Tuesday, 30 April 2024


Bills

National Energy Retail Law (Victoria) Bill 2024


James NEWBURY, Lauren KATHAGE, Peter WALSH, Nina TAYLOR, David SOUTHWICK

Bills

National Energy Retail Law (Victoria) Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Lily D’Ambrosio:

That this bill be now read a second time.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (13:38): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

I am moving that the debate be adjourned because what we have seen today is an outrageous abuse of this place whereby the government did not provide an opportunity for members to be heard, and we must stop government business now to debate that matter.

We must provide members in this place with an opportunity to speak on behalf of their communities. That is what this chamber is about. It is a place where every member can come in, having been elected, and speak for their community. What we saw today was the government deny any member from the non-government benches an opportunity to put a notice of motion verbally in the chamber, and we must debate that matter. We need to urgently debate the fact that non-government members must be provided with an opportunity to debate issues of importance. We cannot have a circumstance where a government uses its numbers to gag every member that is on the non-government benches. It is an outrageous proposition. The only time we have seen something similar to this was in the dark days of Peter Batchelor. We need to debate this now. We need to debate this today.

There is no greater function of this place than for members to be provided an opportunity to speak. There is no part of your job in this place more core than to speak on behalf of your community. To have the government not allow that requires an urgent debate, so the coalition has moved to immediately and effectively suspend the matters that the government is proposing to allow the debate on those matters to be adjourned so that we can debate these more urgent matters. There is no matter more urgent than for a member to be provided a voice in this place. Listening to the government deny members an opportunity to even speak for a moment shows that the government has reached a very dark place. When you look at the standing orders which I think would inform the debate, we know that standing order 104 provides a member with the opportunity to speak – and so it should. It is beyond any comprehension that a government could deny a member an opportunity to put forward a proposition before that proposition is put. How do you know what you are saying no to until you hear it, unless you stand against non-government members putting forward any proposition? We must debate that matter immediately and with urgency.

I would say that this is of such urgency that I suspect that this will be a preoccupation of the Parliament this week, because we cannot have a Parliament that allows a government to so outrageously gag any member from having an opportunity to speak, as we saw today. I have moved that the debate be adjourned on an alternative matter and that we have a debate on these issues now, that we look to the standing orders and what they should provide and that we provide an opportunity for debate to consider these matters. And then I would of course hope that we can convince the government to admit the error of their ways and not need to go to a division on it – if the government were to stand for what they did earlier – to force them to divide against the proposition to allow a debate so that members could have a voice. You would not see events like we saw earlier today in the other place, because the crossbench would not allow it. To know that the government is now in such an arrogant frame of mind that it would not allow members in this place to speak is deeply concerning, and it should concern every Victorian. The coalition has moved that the debate be adjourned so that we can with greater urgency provide an opportunity to ensure that all members have an opportunity to speak, as they have been elected to do.

Lauren KATHAGE (Yan Yean) (13:43): The urgency with which the member for Brighton speaks is correct – the urgency of our government, who have important work to get on with in this place. Once again our important work is being slowed down and thwarted by what is simply a stunt by those opposite. What is so urgent –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, this is a very, very serious motion, and I would ask you to bring the member back to the very serious motion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order as yet. The member to continue on the procedural debate.

Lauren KATHAGE: As I was saying, we on this side are disappointed to have an interruption such as this to what is the important work of this chamber this week. That is where the real urgency is. The member for Brighton said that they have things that they want to stand up and say. Well, we stand up on this side. We stand up and speak for Victorians. We stand up and seek to pass the legislation this week that they have voted for. This urgent work, which we are standing up for Victorians on, is around the National Energy Retail Law (Victoria) Bill 2024, which is an important bill that we want to discuss and progress this week.

It is part of the broader suite of bills that have been debated in this place, because that is the sense of urgency – the sense of urgency to turn to renewable energy in the context of climate change and in the context of dirty, expensive power that we are replacing with cheaper, greener power. That is where the urgency is. The member for Brighton calls it ‘deeply concerning’, and I am deeply concerned by their attempts to thwart our important work. But do you know what I would be willing to hear them stand up and speak about? Do you know what probably a lot of Victorians would be happy and interested to hear about when they interrupt the important business of this place? I would like to know where they are planning to put the nuclear power plants. That is what we would be interested in hearing them stand up about. And where are they going to put the waste? We see that in the other place a member of their party has started the nuclear youth internship program –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, this is an important procedural motion. I do not know what the member is debating, but it is certainly not the motion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member had strayed from the procedural motion, and I ask her to come back to it.

Lauren KATHAGE: Thank you, Deputy Speaker, for your guidance. We are looking also for guidance from those opposite when they talk about what is urgent, when they talk about deeply concerning topics and when they talk about things that they want to stand up and talk about. Tell us what we really want to know and what the people of Victoria really want to know. What are their secret plans for nuclear energy in Victoria? Because God forbid –

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

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The procedural debate is about the potential adjournment of the matter in government business, and I ask the member to come back and stay within the bounds of the reasons for its adjournment or otherwise.

Lauren KATHAGE: I apologise for that slight meltdown. What we are discussing this week in this place and what is important are the important reforms that we are seeing in terms of the new stamp duty and the industrial and commercial tax reforms. We are making real improvements for business. We have seen recently that Victoria has the highest investment of any jurisdiction in Australia in 2023. We need to continue this work – that is what is urgent. We need to keep up this important work, which is making investment attractive in Victoria and which is leading to the amazing job figures that we have in Victoria. That is what we want to stand up and talk about – that is what is urgent. What is deeply concerning to me – truly, deeply concerning and not the faux concern of the member for Brighton – is that we are allowed to get on and do the business that we were elected to do.

Peter WALSH (Murray Plains) (13:48): I rise to support the member for Brighton’s motion that this debate be adjourned so that we as members for our communities have the opportunity to raise the issues that we want to raise in this Parliament. I do not know what the Leader of the House is frightened of. How can the Leader of the House be frightened of a couple of notices of motion? We come here to represent our people, and they feel that they have been spoken for if we can stand up in this place and raise issues. It may not be debated – it most likely will never be debated if they are notices of motion – but we have the opportunity to raise issues on behalf of our community that are of concern to them. I do not know why the Leader of the House is afraid of someone moving a notice of motion. Is there a ghost in the closet somewhere that is going to cause some huge issue because someone on this side of the house brings forward a notice of motion? I just do not get what the Leader of the House is frightened of.

One of the important issues – if I could speak on the member of Caulfield’s behalf, which he will do well himself as well – is about raising safety issues in this place. I think that the whole system in this Parliament needs a re-examination of safety. There are people raising concerns, particularly about the demonstrators on the front of the Parliament steps. Previously the rule was that the lower steps were part of the footpath and people could demonstrate there, but once you came up onto the flat area before you get to the higher steps, people were not allowed to demonstrate there at all. There used to be police across there that stopped demonstrators coming up onto the steps. Now you have got demonstrators all the way up, actually under the annexe at the front of the Parliament, and people are having to walk through that.

Tragically, if you look at the UK, we have had three MPs killed over there and issues around MPs being attacked. We are not being protected well enough in this place. As I understand it, it is a ruling of the Presiding Officers that the PSOs do not stop the protesters coming right up to the top of the steps. They are the sorts of issues that we would like to be able to raise in this place on our own behalf and on behalf of the public that come to this Parliament. We saw the tragic events in Sydney, at the Bondi shopping centre. We saw the tragic event of the bishop in western Sydney that was stabbed in his own church. We do not want to get to the situation in this Parliament where we have to have an injury or fatality before something is done about the safety of this place.

They are the sorts of issues that we want to raise when we stand up in here. I do not know why the Leader of the House is against us raising those sorts of issues, because I would have thought the safety of the parliamentarians in here, the safety of all the staff that are in here and the safety of the public that are coming to watch us exercise our duties on behalf of our community should be paramount to this place, and they are the sorts of issues that we want to raise in here.

As I understand it, there are some from our side of politics who have written to the Premier twice about this and have had no response. No response at all – not even an acknowledgement of the letters that have been sent. What is wrong with raising those issues in this Parliament? That is what the Parliament is for. We are the green house under the Westminster system. We are the village green, we are here to talk on behalf of the people that send us along here, and we are being gagged from doing that. It is an absolute disgrace. It is a travesty of the Westminster system of freedom of speech that the Leader of the House just says no and no-one can speak. That means that on behalf of my community, which was severely disadvantaged by the October 2022 floods, I can no longer stand up and move a notice of motion supporting my community. It means some of the bushfire-affected communities of my colleague in Gippsland East – he can no longer stand up and speak on behalf of his community about bushfire issues. It is uncomfortable for the government. They have not responded to the bushfire recovery well, they have not responded to the flood recovery well, so it is uncomfortable that we move a notice of motion that they are not doing their job, and they just say no. How is that democracy?

In all the years that I have been here – and there are a few – I have never seen us be shut down as a house as much as I have seen it today. It is a disgrace, and that is why I support the member for Brighton’s motion that the debate be adjourned and that we debate the issues that are important for us in this house. It is about the safety of everyone that comes into this building. Everything has gotten very, very lax and very laissez faire around how people move around this place. I do not want to make it too rigid, but I do not want to see someone hurt. I do not want to see a fatality in this place before the government and the Parliament act.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (13:53): I think the only fear that there would be on this side is of the desperate lack of vision and policy on the side of the opposition and their deep resistance to clean energy.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, this clearly has nothing to do with the procedural debate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member had just started her contribution, and the previous member was given some room.

Nina TAYLOR: I did hear the word ‘fear’ raised a number of times. I thought it was only apt and appropriate to be able to address that particular issue that was raised. I believe that I addressed it in a way that is fit for the chamber.

I would say that what is really important of course is energy reform, a continuation of energy reform, which we have proudly led in Victoria and continue to lead on all fronts. When you are looking at affordability, when you are looking at a transition to a cleaner energy future for the benefit of all Victorians and making sure that power is put back in the hands of Victorians at the same time – and important tax reform as well – I would hope that the opposition are not resistant to debating such important issues, although they do seem on any occasion when we do raise the issue of energy reform to default to a sincere love of and affection for nuclear energy. That tends to be their default.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I would ask that you bring the member back to the motion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member to continue on the procedural motion.

Nina TAYLOR: What I would say is I would take the opposition seriously on the matters that they are bringing before the chamber if we did see on any occasion any kind of vision or serious policy, and unfortunately we do not see that. We see consistently just opposition for the sake of it, which –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, this clearly is not a debate on the motion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would appreciate if the member would revolve her comments around the importance of the procedural debate and the question put.

Nina TAYLOR: Thank you, learned Deputy Speaker, for your considered advice. What I was merely suggesting is that this is nothing other than a stunt. We have important work to do, and I think we can agree on all sides of the chamber that a continuation of energy reform is very important for our state as is taxation reform for Victorian businesses. Of course the chamber will enable considered and robust debate on these matters for all who choose to speak during the parliamentary sessions that we have and during the government business program that we have for the week ahead accordingly and adhering to the tenor of this procedural motion. I would pray to the chamber to continue with the very important government business program for the betterment of all Victorians, in particular and none the least energy reform and taxation reform for Victorian businesses. Of course this will facilitate the opposition and others to proffer other points of view on the particular legislation before the chamber, as is their premise to do so. Should they wish to do so, we welcome that debate, but let us get on with the government business program. Let us debate these important reforms for the benefit of fellow Victorians.

David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (13:57): I rise to support the member for Brighton in adjourning the debate to talk about matters that are really important to all of this house. There have been times in this chamber where we have heard speeches from all sides of Parliament; some we have agreed with and some we have disagreed with, but we have still had the ability to have them heard. Every single member that comes into this chamber comes here to represent their constituency and to fight for their constituency. I cannot think of anything more important at the moment than safety – safety for those members of Parliament, safety for the staff, safety for the journalists that work here, safety for the visitors that come here to this Parliament. At the moment we have a real issue of safety in this precinct, such an issue that I attempted to raise a notice of motion today, and I was gagged. It was absolutely imperative that that motion be heard because it is on an issue that compromises safety for all of us.

Yesterday we had a protester that came here dressed up in Hamas terrorist garb, which is a proscribed terrorist organisation. He had that here in the Parliament precinct, and that was an issue that compromised safety. We are seeing that these protesters, that started outside of the precinct, have crept their way right up to the top, so that even when we had a press conference those protesters were there at that time. We have students that will not come to the building because of the issue of these protesters. I have written to the Speaker, I have written to the Presiding Officers, and we have had no resolve in this particular matter. I have been told it is a security issue; security says it is a Presiding Officers issue. Why do we have to wait until something happens? It is absolutely imperative that we see something happen to ensure we can all feel safe.

We saw the events in Sydney unfold. We have seen an increased escalation of these protesters, a desperate attempt to try and get their point heard, and again that is something that certainly compromises all of us in how we feel at the moment. I say to you that when these matters are so important to be heard, the last thing that we should have from this government is a gag on us, because this chamber is the place where we need to bring these matters to the Parliament.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.