minister for Health Infrastructure, Minister for Ambulance Services) (12:17): Speaker, it is great to be here and with you today. I move:

That, under standing order 94(2):

(1) the order of the day, government business, relating to the Constitution Amendment (SEC) Bill 2023 be considered and completed by 5 pm on 5 March 2024; and

(2) the orders of the day, government business, relating to the following bills be considered and completed by 5 pm on 7 March 2024:

State Electricity Commission Amendment Bill 2023

Private Security and County Court Amendment Bill 2024

Statute Law Revision Bill 2024.

What a great government business program. We went to the people of Victoria in November 2022 and we said, ‘We’re bringing back the SEC!’ That is exactly what we start doing today in our Legislative Assembly. This is the delivery of an election commitment that is something I know members on this side of the house feel so strongly and passionately about, and I look forward to their contributions. Along with the State Electricity Commission Amendment Bill 2023, we have previously agreed in this place that there would be concurrent debate on two bills, with the Constitution Amendment (SEC) Bill 2023, because it is so vitally important that we protect the SEC from the privatising inclinations of those on the other side. That is why we are proposing that it be included in our constitution.

On this side of the house we have great respect and regard for important public institutions. We have all got an SEC story to tell, and I look forward to hearing those. We stand for strong public institutions like the SEC, and I look forward to the concurrent debate on these bills. It will be interesting as we debate two SEC bills this week to listen to the contributions of those on the other side. I will be interested to hear whether indeed there are maybe 10 or fewer or more from those opposite – do they support renewable energy or not?

Here is an opportunity for those on the other side to stand up and declare their support for a managed transition through to renewables to deliver affordable energy for all Victorians. Of course we are guillotining this bill later today – it does require a special majority of the house – and we are doing that because we want to do everything that we can to protect the SEC from those on the other side, should they ever have the opportunity to return to the government benches, doing what they always do to important public institutions. Be it the SEC, be it health, they privatise; they sell off and they privatise. We know that is what they do.

We will also be debating the Statute Law Revision Bill 2024, and I expect that the Manager of Opposition Business will be making a contribution on that bill. I am looking forward to the member for Malvern’s 30-minute contribution on that. That will be good.

We also have the Private Security and County Court Amendment Bill 2024. This is another bill, I might say, that speaks so strongly to the values of those of us that sit on the government benches. We made a prior commitment to reviewing the private security industry in Victoria. We published a review in 2021 that delivered on an election commitment that we made back in 2018 with a view to improving conditions for workers and moving to a more professional and well regarded industry, because on this side of the chamber we understand that all work is important, that all workers need to be respected and that all workers deserve the opportunity to work in well-regulated industries where their working conditions are protected. So this will be an important bill.

Finally, there will be an opportunity to continue the take-note motion on the care leavers apology. We do propose for that opportunity to come to the house tomorrow, and we will give interested members across the chamber an opportunity to talk about what has been such an important issue. It was such a great moment in this house’s history when that apology was delivered by the leaders of the respective parties only a few short weeks ago. I commend the government business program to the house.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (12:23): The coalition will be wholeheartedly opposing the government business program. How outrageous it was to hear the Leader of the House get up and say that 2 hours into debate on the cognate SEC bills the government will be guillotining one of the bills. How outrageous – 2 hours in. With that in mind, I move:

That the government business program resolution proposed by the Leader of the House be amended by omitting paragraph (1) and after ‘7 March 2024:’ inserting ‘Constitution Amendment (SEC) Bill 2023’.

It is outrageous to think that this government has so mangled the SEC bills that it now is trying to rush them through the house without any scrutiny. That is what the government is trying to do today – rush them through the house without any scrutiny. We had a promise last year from the government that the bills would be done and dusted that year. They were listed on the government business program and they were sent to the world at large – and then, when they realised their members could not turn up in this place, they pulled the bills. So over a hundred days later, the Parliament is considering these bills now.

The Leader of the House says that it is so important that these bills be considered as a cognate package ‍– that they must be considered as a cognate package – except when we all vote. How extraordinary to think that we have to consider these bills as a package – that there must be a cognate debate. We heard last year that the Leader of the House explained that members on her side of the chamber did not have the capacity to delineate between the two bills when they were being debated – did not have the capacity, so it must be cognately debated.

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Speaker, the Manager of Opposition Business knows that he cannot mislead the house, and he is simply making up things that he is attributing to me.

The SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, Leader of the House.

James NEWBURY: The point I will remake is that the government put to this house and passed that the two SEC bills must be considered together. It was an imperative that they be considered together. And the government business program today has made it clear: except when they vote. It is extraordinary, and we know why the guillotine is being brought on one of these bills at 5 o’clock today. We know why: because the government does not want any scrutiny of the detail of this bill. That is what this is about. They do not want the media, they do not want Victorians, looking at this issue in detail. We know that is why. We know they do not want the upper house members thinking about the debate that is occurring in this place, and I look to all members in this place when I speak about that matter. That is why the government wants to rush this bill through. That is why governments always, when they rush bills through, want to do it – because they want to hide from the scrutiny.

And I suspect there is also a second reason, and that is: there is no capacity for the government to hold their own members here on Thursday. This bill requires a special, special number in terms of the vote, and every single Thursday the government is knocking on my door to allow more of its members to go home and to pair them off – every single Thursday. The reason why this bill is not being debated until Thursday is because they cannot hold their numbers until Thursday. They know they cannot get their special, required vote on Thursday afternoon, so they are going to ram it through today.

It is outrageous. What is being done today is an outrageous affront to democracy. We are not considering these bills appropriately; in fact the government took over 100 days to provide a bill briefing and then just sent a political adviser to give one. It would not allow the department to turn up. It is outrageous, the handling of these bills. It is so obvious for the world to see. We will be moving our amendment and dividing on our amendment. If that unfortunately does not pass – and I live in hope that the government has heard my speech and reconsidered – we will be opposing the government business program.

Pauline RICHARDS (Cranbourne) (12:28): Thank you for the opportunity to be able to contribute on the government business program. Of course there are so many of us on this side of the house who are absolutely so excited about bringing back the SEC. I am delighted that I was able to be here for that contribution from the leader of opposition business, because I was feeling a bit like I was experiencing some sort of Nemesis throwback. But I am very pleased to be able to have a look at the extraordinary work that is being done by one of the hardest working ministers I have ever known. There are so many pieces of legislation coming from the minister that I started to count, and I lost count. There is no question that we are getting on with the important work of government.

Bringing back the SEC of course was not just a key election commitment but was something that people talked about over and over again, and it gives me the opportunity to for the first time this year I think acknowledge and thank those people I know, those comrades from the Electrical Trades Union, who spoke about the important policy work that goes into making sure that we have a renewable energy scheme that is modern and fit for purpose, not nuclear. And I have the member for Frankston here next to me, who, you know, is protecting the beaches of Frankston potentially from nuclear, so I am very pleased that this government is getting on with bringing back the SEC.

We have members of organisations like the Electrical Trades Union, people like Troy Gray, Danny Filazzola, Graeme Watson, Mark Perryman and Shannon Crundwell. This is an opportunity for us to acknowledge that it takes people who are doing the work of working in renewables, making sure that we have what we need and making sure that the future is looked after. This legislation is something that is incredibly welcomed by the broader community, by the whole Victorian community and, certainly as the parochial MP I am, by those in my community. It was something that people asked for, and here we are delivering it.

It is going to be a constitutional amendment. We are doing that because we need to make sure that this gets embedded and we do not have that type of behaviour, that type of activity, that we saw when those opposite had the levers of power. I know that those opposite who had the levers of power last time were around on Saturday somewhere down in Frankston, so I was interested to hear that they are still able to commentate and talk about what is going on. Recognising that, we need to make sure that the SEC is embedded in the constitution. I am very pleased to be able to see that the government business program this week is going to be fulsomely supported by those on this side of the house, because we are fulfilling the commitment we made to our communities, but also as somebody who has young people in my life telling me all the time about the importance of renewable energy, making sure that we have got our eyes on the future, making sure that we are looking to what needs to be done to secure a future that is free of nuclear power as well as securing lower costs for our community.

Another piece of legislation that is incredibly important is the Private Security and County Court Amendment Bill 2024. It is an opportunity for me to also thank that minister for the hard work that has been done, and our hardworking security guards and the many people who keep us safe in so many contexts, often people who are unseen. It is really important to acknowledge that work. The Statute Law Revision Bill 2024 is once again important legislation that we need to acquit. We are making sure that the government business program as always is fulsome, but we do, as well as that important legislation, have the opportunity for people to contribute on the important apology. As the manager of government business identified, it was a real elevation and highlight of this chamber to be able to have that apology to Victorians who experienced historical abuse and neglect as children in institutional care and to be able to have people provided that opportunity. I am looking forward to the many contributions on this important government business program.

Jade BENHAM (Mildura) (12:33): I am with the member for Brighton on this one. How outrageous it is to pull a stunt like allowing only 2 hours of debate, an absolute stunt to guillotine a bill that has been on the government business program for over a hundred days – a cunning stunt, some might say, to guillotine this constitution amendment today after 2 hours of debate. And for what reason? I thought everyone was so proud of this, and I thought every member of this place would want to debate this bill. We have to debate them together. In fact we were all lining up to debate these bills, every single one of us, because despite what those on the other side say, it is not about us being against renewables. No-one has ever said that. In fact it is quite the opposite. Technologically agnostic, I would position it as. When we talk about renewables we have to talk about commonsense approaches to these things. But to guillotine a debate on something so important and that the other side are so excited about and have been for so long, it now appears that they want to sweep it under the rug and let it go after 2 ‍hours of debate. Why? Because they are embarrassed by it. They should be; I would be. It is embarrassing.

And to try and rewrite history – I mean, who was the one that started the sell-off of the SEC? We will not get involved in that, but I think we all know. And now to sweep it under the rug with minimal debate means that many members in this place, on our side – many of the Nats, whose families worked for the SEC, or who have worked for the SEC; they understand what it means to bring it back, and they understand the history firsthand – will now not get the opportunity to debate it in this place, the house of democracy, which is where it should be debated. Everyone should have the chance to go through this bill and have their say – not after 2 hours, having been on the program for over a hundred days. It is outrageous, absolutely outrageous. So we support the member for Brighton’s amendment – of course we do – because it should be debated for as long as is needed. That is what this place is all about. The member for Cranbourne said that everyone was excited to debate this – well, not excited enough to allow more than 2 hours or a few days, which is customary, I suppose.

Obviously, we are not supporting the government business program after a stunt like this. However, we will be lining up to speak on the Statute Law Revision Bill 2024, and I very much look forward to the member for Malvern’s 30-minute speech on typos. Again, I always come back to: ‘Can we do things right the first time?’ Mind you, there is quite a lot to unpack in that bill as well. It will give each one of us the chance to speak about things that are actually important to our communities, because there are a lot of acts in this that need to be amended.

So I am looking forward to hearing the debate. Every single one of the Nats has lined up to debate this bill. We all want a go, because that is what we come here to do – to give our communities a say, to debate the things that are important to them and not to quickly run through important bills such as the Constitution Amendment (SEC) Bill 2023, which they used to be so proud of. The member for Cranbourne said, ‘We’re excited about it’ – not excited enough to allow two days of debate at least. I am absolutely perplexed and outraged – two bills in one, not to mention. The mind boggles. I am befuddled. I am boggling and I am befuddled – there is another adjective. It is outrageous, absolutely outrageous.

It would be great for all of us to be able to have our say on the bills that we have to debate together. Unfortunately we will not get that chance, but I am sure, being the creative bunch that we are, that we will be able to discuss that in debates on many other bills this week and hopefully into the future.

Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (12:38): It gives me great pleasure to be in here this morning to speak on the government business program. Indeed it gives me great pleasure, as it does all of my colleagues, to be back in here this week to do what matters for all Victorians, unlike those opposite, who are only interested in speaking about themselves. Time after time after time we see that they are more worried about themselves, more worried about who their leader is going to be in the next few weeks.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, as much as it pains me to stop the waffle, this has nothing to do with the motion before us.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Tarneit will come back to the debate on the government business program.

Dylan WIGHT: Indeed. Thank you very much, Speaker. Week after week after week after week we come into this place with a fantastic government business program to try and help the lives of working families and all Victorians, and week after week after week we come in here and we listen to the member for Brighton, with his confected outrage, oppose the government business program, simply trying to divert attention away from the dysfunction that is the rabble of the Liberal Party in Victoria.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, the member is defying your ruling.

The SPEAKER: Member for Tarneit, you are defying my ruling. I ask you to speak to the government business program.

Dylan WIGHT: That is fair enough, Speaker, and I apologise. It always gives us great pleasure and it is absolutely fantastic and exciting any time we get to come into this place and speak about the SEC. We said before the election in 2022 that we were going to bring back the SEC, and we were not just going to bring it back, we were going to enshrine it in the constitution to protect it from the vandals opposite. Let us not forget and let us be very, very clear: in 1994 the Liberal Party under Jeff Kennett privatised the SEC.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, this now pains me – the member is not debating the government business program. He has defied you now twice.

The SPEAKER: I will uphold the point of order. Member for Tarneit, this is your third warning to speak to the government business program.

Dylan WIGHT: Of course. Thank you, Speaker. As I said, every week that we come into this place and have the capacity to speak about the SEC and to debate and pass legislation that puts steps in place to bring back that incredibly important Victorian institution is a good week. I spent 10 years going through factories speaking to workers, to sparkies and to maintenance workers that used to work for the SEC, who got their first opportunity to work in those industries in government-owned energy and who got the fantastic opportunity that the SEC provided to undertake significant training within those sectors. It is so incredibly important for them, many of whom live in my community, that we come in and debate this legislation this week and also enshrine it into the Victorian constitution. Like the member for Cranbourne, I would like to acknowledge the Electrical Trades Union and the AMWU and all the work that they have done to bring back this incredibly important Victorian institution.

It is also incredibly important that we do this, that we enshrine it in the constitution and that we bring back the SEC, because of the significant renewable energy targets that we have right here in Victoria ‍– some of the most ambitious anywhere in the entire world. What we know is that doing that will help industries such as agriculture, it will help our food producers and it will help manufacturing businesses as well. I support the government business program, and I cannot wait to debate the bills.

Roma BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (12:43): I rise to oppose the government business program and support the Manager of Opposition Business in his amendment to the business program, which will give us the opportunity to debate the two bills the way that we should be debating, instead of bringing the two bills together and debating them. It is absolutely an affront to democracy, coupled with the fact that we have been asking for bill briefings for over a hundred days and the government refuses to cooperate in the way that we would normally see, in fact offering a bill briefing just this morning and wanting to debate for 2 hours only tonight and then adjourning and gagging the ability to actually debate these bills.

Here is a government that is out of ideas. It is as plain and simple as that. This week’s government program is certainly a reflection of that. Whilst Victoria faces a cost-of-living crisis, a health crisis and a housing crisis, this government’s priority in Parliament is a statute law bill that fixes typographical errors. Another key priority for this government is to establish the SEC in the constitution, something they have been talking about for years and that will finally feature in this week’s government program. But how did they go about it? Well, despite the legislation being tabled over a hundred days ago, the government has not offered a single briefing to explain the legislation, as is the process that we have always seen. So, naturally, from this legislation on the government’s business program that they refuse to explain, one can only conclude that the government have got something to hide. We know what that is; we know it is a shell of an idea with no substance. All the government has mainly done so far is print hats and jackets and give out lollies and bags.

What we are really seeing on the ground is families struggling with a 28 per cent rise in the cost of electricity bills and an increase of 22 per cent in gas bills, and yet there is nothing on the government business program that tackles the cost of living. This week’s government business program further reinforces that Labor have the wrong priorities for Victoria and no plan to address the challenges we face. We need a government business program that actually addresses real everyday issues for Victorians. In my electorate we have got Department of Families, Fairness and Housing homes sitting empty while people sit on waiting lists for years for social housing. We see the government are falling well behind on their targets to build houses. The government business program should be responding to these issues that Victorians are facing today, yet time and time again they are being ignored by this Labor government. Instead of actually having the opportunity to debate these bills, which the government have spruiked will actually do something to help Victorians facing the cost-of-living crisis, they will do nothing. We can see that by them putting these two bills together and giving us just 2 hours to debate them.

You are absolutely right that we all did want to speak on this bill. So why are we being forced into a situation of having the bills sit on the program for over a hundred days, with no bill briefing of any value? Last night we were offered a bill briefing at 4 o’clock but with no people from the department who had been involved in drawing up the bill; no-one was available to give that briefing to us as an opposition. We are being asked to debate a bill without the ability to scrutinise it and understand it. After the pressure that was applied there was an offer of 10:30 this morning. We were all preparing for Parliament, which starts at 12. Really? They want us to be present at a bill briefing that they have had a hundred days or more to deliver – and they are doing it this morning. Then they are expecting us to debate it this afternoon, putting only 2 hours aside of the government business program to do so. If that does not smack of something underhanded – perhaps chaos, perhaps arrogance. It does. It simply smacks of the arrogance of this government. The irony is –

Tim Richardson interjected.

Roma BRITNELL: Yes, you are right, member. It is an irony. If you think you do not need your community –

The SPEAKER: Member for South-West Coast, through the Chair. The member for Mordialloc will come to order.

Roma BRITNELL: Through the Chair, the member for Mordialloc is correct: there is an irony that this government feel they have so much arrogance that they do not need to give bill briefings. They do not need to be communicating. (Time expired)

Ellen SANDELL (Melbourne) (12:48): (By leave) I just wish to make a short contribution on the government business program. There are some important bills on the program this week, in particular the two bills that deal with putting the SEC into the constitution, and of course as the Greens we support greater climate action and safeguarding climate action against future governments who may wish to undo it.

We do have some amendments to these bills, which we have indicated to the government and other parties and independents. We have requested consideration in detail for this bill so that we can move our amendments. Of course procedure dictates that we are unable to move amendments as crossbenchers unless we go into that stage of consideration in detail. So on principle this week we will not support the government business program just because I think, as we have indicated before, in the instance where we do request consideration in detail where we have amendments – we will always request consideration in detail when we do have amendments to give us a chance to move them regardless of whether we support the bill or the guillotine overall – we will oppose the government business program if we do not receive consideration in detail just as a principled measure.

We do believe that 2 hours is too short for debate. We understand the pressures that the government is under just in terms of making sure that the vote on this bill happens at the right time. We understand that the bill was introduced, I think, a hundred days ago, so there is not a huge rush to get it through, but also there are no surprises; people have had a chance to look at the bill. We would very much like more than 2 hours of debate, just as a matter of democracy and as a matter of principle, but we all do know what is in the bill because we have had it for quite a while now.

So just for the reason that we think 2 hours is too short for democracy on balance we will support the opposition’s amendment to push the guillotine on this particular bill off for a couple of days to give more members a chance to contribute. It would be great to see consideration in detail. We understand that the government has said that that will not be happening. Just for that reason – it is not because we do not support the bills; it is not because we do not support the bills that are on the guillotine – we will always oppose the guillotine if we have requested consideration in detail and it has not been provided for.

The SPEAKER: The minister has moved the government business program. The member for Brighton has moved an amendment to the motion, to omit paragraph (1) and after ‘7 March 2024:’ insert the words ‘Constitution Amendment (SEC) Bill 2023’. The question is:

That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Members supporting the amendment by the member for Brighton should vote no.

Assembly divided on question:

Ayes (53): 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, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Eden Foster, 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, 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 (31): 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, David Southwick, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner, Jess Wilson

Question agreed to.

Assembly divided on motion:

Ayes (53): 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, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Eden Foster, 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, 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 (31): 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, David Southwick, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner, Jess Wilson

Motion agreed to.