Tuesday, 18 June 2024
Business of the house
Program
Business of the house
Program
Debate resumed.
Ella GEORGE (Lara) (14:57): I am very pleased to continue with my remarks today. Before the interruption and before question time, I was speaking about the take-note motion on the state budget. I would like to reiterate that I do not feel gagged. I have a full 15 minutes in which I am very pleased to be making a contribution about the benefits of this year’s state budget to the electorate of Lara. But perhaps members on the other side will feel gagged later on this week when they have to get up on their feet and speak about the nuclear motion that is before this house. No doubt we will hear a cheer and a stanza or two from members opposite in support of the dangerous, superfluous nuclear energy policy, promoted by their federal leader, in beautiful parts of this state, like Anglesea. While those on the other side soliloquise on the merits of unsafe, dangerous nuclear energy, on this side we are getting on with delivering what Victorians really want. We are not pushing nuclear, we are investing in clean, green, renewable energy. This week you will hear from government members in complete and total opposition to nuclear power in any place in this state and in any form in this state. I have seen the maps that show the impact of what will happen if there is a nuclear disaster in Anglesea, which has been proposed as a potential nuclear site.
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, on relevance, at the end of the day we are on the government business program, and I am not sure what this is.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Ella GEORGE: I thank the member for Brighton for seeking some clarity. I was speaking about the nuclear power motion which will be debated in this place this week and as such is part of the government business program. Like I said, I have seen the maps that show the impact of a nuclear disaster in Anglesea. It would be devastating for my community and for the entire Geelong community, and I stand firmly against nuclear power. I look forward to making further contribution to debate in this place over the course of the week. I commend the government business program to the house.
Jade BENHAM (Mildura) (14:59): It does give me some pleasure to rise to speak about the government business program this week, although it seems like it is quite light on, which is why we are opposing the government business program. It seems that with the winter break looming – and I have heard the phrase ‘Winter is coming’ uttered a few times from the other side already today; winter is well and truly here – we are limping towards the finish line as far as government business goes.
I actually look forward to debating the nuclear motion later in the week and, rather than scare tactics, actually presenting some facts, because it is something that I do have quite a strong interest in – and not only that but other forms of energy, like hydrogen. This week I have spoken to some of the people involved in the hydrogen industry. I did not know there were so many colours involved in hydrogen, but there are. That is something interesting, so I look forward to that debate.
It is actually a pleasure to have had the 24 visitors from the Northern Mallee Leaders Program in the gallery earlier today. It was great to see them here in Parliament learning from and hearing from all sorts of speakers. In fact the Speaker is presenting to them. We had the Minister for Agriculture earlier.
Jade BENHAM: It would be. It certainly would be, but it is great to have them in Parliament today.
We will be debating the Justice Legislation Amendment (Integrity, Defamation and Other Matters) Bill 2024 – eventually; I mean, it is 3 o’clock – an omnibus bill, and this is one thing. I talk about going into consideration in detail often, and this is one of those. Omnibus bills should be considered in detail, shouldn’t they? Just giving that sort of respect by going through them one at a time would be good. With two bills being debated in this place, on the notice paper we have item 14, ‘Youth violence in the Sunraysia district’; wouldn’t that be better to debate? It is very topical at the moment. With the justice legislation announcements from the government, wouldn’t we be better served by actually solving some immediate problems like by debating youth violence, particularly the petition that I presented on 5 March? Wouldn’t time be better spent debating bills that actually can affect the day-to-day lives of not only people living in Mildura but all Victorians? We know this is affecting all Victorians.
If we talk about the other motions, we have got the take-note motion on the budget, and the member for Lara mentioned that she did not feel gagged. Well, I know that there are several members on our side that absolutely do feel gagged. They do not get to have another say on the budget, even though over the last few weeks extra little bits of detail have filtered through. So of course they want to have another go, and to say that we cannot now – of course they feel gagged. I do not think that it is right for others to say that we should not feel a certain way. I think that is kind of inappropriate. The take-note motion on the budget will be interesting because we do have a list of speakers, particularly from the Nats, that are ready to go. But those that have already spoken on the budget would certainly like another crack at it, given the things that have come to light in the last few days.
With the amount of motions on the notice paper, clearly there are many, many issues and topics for members throughout the entire state that the government professes to govern for which need to be addressed. We are put in this place to do a job, and that is to represent our communities. Yes, we can ask questions and we can do things that way and get things on the notice paper, but until we can actually debate properly in this place, which is what we are elected to do, then of course we feel like we are not serving our communities in full, because the government will not let us. That is why we are opposing the government business program.
Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (15:04): I am not angry, I am just disappointed and sad that the opposition will not be supporting the government business program.
Members interjecting.
Paul EDBROOKE: You might need them later. But I am a bit confused about the reasons why, because we just heard that the government business program was a bit light on, but before that we heard that the opposition were not supporting the government business program because there was no consideration in detail for the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024. I have got cause to question whether consideration in detail was actually requested by the opposition, because that certainly is not what I have heard. Those others over there might have emancipated themselves from reality, but certainly –
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, just on relevance and to assist the house, it was done in writing, which the Leader of the House rang me to respond to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am not sure that is a point of order. The member to continue on the government business program.
Paul EDBROOKE: Thank you for that. Just to explain the swooning on the steps this morning of people yarn bombing, which is a form of activism, it was actually the deafblind association. It is Deafblind Awareness Week next week. We hope everyone can become part of that. It is a good cause.
On with my sonnet, I guess. The Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024 is obviously a key piece of this government business program. Like everyone on this side of the house and hopefully many people on the opposite side of the house and on the crossbenches, I truly believe that everyone deserves a safe workplace. Everyone deserves a workplace where they can work in safety, they can work in harmony with people and they do not have to put up with bad behaviour. This Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill, I think, goes a long way to ensuring that people will have a safe workplace and people will have a reporting system. This is a workplace unlike any other, but still there are no excuses for not having that reporting mechanism in place. We have seen at a federal level how things have played out with the infamous inquiry up there. We certainly want to make sure we do our bit down here. We have also got the Justice Legislation Amendment (Integrity, Defamation and Other Matters) Bill 2024, which I know people on this side of the house are absolutely chomping at the bit to get into.
We have heard a little bit about the budget take-note motion and people being gagged. Certainly people on this side of the room are not saying they have been gagged at all. People on this side of the room are smart enough and intelligent enough to have one bite at the cherry and get what they need to say out on behalf of their community in the 15 minutes allocated, and they have done it very, very well.
I should note the member for Benambra too. He spoke very well on the condolence motion for Mr Lou Lieberman MP. It sounds like this former MP and minister lived a full life and did an incredible amount for his community, so it was very appropriate that the house noted that and sent our condolences to his family.
Can I just say that I have spoken on the budget take-note motion. Whether it be the sports clubs in Frankston, the hospital that is going ahead or the schools and car parks, I share a love of building my community. I know people on this side of the house do too, and they would want to speak on that. They are in strong agreement on this side of the house in voting through the government business program as it is without any alterations.
Those on the other side can self-soothe about nuclear energy and it not being harmful to our environment, but debating that in this house is something that I think we need to do. We need to have it on the table in black and white who supports various forms of energy. Nuclear energy is only 10 per cent of energy across our world, and there is a reason for that. I think it is very important that we take the time in this chamber to ensure that people’s opinions can be heard, that people’s opinions are heard in their communities and that people can rule out that they might be for nuclear energy in their community as well. I think it is very important to allow that time in this government business program. With that, I will leave my remarks there, but obviously I stand in strong support of the government business program this week.
Wayne FARNHAM (Narracan) (15:09): I am pleased to rise today to speak on the government business program. What I will say from the start is the condolence motion here today for the Honourable Lou Lieberman, spoken on by all the leaders in this chamber, was very respectful, and I think that is a great tribute to a gentleman who gave his service to Victoria and obviously a lot of years in the Victorian Parliament and the federal Parliament for his community up there in Benambra.
But we do oppose this government business program today because it is very light on – quite light on in fact. We have only got two bills to talk about, and I think everyone is just getting a little bit tired and a little bit puffed out. The member for Frankston is getting sad, so he obviously needs a packet of Tim Tams and some tissues just to brighten his day up. He needs a bit of a hug and a cuddle. He is waiting for that winter break. We have got some tissues for you here, do not worry, member for Frankston. I will give you a cuddle out the back later.
Members interjecting.
Wayne FARNHAM: Look, he is just upset.
Members interjecting.
Wayne FARNHAM: Stop it. We are a bit light on in the business program this week. There are only two bills the government actually want to debate. The member for Malvern did ask for consideration in detail on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Integrity, Defamation and Other Matters) Bill 2024, and I do not see why we will not do that. The last time we had a consideration in detail was on the WorkCover bill.
Wayne FARNHAM: And the only time. The minister sat there, and it was good for Victoria to have that consideration in detail. I will give that minister credit that he had the courage to do a consideration in detail. I do not know why the relevant minister here does not have the courage to do that consideration in detail, because then we would really get into the guts of the bill, get to debate it and get questions answered that we may not be entirely sure about. Also, for the minister points may be raised that they had not considered. So I think it is actually a very good idea, and I think the government should rethink doing the consideration in detail. I know the member for Malvern has put in an enormous amount of work on these bills. He had a file this thick on it; he has done an enormous amount of work.
We are looking forward to the take-note motion. A lot of us on this side of the chamber have not spoken on the budget yet. I am very much looking forward to speaking on the budget, as a lot of the budget affected my community and the underfunding of schools and hospitals in my community really does need to be discussed in this chamber so my community can maybe get some answers from government, which I doubt very much they will. There are a lot of things in the budget that affect regional Victoria. We heard it from the Leader of the Nationals when he talked about investment in infrastructure, which is $96 billion, and regional Victoria only got $2 billion. I cannot wait to talk about that on the take-note motion.
The only two bills that are going to be debated this week are the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024 and the Justice Legislation Amendment (Integrity, Defamation and Other Matters) Bill. The Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill is something that I am looking forward to debating, because I think this bill has probably come about because of the behaviour of the government. It is really that simple – you have had to introduce a bill to curb your behaviour. This government has been referred to IBAC more times than any previous government, and the recommendations that have come out of Operation Watts are why these bills are in here this week. I find it a little bit ironic that we are introducing bills to curb the government’s behaviour. That is what these bills are about, and that is what they are going to be debated on later on in the week. So I do look forward to that. But there are other things we could be talking about in this chamber this week. I mean, we have a crisis in housing, we have a crisis in education and we have a crisis in health, and it would have been good to see some bills come in and to debate those this week as well.
Assembly divided on motion:
Ayes (49): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Eden Foster, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, 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 (25): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Jess Wilson
Motion agreed to.