Tuesday, 30 April 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) (12:29): It is a great pleasure to be back here in the house. I move:

That, under standing order 94(2), the orders of the day –

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House is moving the government business program.

Mary-Anne THOMAS: I move:

That, under standing order 94(2), the orders of the day, government business, relating to the following bills be considered and completed by 5 pm on 2 May 2024:

National Energy Retail Law (Victoria) Bill 2024

Commercial and Industrial Property Tax Reform Bill 2024.

It is great to be back in the house after a considerable period of time either back in our electorates or attending to ministerial duties. I know that at least members on this side of the house always welcome the opportunity to come to Parliament to continue our focus on addressing the real needs and concerns of the Victorian people, and that is why the bills that will be discussed this week are of particular importance. I am delighted, and I know members on this side of the house are –

James Newbury: I move:

That the member be no longer heard.

The SPEAKER: I am not satisfied that the question can be put, as the member has only spoken for 1 minute. The member is not using her opportunity to speak in a way that is an abuse of the rules or the conventions of the house, nor is she obstructing business.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, I would seek your clarity. How can the government be allowed 1 minute and it not be enough time, but a member of the opposition was allowed 1 second and it was considered enough?

The SPEAKER: They are two different issues, Manager of Opposition Business.

Mary-Anne THOMAS: The National Energy Retail Law (Victoria) Bill 2024 is a very important bill, one that will continue our government’s nation-leading reforms when it comes to our commitment to renewable power to both drive down power prices and push towards our ambitious climate targets. On this side of the house we know that we can do both: we can transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy and we can drive down power prices. We decarbonised –

James Newbury: I move:

That the member be no longer heard.

The SPEAKER: I refer again to standing order 106. I do not believe that the member on their feet has in any way breached standing order 106; therefore I call the Leader of the House to continue.

Mary-Anne THOMAS: As I was saying, we have the strongest climate change legislation of anywhere in the country, and since this government was elected we have cut emissions by more than any other state. This is a record that we are extremely proud of. We are also introducing the Commercial and Industrial Property Tax Reform Bill 2024.

Michael O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, the Leader of the House is foreshadowing debate. It is not the appropriate place, during the government business program debate. That is for during the debate of the actual legislation, and I ask you to draw the Leader of the House back to the motion.

The SPEAKER: I ask the Leader of the House to talk to the government business program.

Mary-Anne THOMAS: On the point of order, Speaker, there is no point of order. I have only named the second bill that is to be debated this week as part of the government business program.

James Newbury: Further to the point of order, Speaker, you have ruled on the point of order.

The SPEAKER: Leader of the House, please come back to the government business program.

Mary-Anne THOMAS: The government business program includes two bills, which we will be debating. I have already outlined one of them.

James Newbury: Under standing order 106(2)(a), on the basis that the member speaking has ‘had ample opportunity to state his or her views’, I move:

That the member be no longer heard.

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House has almost concluded her 5 minutes. Does the Leader of the House wish to continue?

Mary-Anne THOMAS: Two bills – a strong Labor program.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (12:35): On the government business program, what we are seeing in the Parliament today is the most shameful display, the most shameful abuse of this place, that I have seen in my time in this place – in my time around Parliament and involved in Parliament. We have now got to a point where members cannot be heard in this place, where members cannot have a proposition put, before the government will gag them. This is a very dark day. I would put that the government business program must include an opportunity – the Parliament must be provided with an opportunity – to call out what the government has done today and for members who are not in the government to be provided an opportunity to voice –

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will be removed from the chamber if the house does not come to order. The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. The Leader of the House will come to order.

Tim Richardson: On a point of order, Speaker, from your previous rulings I think the member for Brighton needs to come back to the government business program rather than ventilating his thoughts and views on the world and universe, so bring him back to the government business program.

The SPEAKER: I ask you to come back to the government business program.

James NEWBURY: The government business program is a debate about what is being proposed for consideration by this chamber this week, and the coalition would put that there needs to be a debate, an opportunity, to discuss the outrageous tactics of the government to gag the opposition from speaking. It is absolutely untenable for the opposition to not be provided any opportunity –

Michaela Settle: On a point of order, Speaker, we are discussing the government business program and we are straying from it.

The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will come back to the government business program.

James NEWBURY: I am debating the government business program in that the government business program does not fully elaborate on what we need to consider as a Parliament. I put on record that the coalition will not be able to agree to any single proposition that the government puts from now on. I give notice of that.

Dylan Wight: On a point of order, Speaker, further to your ruling, the Manager of Opposition Business has not got even close to speaking about the government business program so far. This is not an opportunity for the Manager of Opposition Business to pontificate –

The SPEAKER: Manager of Opposition Business, I would ask you to come back to the government business program.

James NEWBURY: Part of this debate is providing a discussion around what the Parliament could be considering. For example, the government has proposed one motion being considered this week. We would put that there need to be opportunities other than simply two bills. We know that on a normal sitting week the Parliament will consider a minimum of three bills. This week the government has proposed only two, which shows that quite clearly we will have time to consider other matters. We have seen both during motions by leave during formal business and now on the government business program that the government is not providing any opportunity for the opposition to put forward their position. How can we have a Parliament where the government gags every single non-government speaker? How can that be? It is absolutely outrageous.

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Speaker, I ask that you bring the Manager of Opposition Business back to the government business program. He has clearly strayed again from your ruling, and I ask that you ask him to focus his attention on the –

The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business has been making a point.

James NEWBURY: What has happened today is a mistake and the government will learn from it.

Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (12:40): I rise in support of the government business program. Obviously, as we have heard, we have got the Commercial and Industrial Property Tax Reform Bill ‍2024, which I think those on the other side of the chamber and this side of the chamber can agree will actually encourage business to expand in Victoria or set up in a different location as well, which is great for everyone: stakeholders and community, and especially growing workforces. It will support businesses to invest in buildings and infrastructure as well. These are very, very important bills that we need to speak about.

Of course we have also got the National Energy Retail Law (Victoria) Bill 2024. It brings the Victorian retailer of last resort scheme in line with national standards. We have heard quite a bit from across the aisle about renewable energy. People are obviously talking about the people that they represent, their constituents, and about how the success of the solar program has gone down in Victoria as well. This is something that people want to hear about, and this is something that people in this chamber actually want to talk about.

James Newbury: As per standing order 106, on the basis of (2)(a) – ‘the member speaking has already had ample opportunity to state his or her views on the matter’ – I move:

That the member be no longer heard.

The SPEAKER: The member for Frankston is not abusing standing order 106, and given the strict time limits for this debate, the member for Frankston can continue.

Paul EDBROOKE: Thank you, Speaker. Also, we have got the take-note motion on the apology to Victorians in state care, which is a very important part of our government business program. I say thank you to everyone who stood up in the last Parliament to talk about that. We had a gallery full of people who obviously had lived experience, sometimes firsthand experience, of the abuse that went on throughout that period. They need to hear people talking about that state government apology and about what historically happened, what should not have happened and what should never ever happen again under successive governments. It is very important that we take that time – that this Parliament take that time – to consider those people and what they gave to the inquiry and thank them, for want of a better term, for picking those wounds and opening up those wounds so that we could come to a decision and make that apology. To the people that today will speak on that apology I would say: just keep that in mind, and obviously the constituents in your community – keep in mind how important that is. That goes to the fact that we are talking about a very important government business program here, and what I am seeing from those opposite is really just groundhog day once again. Groundhog Day: The Musical is down the street, it is not in here. We need to actually get on with government business. I support the government business program.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, the member is clearly not speaking about the government business program.

The SPEAKER: The member for Frankston was referring to a motion on the business program.

Paul EDBROOKE: I most definitely was. In my concluding remarks, I am not sure of the confusion there. The government business program that we are talking about on this side is the government business program that has been brought to the table by the Leader of the House. It is the one that we are speaking on. We are indeed speaking about that take-note motion on the apology to Victorians today, a very important one which I am sure is the opinion of everyone in this chamber. Certainly we have the National Energy Retail Law (Victoria) Bill, which makes sure consumers have uninterrupted energy, which has been ventilated in this place as a concern. It is a bill that will be spoken on by people in this chamber. It actually addresses those concerns as well and any concerns in the community. As I said, we have got the Commercial and Industrial Property Tax Reform Bill. It is not a minor reform; it is very important. It takes a replacement of stamp duty, essentially, and makes that a tax. What we have to do is move on. I am sure that people across the aisle will get tired sometimes of saying no to everything; it is a bit Duttonesque. I will conclude my remarks there.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, the member is clearly misusing his time in the government business program debate.

The SPEAKER: The member for Frankston has concluded his contribution.

Martin CAMERON (Morwell) (12:45): I rise today to talk on the government business program, and as the member for Brighton has said, we are going to be opposing the government business program. A couple of things here: exactly as the member for Brighton said before, the proceedings that have gone on in the chamber today, with the government trying to gag anything from us, are an absolute disgrace. Not only do they try and sit us down and think that they are gagging us on this side, they are also gagging the opportunity for us to represent our communities – with me, in regional Victoria. I was elected back in 2022 to come into this place to represent the constituents of the seat of Morwell, and today I have been told and shown that I do not have the opportunity to do that. I do not know why that is, and I just condemn the government –

Nina Taylor: On a point of order, Speaker, I appreciate that the member for Morwell has various opinions, but I would request that he return to the subject matter of the government business program.

The SPEAKER: The member for Morwell was making a point in relation to government business, but I ask him to be mindful of the government business program that we are here to discuss this morning.

Martin CAMERON: Thank you, Speaker, for saying that to me. When we actually got up and looked at the government business program today we found that there were only two items on the government business program. Since I have been in this chamber – and I think all the new MPs that were elected – we have always had three bills that we have spoken on in the chamber. Today we roll up with two, one of those being the Commercial and Industrial Property Tax Reform Bill 2024, which seems to be a little bit of a complex issue which needs to be – yes, granted – spoken about, because it does affect the people in regional Victoria. I do not want to debate the bill now, but it does seem that it may be an issue moving forward for regional Victorians – that this bill may cause a bit of havoc and grief to owners that are going to cop this bill down there.

I do note that the member for Sandringham, who is the lead on this bill, asked that this be taken into consideration in detail. He did ask the government this; he still has not been told that he cannot do it. He has not even received a response that this will be taken under consideration. I think even though we are in opposition, when we do ask for these things it would be nice for the government to answer us. And it seems that that has flowed through: when we ask ministers questions and when we write ministers letters to ask things on behalf of our constituents it just seems that we do not get answers there. So this also follows through.

The National Energy Retail Law (Victoria) Bill 2024, looking at it, seems like a pretty straightforward bill that can go through, and I think we are all in agreeance that we do need some protections there. But there is also a bigger scope of works, as the member for Frankston spoke about, about moving into renewables and also that our gas and our electricity prices are going up. So yes, it will be nice to be able to stand up and talk on these two bills – not three. I think we are very light on, and the government is struggling to come up with a business program every second week.

I think it has been a month since we have been in here, and they front up with only two bills that we need to discuss. Not letting us get up and talk on behalf of our constituencies in this chamber is a disgrace. This is the house of the people. I am here to represent my people in this chamber, and for this side of the chamber to be constantly shut down and to not be allowed to represent my constituents, and for my fellow members from around regional Victoria to not be allowed to represent their constituents, because the government do not want to front up and talk about the things that are actually affecting us in regional Victoria and around the state, is a disgrace. We oppose the business program.

Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (12:50): It gives me great pleasure to stand up this afternoon in support of the government business program. Of course those opposite oppose the government business program. Of course they do. Every single week we come into this place with a government business program with really important bills to debate, to represent the people of Victoria, and those opposite oppose it.

James Newbury: I move:

That the member be no longer heard.

The SPEAKER: I think I have ruled on this previously. Given the time limits for this debate and that the member has not contravened standing order 106, the member for Tarneit to continue.

Dylan WIGHT: I think I have been going for 15 seconds. The member for Morwell says that they sat there at the start of this week and looked at the government business program and could not possibly support it. I will tell you what, they never support the government business program. We could lay out the Victorian Liberal Party’s policy platform on our government business program and they would still oppose it. They would still oppose it.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, the member is not debating the details of the current government business program before the chamber.

The SPEAKER: The member for Tarneit will come back to the government business program.

Dylan WIGHT: As I was saying, they would still oppose it. We have two incredibly important bills in this incredibly important motion on the government business program this week. We have got a bill, the Commercial and Industrial Property Tax Reform Bill 2024, that will make it even easier to do business right here in the state of Victoria. I have stood on my feet in this place many, many times and I have said that the settings for business in Victoria are the best in the country. This bill will further build on that. It will make it cheaper and easier to do business in Victoria, it will make it cheaper and easier to invest in Victoria and it will build on the fact, as I said, that Victoria is the greatest place to do business.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, the member is debating the substance of the bill rather than the government business program.

The SPEAKER: The member for Tarneit will come back to the government business program.

Dylan WIGHT: Thank you, Speaker. As I said, Victoria is the greatest place to do business anywhere in this country. What we also have is the National Energy Retail Law (Victoria) Bill 2024. This bill builds on this government’s landmark reforms in the energy sector. We have not only the most ambitious renewable energy targets anywhere in Australia but some of the most ambitious in the world. That is not just good for the environment; it is also good for our economy. It is great for jobs. It is great for jobs in this state. It will create some 50,000 jobs right here in Victoria, whether that be manufacturing wind towers down at Keppel Prince in Portland, whether that be in the construction sector, whether that be in the maintenance sector or whether that be maintaining some of those significant renewable energy projects that we will undertake. This piece of legislation will build on that, and we will be an absolute powerhouse in terms of energy generation.

What we also have – and I know that both sides of this chamber will absolutely be on the same page with this – is the take-note motion for the apology to Victorians abused in state care. Only a couple of months ago we had a joint sitting in this place and we listened to the Premier make an apology to those people that have been affected by that and to those people and those families that have been affected by some of the absolute atrocities that we saw in state care over decades in this state. It is an absolutely fantastic government business program this week, as it always is, and I cannot wait to debate the things at hand.

David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (12:55): I rise to oppose the government business program and note today that members of Parliament have been gagged from representing their constituency. This Parliament has a longstanding bipartisan support for the Jewish community. The events of 7 October, particularly with the terrorist attack by Hamas, was something that was absolutely –

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Speaker, I ask that you call the member for Caulfield back to the government business program. He is talking about very important matters, but they are, unfortunately, totally unrelated to the government business program. There are other opportunities for him to raise the issues that he wishes to speak to at other points in the Parliament this week.

The SPEAKER: The member for Caulfield has made a point in relation to what is on the government business program and how government business is run. I accept that, but I do ask you to come back to the government business program.

David SOUTHWICK: As I was finishing this important point, the safety of all members in this place and also of the community is paramount. At the moment there are two matters of business on the government business program – two bills. There was meant to be a third bill. That bill has been pulled, and that does give us the opportunity to discuss notices of motion. Today’s motion was going to be about safety for the Jewish community and for all members of Parliament, which this government has silenced.

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Speaker, as the member for Caulfield well knows, the opportunity in the government business program debate is to talk about the bills that are before the house. At other times, Speaker, you have indulged us talking about take-note motions and so on, but the core business is the bills that are to be debated. I note that the member stands on his feet in good faith to talk about important issues, but this is not the time to do it.

The SPEAKER: The member for Caulfield, again, raised an important point; however, I do ask him to come back to the government business program.

David SOUTHWICK: I am certainly talking on the government business program, which is very important in terms of being able to ensure that we debate the matters that are very important to our constituency. As part of all of that, there are two bills that are up for discussion. There is a bill talking about energy prices and the fact that they are continuing to go up and a bill on taxes that are continuing to rise. But we do have a very important issue around safety and the fact that in this particular place we do not feel safe because of what is happening under this government, and I think it is imperative that we have the opportunity to debate that.

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Speaker, once again I think that the member for Caulfield is not listening to your advice, which is that he come back to speak on the government business program. He is suggesting issues that are perhaps more appropriately dealt with by speaking with you directly.

The SPEAKER: Member for Caulfield, I have asked you to come back to the government business program. You have made your point, I think, several times.

David SOUTHWICK: On the point of order, Speaker, the actual point that I was attempting to put forward was particularly about one of the protesters, who has been charged with kidnapping, who has been on the front of Parliament with a Hamas terrorist banner over him, which is a proscribed terrorist organisation, and I was attempting to put forward that that matter be properly investigated for all of our safety. This government is gagging us from allowing us to be able to do that, so I ask that –

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a further point of order, Speaker, again, there are appropriate forums to raise the matters that the member for Caulfield wants to discuss, but this is not it. It is the government business program.

The SPEAKER: The member for Caulfield will come back to the government business program.

David SOUTHWICK: It is clear this government does not care about the safety of us or members of the – (Time expired)

The SPEAKER: The member for Prahran is seeking leave. Is leave granted?

Leave refused.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has raised a very important issue in relation to safety. The government has not provided the opportunity for the chamber and suggested that we can take that up in another way. Can I put on the record that the coalition has on numerous occasions made attempts to approach the government to discuss these issues, formally and in writing, and has not even received an acknowledgement. We have no other form than to try and raise it in this place.

The SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Assembly divided on motion:

Ayes (52): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Eden Foster, Matt Fregon, 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 (30): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, 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.