Thursday, 15 August 2024
Bills
Subordinate Legislation and Administrative Arrangements Amendment Bill 2024
Bills
Subordinate Legislation and Administrative Arrangements Amendment Bill 2024
Second reading
Debate resumed on motion of Colin Brooks:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Michael O’BRIEN (Malvern) (10:22): I have been waiting all week to speak on this bill. I think this is the fifth piece of legislation that I have had to speak on this week. We have had the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024, we have had the State Civil Liability (Police Informants) Bill 2024, we have had the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024 coming down from the other place and of course we have the matter to deal with on the Youth Justice Bill 2024. It would be nice if I got paid by the bill this week, but I do not think that is going to happen.
The Subordinate Legislation and Administrative Arrangements Amendment Bill 2024 could probably best be described as a legislative tidy-up. Its purpose is to make miscellaneous amendments to the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994, the Administrative Arrangements Act 1983 and as a consequence amendments to the Monetary Units Act 2004. There is a default commencement date of 1 March 2025, except for clause 17, which has a default commencement date of 18 June 2025.
In terms of examining some of the more notable aspects of this bill, it is interesting that the bill does seem to try and update some administrative arrangements under the Subordinate Legislation Act to bring it into the 21st century. For example, clause 17 would require the government printer to ensure that a physical copy of a statutory rule can be purchased online. I do not know that there are that many government bookshops around – there may be one that still exists or maybe not – but I think that most people probably get their statutory rules, their legislation and their regulations off the internet. So I think it is quite sensible to provide that the government printer must ensure that a physical copy can be purchased online for those who wish to have the hard copy.
The bill allows for a minister to consult with impacted public sector body heads when preparing statutory rules and legislative instruments requiring consultation. Again, you would think that that is a fairly commonsense provision. I am not quite sure why there is a statutory need to provide for it. I do not think there is a law that would prohibit a minister from consulting with impacted public sector body heads in those circumstances, but the government clearly thinks that there is a need to make that explicit in legislation, which is what this bill will do.
There are some broader matters which I will turn to imminently, but the bill does make some changes in relation to the Administrative Arrangements Act 1983, and clause 29 inserts new sections 8, 9 and 10 into that act. In effect it allows for the creation of a consolidated administrative arrangements order. This is intended to make it easier for department and agency staff to find information on administrative changes and arrangements, including by allowing the secretary to publish an AAO consolidated version on the department’s internet site.
I suppose this allows me the opportunity to talk about what in government and the public sector we call MOGs – machinery-of-government changes – and over the last 10 years there have been a lot of MOGs under the Andrews and Allan Labor governments. We have seen departments created, we have seen departments taken down, we have seen departments merged and we have seen departments abolished. We have seen statutory agencies created, statutory agencies merged and statutory agencies abolished. We have seen all sorts of administrative arrangements, and for what purpose? Nothing that particularly seems to benefit the poor old taxpaying member of the public.
We know we have got problems because of this Labor government’s management or mismanagement of our health system and our hospitals. We know that public hospitals are not meeting targets. We know that ambulances are stuck ramping. We know that paramedics are stuck playing handmaiden to patients on trolleys when they should be out on the road looking after people who need care, and this government’s great initiative is to create another statutory authority, create another agency – Hospitals Victoria, this one is called. What on earth is Hospitals Victoria going to do that a government that had its wits about it and a plan could not have already done under existing administrative arrangements? That is my question.
The government can have all the machinery-of-government changes that it likes, but it really seems to be shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic rather than actually fixing problems. If the government could point to problems that would be fixed by machinery-of-government changes or would be enhanced by the changes provided in this bill, I would say fine, but I think we just see new agencies, authorities and departments created. We get lots of new people with different titles, certainly lots of communications, lots of spin doctors – no doubt about that – lots of new letterhead, new businesses cards, new this and new that, but how does this benefit the public? I do not know that it does.
I understand when a new government come in after an election and they take office that they want to set things up in a way which suits the style of the government they intend to be. I might disagree with the substance, but I do not disagree with the form of a new government being elected, as the Labor government was in 2014, and deciding to shake up departments, shake up agencies and shake up statutory authorities to reflect its philosophy of government. That is entirely understandable and proper, as long as money is not wasted in that process. But over 10 years we have seen this government go from megadepartments – and I cannot even remember all the letters in the acronym, but I think it was employment, jobs –
Michael O’BRIEN: DEDJTR, thank you, Minister – DEDJTR, one of the super departments.
Michael O’BRIEN: It was certainly epic in scale and scope if not in performance, Minister.
Michael O’BRIEN: It was very epic in cost, thank you, member for Ovens Valley. But of course DEDJTR is no more. DEDJTR is dead, you might say. And why is that? Because it was not working. This government has come into office, created megadepartments – which probably suited the then Premier’s personality and governance style of making as few phone calls as possible to as few people as possible to tell them what they had to do – and now of course we see it is a far more libertarian view, if you like, of more departments, more agencies and more statutory authorities. ‘A problem appears in the newspaper? We’ll create a new agency to deal with that.’ Now of course I think we are getting to the opposite problem: instead of having too few departments, megadepartments with – was it 23 deputy secretaries that DEDJTR had, Minister? It was something like that. It was a ridiculous amount of deputy secretaries for the one department. Instead of that we now have a situation where we have too many, arguably too diffuse a number of departments, agencies and authorities, because of course when everyone is responsible, no-one is responsible. There has to be a happy medium.
I think after 10 years this government is still trying to find the right line and length. This government is still trying find the right structure for running an effective government. I do not think it has done that in 10 years. It is still trying, and I am assuming that the measures in this bill are part of that attempt. But I would urge the government to perhaps be less focused on the mechanics and more focused on the outcomes. That is what Victorians want; that is what Victorians vote for. It is what they pay their taxes for, not to see sandcastles built in the public sector only to be squashed and then rebuilt in a different way. That does not help anybody except for those who own stationery shops and business card printers.
This bill makes changes to the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994, including allowing the Governor in Council to make regulations exempting statutory rules from the application of the act for a specified time not exceeding 12 months. This will in effect extend the application of an existing exemption from regulatory impact statement processes that only apply to legislative instruments or to statutory rules provided that the instrument or rule – this is the key point, and this is where I am going to get some of my material for the next few minutes, I will put you on notice now – is responding to a public emergency, urgent public health or safety issue or damage to the environment, resource sustainability or the economy. That is in clause 9 of the bill.
I have noticed that the government’s drafting style in legislation now includes putting in examples, which is something that I think is a relatively modern innovation when it comes to statutory drafting. Normally clauses in statutes are supposed to speak for themselves, but the government now seems to believe that those who read the acts need to be given examples in the statute to explain how they are supposed to work. I would have thought that perhaps clearer drafting in the first place would mean you do not need to provide examples, but the government has decided to go down this path.
Clause 23 includes this under the heading ‘Example’:
Regulations might be made which exempt a specific class of statutory rule from the application of this Act during a state of disaster declared under the Emergency Management Act 1986, a pandemic declaration under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 or a national emergency under the National Emergency Declaration Act 2020 of the Commonwealth.
So the government seeks to implement this change, which would potentially provide for less scrutiny, for the avoidance of certain administrative processes, in relation to pandemic declarations under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008. Can I say I have serious concerns that after the experience of Victoria and Victorians under the heel of this government during the pandemic that we experienced there should be anything that is amounting to less scrutiny or less obligations to be transparent on the part of this government. No Victorian who lived in this state during the time of the pandemic and those declarations under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act will ever forget the way in which that power was used and abused by the government – by people working in the name of the government and then ultimately by the government itself when the government moved to make sure that the Minister for Health would in fact be the party signing off on various declarations and measures.
Who will ever forget the banning of playgrounds? Gee, that did so much for public health, didn’t it! Stopping kids locked up in their homes from going to playgrounds; didn’t we save them a lot! I am assuming that Labor members forget that not everyone has got a big backyard. Maybe there are kids who live in flats and apartments who do not have backyards, whose only opportunity for recreation is to get down to the local playground. But no, the government decided to ban playgrounds under its pandemic laws – absolutely disgraceful. Of course we know this was not aimed at kids. We know this was aimed at those evil people known as parents – parents who were daring to bring their kids to playgrounds and then maybe have a chat with other parents while their kids were playing. What an outrageous attack on public health that was! Imagine parents wanting to have a chat to each other while their kids are playing at a playground, when they are cooped up in their homes for 23 hours a day! What a disgraceful undermining of public health by those evil parents and those evil toddlers wanting to go the playground!
This is exactly why we have very little truck with this government trying to have any less scrutiny over the use of pandemic powers than already exists. And it is very much to the shame not only of the government but can I say also of the crossbench members of the other place at that time who waved through these extraordinary and unwarranted measures to enable bureaucrats and ministers for health to ban playgrounds. That sort of thing is just absolutely appalling. Of course that was not all. We saw police harassing elderly people sitting on park benches in the park because you were only allowed out to exercise – you were not allowed to rest. You were not allowed to rest if you went to a park. It did not matter if you walked around and you were feeling a little bit hot and you needed to take a breather – no, no, you could only exercise. So you had police out there overzealously policing. This is not a slight on the vast majority of police, who did an exceptional job – many of whom and some of whom I spoke to hated the job that they had been given by the government to try and enforce draconian and appalling powers under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008. I felt sorry for the good police officers, which were the vast, vast majority of them, who hated the job that they had been given. But there were regrettably a few who took to it with zealousness. The same ones –
Michael O’BRIEN: Well, member for Albert Park, if you want to stand up and justify the police harassing old people sitting on park benches during the pandemic, good luck to you. Then let us go out and see where Victorians stand on that. It was legal for a person to sit there with their family member and have dinner across the dinner table, but then we saw a learner driver and her mother getting fined by police because they were in the same car. Unbelievable. That may have been subsequently withdrawn, but it just goes to show you that the sorts of powers that were used and abused by this government were disgraceful.
And what was the end result? Did we have the lowest mortality in the country? No, we had the highest mortality in the country. Who will ever forget hotel quarantine – 801 deaths because of this government’s absolute incompetence. And then the absolute whitewashing known as the Coate inquiry and a Premier who could not remember, who could not recall, whose memory was exhausted, over 20 times. For a man who seemed to be across the detail on everything, he had a very convenient memory lapse when it mattered – before the Coate inquiry – didn’t he. So we make no apology for casting a very cynical eye at aspects of this bill, because anything which lessens scrutiny on this government in the exercise of extreme powers should be resisted.
Of course we all remember how all those declarations and powers were health-based. We remember that the curfew was in place to keep us all safe apparently, even though the Chief Commissioner of Police said, ‘I didn’t ask for it,’ and even though the chief health officer said, ‘I didn’t ask for it.’ No, it was an exercise of political power. It was not a medical decision. It was not a law and order decision. It was an exercise of political power by a Premier and a government, supported by a cowardly backbench who were happy to keep Victorians locked up in their homes.
What happened when a brave restaurateur, a small business owner, a single mum from down peninsula way decided to take the curfew on and challenged it in the Supreme Court? Well, the Sunday before the case started the Premier stood up, held a press conference and said, ‘Guess what, the curfew’s ended. No more curfew.’ What a coincidence, Deidre Chambers. Just as the case was about to go to court, the Premier stood up and said, ‘We’re bringing forward the end of the curfew.’ What a surprise. Of course this was not based on politics – no. This was all based on public health advice, I am sure. Yes, right. If you believe that, I have got a bridge over Sydney Harbour to sell you.
We saw the worst abuses of political power by the government, and they led to the worst outcomes. We had the worst mortality of any state in the country, the worst lockdowns of any state in the country, the most economic damage and the most psychological damage.
Members interjecting.
Michael O’BRIEN: I am glad members opposite think it is funny, because I still speak to parents who cannot get their kids into child psychologists to deal with the trauma that they endured during those dark, dark days, weeks, months and years. There is ongoing trauma to children in this state that is going to be with them for life. The decisions of that Andrews–Allan Labor government to lock Victorians up has got such a long tail on it in terms of the damage that it has done. This was all done under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, on which the government is now seeking to actually reduce the level of scrutiny and reduce the level of compliance required by them for declarations made under that act in this bill today. We look forward to the government trying to justify why, given its abysmal performance during the pandemic, with the greatest mortality, greatest lockdowns, greatest financial damage and greatest psychological damage of any state in the country, it should have fewer safeguards and fewer obligations than it already has. I could talk very unhappily for the next 10 minutes about what this government did.
Michael O’BRIEN: Member for Mordialloc, thank you for encouraging me. I will keep going on now. Let us talk about the economic damage that the government’s pandemic declarations did. There is a reason why 50,000 people left this state during those times and have not come back, and there is a reason why we are now seeing the Australian Electoral Commission abolish a seat in Victoria. Our population fled Victoria because of this government’s incompetence and overreaching, overzealous, overbearing and shocking mismanagement of the pandemic. They are the numbers. There is a reason we are losing a federal seat – because our population has dropped relative to other states, because those people could not bear living under the dictatorship of pandemic orders that made no sense and were not based on science, were not based on health advice but were simply based on political control, and incompetent political control at that.
Members interjecting.
Michael O’BRIEN: I am glad that members of the government backbench think this is funny. They think that what they did to Victorians during the pandemic is amusing. Well, let the record show the member for Mordialloc is having a great old chuckle about people leaving this state, about people losing their businesses and about people losing their lives. They think it is funny. We do not think it is funny. We think it is one of the darkest days in this state’s history and this government is responsible for it, because our record was appalling: more debts, more lockdowns, more small businesses crushed, greater debt – a debt that our kids and grandkids will be paying off. And of course it is not all pandemic-related. A fraction of it is pandemic-related, about $30 billion, but there is the whole $188 billion that can be attributed to this Labor government between their pandemic overreach and their sweetheart deals with the CFMEU.
I note that Rod Sims, former ACCC chairman, recently attributed about a 30 per cent increase in costs on Victorian government major projects to this government’s sweetheart deals with the CFMEU, so we know what the real cost is. We have lost population in this state.
How many small businesses die? Well, the member for Mildura lost one of hers. I walk down Glenferrie Road and High Street in my electorate, and there are still so many closed shops that closed down during the pandemic and have not reopened since. Of course they cannot. They had thriving businesses, but they were put out of business by this Labor government through its pandemic declarations and its overreach. Now if you wanted to look at starting something up, look at the land tax you are going to have to pay, look at the regulation and the red tape, which I was reading about only this morning – the worst in the country. The worst taxes, the worst debt, the worst regulation. Gee, Victoria, the place to be – they do not put that on the number plates anymore, do they. There is probably a reason for that.
This government did more than any to massively damage this state not just during the pandemic but on an ongoing basis. That is why we cannot be very supportive of any measure which is going to be making this government less accountable for its use of pandemic powers in the future. This is a government which has demonstrated it cannot be trusted. Look at the bill we were debating here yesterday, the State Civil Liability (Police Informants) Bill 2024, where the government wants to simply pass a law to make itself not liable for bad things it did that hurt people. It wants to make itself not liable for putting away somebody for 12 years in jail who the High Court said should never have been there. It is just an extraordinary use and abuse of power, but that is the motif of this Labor government. They will use naked political power to meet their own objectives, to meet their own ends, and they do not give a damn who gets hurt along the way. They do not care if it is individuals, they do not care if it is families, they do not care if it is small businesses, they do not care if it is the entire state. As long as they and their mates are looked after, that is all they give a damn about. It is a government that has clearly run its course. And the polls would seem to indicate that we are not alone in thinking that, despite the poll denialism of the member for Bentleigh. He was very quick to jump onto Twitter and engage in a bit of poll denialism; we all noted that.
Members interjecting.
Michael O’BRIEN: Our primary vote is not quite up to where I had got it, but we are almost there. We are getting there.
We have slight concerns about the measure in clause 23 of the bill. We would seek assurances from the government that it is not going to be used to reduce any scrutiny on the government in relation to pandemic declarations, because we think that is such a serious matter it deserves greater scrutiny. But beyond that it is not a bill that has anything that is overly objectionable in itself or indeed has anything objectionable in it. As Shadow Attorney-General I have a large legislative workload, which I quite enjoy – you would rather be busy than bored – but I do wonder why, when we have very serious issues confronting this state, the government’s priority is something which is effectively an administrative tidy up like this. And it is not the first time. We also had the Statute Law Revision Bill 2024 earlier this year, which was effectively correcting typos. This government’s legislative program is thin when it matters, but it is bulked out with make work like this bill. I think it says a lot about the government’s political priorities that the government is not dealing with some of the real issues confronting Victoria.
Where is the bill to reduce red tape? It was identified today – in a survey done for the government, by the way – that Victoria has the worst red tape in the country. In fact we know that the government has been provided with policy options by the Department of Treasury and Finance to try and alleviate some of that burden, yet the government has taken no action on it. Why are we debating the Subordinate Legislation and Administrative Arrangements Amendment Bill 2024 instead of the red tape reduction bill? Why aren’t we debating a small business tax relief bill to try and send a message to our small businesses, our greatest employers in this state, that we support them, we love them, we want them to start, we want them to grow, we want them to employ more people, we want them to thrive?
The fact that this bill is such a high priority for this government – off the back, as I say, of the Statute Law Revision Bill, literally correcting typos – says a lot about this government, that after 10 years this is the best the government can do. The best the government can do is administrative tidy-ups instead of tackling the real issues confronting Victoria.
I am not sure why the government has to prioritise these sorts of matters. They are not massively objectionable in themselves, but it does bespeak a government that has lost its policy heart, that does not really have an agenda anymore. It is managing – it is managing down, it is managing poorly and it is trying to deal with crisis after crisis rather than actually having a vision for the state. Sadly that is what we see sometimes with long-term governments, and I think that is exactly where this government is today. You can have all your administrative arrangements and act amendments as much as you like. You can have subordinate legislation act amendments as much as you like. This does not put a single bit of food on the table of somebody who is unemployed.
I note in the latest ABS data that Victoria has the worst unemployment of any state in the country – any state in the country. This bill will not reopen a small business that was closed because of this government’s mismanagement of the pandemic. This bill will not open up a single ambulance to get people off ramping and get those ambulances back on the road. This bill will not reopen a single one of the 43 police stations that have been closed at night by this government this year, including in my community of Malvern.
This bill does nothing to actually improve the welfare of Victorians. It is an administrative tidy-up. It is not necessarily objectionable in itself, but it does speak volumes about this government’s inability to confront the real issues facing the people of Victoria.
Danny PEARSON (Essendon – Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop, Assistant Treasurer, Minister for WorkSafe and the TAC) (10:52): I have just got one question: what did the Statute Law Revision Bill 2024 ever do to the member for Malvern? I mean, really. I loved the Statute Law Revision Bill – honestly. This is an important function of the house. Indeed I think in terms of this bill that is before the house currently, this is part of the engine room of government and of good governance and good legislation. And I think that you have got to make sure you get the basics right and you have got to constantly try to improve the way in which we govern this state, and we constantly update the statute books accordingly.
I do note that clause 10 – and I did not hear the member for Malvern talk about this – refers to the replacement of ‘his or hers’ with ‘the Minister’s’, possessive. Language is important. Language is very important, and I think that the fact that we are moving away from ‘his or hers’ to ‘the Minister’s’ reflects the fact that as a society we have acknowledged that pronouns do count; pronouns are important. Now, those opposite might question that, but I would remind them of the great work of Ludwig Wittgenstein, who did a lot of work in relation to the philosophy of language, and he said:
The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.
You might think, ‘Oh, this is all very curious. How quaint. The minister is again riffing on various matters like this.’ But I think anyone who has read 1984 knows the job that is performed by Winston Smith, and Winston Smith’s job is to look at reducing language as a way of control. And I think that what we are doing here in clause 10 is an act of liberation. This is an act of liberation for all LGBTIQ+ members of our community, because we are saying very clearly and explicitly that you can have a pronoun of ‘they’ and ‘them’ and you can be a minister of the Crown. It might seem esoteric, but it is important. These things do matter, and we have got to make sure that the legislation that we administer in this place is common and reflective and meets the aspirations of the community. It is a really important note.
Just as an aside on language, if you will indulge me briefly, after the Chinese Revolution of 1949, Mao Zedong went to Moscow and talked to Stalin about removing Chinese characters and adopting Roman script as an alternative. Stalin said to Mao, ‘Don’t do it. Stick with what you’ve got, stick with what you’re good at,’ which is quite interesting. You could have had a conversation in Moscow in 1951 which therefore changes the course of history. Imagine if you had Romanised language as the basis of modern Mandarin. It is quite curious.
In relation to this bill, again it comes back to focusing on things that matter. I remember I sat down with Robert Clark, who is a former member for Box Hill. He was not as good as the current member for Box Hill, but nonetheless Robert was always interesting. Robert and I on any given day did not agree on many things, and in this place in my first term of Parliament, in the 58th term, we would often be debating each other on different points. Robert was always in attack, and in those days I tended to be – I would not say a centre halfback – probably a back-pocket player. But I remember saying to Robert, ‘Why is it a fact that so many of the statute books were dated 1958?’ And Robert said to me, ‘You’ve got to understand that every 10 years you would mark up the changes and every 10 years you would then update the statute books accordingly.’ That changed, obviously, post 1958.
Language is important and indeed fonts are important. I recall the fact that Steve Jobs dropped out of university. He was just bumming around California, as you did in the 1970s, and he took up a course in calligraphy and started to do different fonts, experimenting with different fonts. You think, ‘What’s that got to do with the price of fish?’ Well, the point here is that Steve Jobs turned around and, when he started to develop word processors, thought it would be really good to have different font types in relation to his programming.
I have got to say I want it known that I loathe Times New Roman. I despise it. Think about this for a moment: Times New Roman is the font of colonisers. If they were colonising the world and they had access to word processors, it would have been Times New Roman. Times New Roman would have enslaved continents.
Members interjecting.
Danny PEARSON: It is true. I loathe it. For a while there I quite liked Arial Narrow.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am going to thank the member for Ovens Valley for the point of order.
Tim McCurdy: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I know it is a wideranging bill and the member for Malvern was very wideranging. However, he did not stray into the areas that we have gone into now: Mao Zedong and Times New Roman. I would just encourage you to bring the member back to the bill, which is about subordinate legislation and administrative arrangements.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a very wideranging debate, and the member for Malvern did set the agenda somewhat. I would ask the minister to come back to the bill, or at least the duck.
Danny PEARSON: I think it is important in relation to this bill that we are looking at modernising and updating the act. Clause 17(1) of the bill refers to the provision that we can publish statutory rules in a digital format. Again, this is incredibly important as we modernise the statute books and we start to embrace all things digital. This leads to more efficient and more effective forms of governing in this state. I note the member for Malvern was quite dismissive of the bill, but those of us who have been here for a while will understand that from a legislative perspective you always need to make sure that you get those little things right and you do not trip up. That is why I think in terms of this work it is incredibly important to look at modernising and updating the statute books to reflect that.
The bill is quite wideranging, and again I disagree with the member for Malvern’s characterisation. It is not a binary proposition; you need to make sure you do both, that you do the smaller things, such as the Statute Law Revision Bill or indeed the Subordinate Legislation and Administrative Arrangements Amendment Bill 2024 that is before the house, as well as doing the big things, because the two are interlocking – they mesh together – and it is important that they are in harmony. I would also refer again to how important language is and the fact that we need to regularly make sure that we update the statute books to reflect that.
I draw the house’s attention to the amendment of section 8 to refer to a website maintained by the department of the minister administering the Monetary Units Act 2004. Once upon a time you would not have had such an inference in the statute books, but it does reflect the fact that you do have these changes now. Indeed I think there will probably come a point in time when we will start to look at having, for example, not so much websites but apps. Basically we are looking increasingly at improving the user experience of people, and we will be looking at starting to have, for example, apps in future legislation.
Again – I am mindful of time, and I am running out of it – Times New Roman is such a bad font. It is so bad. I much prefer Calibri these days.
Danny PEARSON: Arial I thought was good. I am reminded of the fact that I used to quite like Arial because of Aki Kaurismäki, who is a Finnish film producer who produced Leningrad Cowboys Go America, which is an absolute cracker of a film. The member for Point Cook will appreciate this, because Kaurismäki is a Finn, and the origins of the Finnish language actually came from the Ural Mountains, 8000 to 2000 years before the contemporary era.
Again, like language is important, these bills are important to get right. I note that the member for Malvern was quite dismissive of this bill and the Statute Law Revision Bill, but language is important and I think this is an important step forward in relation to making sure that we reflect the times in which we are operating and we are legislating. I do commend the bill to the house.
Jade BENHAM (Mildura) (11:02): Gee whiz, that was 10 minutes of our lives we will never get back.
Jade BENHAM: This is exactly what I mean by that. While the minister speaks about his loathing for Times New Roman – and just for the record, Century Gothic is my font of choice – there are problems afoot in this state, and we are spending a day debating things like this. As the member for Malvern said in his leading contribution, there is nothing too objectionable in this bill, but it allows for wideranging debate and there are things going on in this state that should perhaps rather have been discussed and debated in this place this week.
I did want to take a short time just to talk about a few things, and one of those things is not fonts, you will be happy to know, Acting Speaker Hamer, because I did notice the Deputy Speaker was having a hard time keeping it together in the chair, which is probably fair enough. The member for Malvern during his contribution was talking about Labor’s mismanagement of the pandemic, which relates to clause 23. Again for the record, clause 23 allows the Governor in Council to make regulations exempting statutory rules from the application of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 for a specified time not exceeding 12 months. This will in effect extend the application of an existing exemption from regulatory impact statement processes. That only applies to legislative instruments or statutory rules provided that the instrument or rule is responding to a public emergency, urgent public health or safety issue or damage to the environment, resources, sustainability or the economy. This relates to the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 and the Emergency Management Act 1986.
Whilst the member for Malvern was speaking earlier he made some references to small business and what the mismanagement of the pandemic did to small business. I am one of the products of that. It affected everyone in different ways, and the lockdowns of course affected people, children, everyone in different ways. But I am going to just give a little account of my recollection of that time in my small business history. I had a small business for 12 years – just. We managed to get another 12 months out of it – I would not even call it post pandemic – during the pandemic. That is ultimately what got me so fired up to get into politics, so I could get on the inside and actually make changes that might help small businesses, having been involved. My parents also run a small business. Luckily for them, they employ people, and their business is structured as such where they received assistance during the pandemic. I was a small business without a bricks-and-mortar location – which is not unusual in this age of the digital nomad – so did not employ anyone. That was part of the business plan when we wrote the business plan. Mind you, it was a five-year business plan originally and we got 12 years out of it, so that is not too bad. It was a plan to not employ people full time from a business management point of view, because we were also a business with a social conscience, understanding that we were there to assist small to medium regional and rural businesses get into the digital world – so digital consulting, social media, websites and all that kind of stuff. We did it at the lowest cost possible, so employing people simply was not an option. We would use freelancers, and the freelance market and entrepreneurship are big business now.
That business model did not serve us very well during the pandemic in setting us up for assistance. The first thing that went was bricks-and-mortar retail shops and food businesses. All of my clients did such an incredible job to pivot whilst the pandemic was happening. We were out in the regions as well, which did not have a case for many, many, many months. Then when the first one came to Shepparton I believe – and I would never hold this against the member for Shepparton –
Jade BENHAM: Yes, correct. Shepparton was the most locked down regional city. We are 6 hours away in tropical north Victoria. One case in Shepparton meant we were locked down, which meant everything. Businesses did a great job to pivot and to keep operating, but when fat needs to be cut from a business’s bottom line, the first thing to go is external resources – things like marketing, digital consulting, things like that. It was tough for me. Luckily I had a husband who was an essential worker, who was growing food. Thank goodness we live on quite a vast open space. Thankfully I did not need to take my kids to a playground. We have 3.5 acres for them to ride around on, so we could still go for our runs and get outside every day, which was very, very lucky for us. I did feel very, very sorry for those inner-city children that could not go to playgrounds, because that would have been heartbreaking. So that was one positive to come out of the pandemic: I got to spend a good six months at home with my children, which I had never had before. But to have one case in regional Victoria originally and then be locked down 6 hours away in Mildura was just incredibly disappointing. We got to the point where we were almost out of it, we were allowed to run a sports carnival – one case, again, 6 hours away somewhere else, locked down. It was horrific.
When it is spoken about in this place about how small businesses did it tough through the pandemic, through the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 and through the Emergency Management Act 1986, people laugh and they mock, and it is condescending from a small business owner’s point of view that only just made it through the pandemic. We were still getting tax bills. We were getting no assistance, but they still wanted their tax paid every quarter. That is tough. It is tough enough out there already, particularly for bricks-and mortar businesses – paying land tax, paying rent, all of their overheads skyrocketing, utilities. Small business in this state is so, so tough. It has not got any better since the pandemic; in fact it has potentially got worse.
In tropical north Victoria, right on the Murray River, we can see people leaving the state – real estate agents included, mind you. It is so hard for them to do business in Victoria they literally just jump over the river into New South Wales. They can still trade in Victoria. I have to drive through outback New South Wales on my way to work every single day; 45 minutes of my trip is through outback New South Wales. The development that is going on there is insane. We currently have a resort being built by Rick Kelly, one of the Kelly brothers, and his family Margaret and John – Trentham Waters Mildura. It is in New South Wales, because it was easier to start development, it was easier to get approvals and it was less tax.
To say that small business did it tough during the pandemic is an incredible understatement, but it has not got any better, it really has not. It is tough out there. So I wanted to give my perspective on small business and what these acts and what this clause mean to small business owners and just implore everyone to have a bit of a broader perspective. The member for Shepparton was also a small business owner, and her husband was a small business owner as well, and it was tough, particularly through regional Victoria, while we were trying to get on with our lives, grow food, grow fibre, all while having to conform to rules that were essentially made for the city.
This bill is not going to reopen those small businesses. It is not going to help with their land tax bill. It is not going to put food on the table of Victorians who are struggling with the cost of living. It is not going to open more hospital beds. We are taking an entire day to make technical changes to acts when in fact we could be making real change, and I said this during my contribution on the government business program earlier this week. Although there is nothing terribly confronting in this bill because it is based on technicalities, we could be working very, very hard for Victorians to actually alleviate the pressures from all angles that Victorian families are facing right now. It is just another example that Labor cannot manage money and could not manage the pandemic, and Victorian families are paying the price.
Bronwyn HALFPENNY (Thomastown) (11:12): Listening to the previous speaker talking on and mocking the bill that we are debating today really just demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the importance of such a bill as this. We are talking about a bill that provides for mechanisms to improve transparency, to improve consultation and also to improve access to information for Victorians. In addition to that, with this talk about small business, during the pandemic the Victorian Labor government, as I understand it, gave the most support out of all the states in Australia to small businesses to help them get through the most difficult global disaster that was happening across the world and assisted as much as possible small businesses, because everybody was doing it tough. We all understand that. No matter what aspect of the community or the economy, it was a difficult time for all of us. But in saying that, it was also a time when this state Labor government provided more support than others.
I had better get back on to the actual legislation, which is the Subordinate Legislation and Administrative Arrangements Amendment Bill 2024. This bill does contain a lot of technical and minor amendments; they do not make huge changes but they do make things work better when it comes to the mechanisms of government. I think this sort of legislation is as important as others. In saying that, I would have to say that I am proud to be a member of a Labor government that really has also introduced some of the most progressive and major change for many years in Victoria, and there is lots of evidence of that. But of course we also need to come up with nuts-and-bolts legislation and make sure that legislation and the way it interacts with Victorians and the public sector is as seamless as possible and as easy to access and understand as possible, and this is what this type of legislation does.
What has been alluded to in the past is that when we are talking about ensuring better access to information, for example, as I think we all know, changing and updating legislation is just as important to reflect the changes in times, the way people go about their business and also technology changes. For example, one of the aspects of this bill is to provide for online access to statutory rules. The government printer is currently required to ensure there are copies of rules that can be purchased from a prescribed bookshop. This bill will modernise the act so that it also provides that such statutory rules can be purchased online as well as at an approved bookshop and that the responsible minister is required to ensure that a copy of the statutory rules is available for inspection without charge. These are all important things to make sure that people are aware of their obligations and also aware of the government’s obligations and how it is that they can go about providing and getting that information.
There are also changes, for example, that allow for the consolidation of the administrative arrangements order that need to be made to make sure that they are made and published, and this addresses departmental and agency feedback that it is complicated to research for information on those changes. So again, it makes it easier for people to access. The bill also makes consequential changes or amendments to the Monetary Units Act 2004, and again this is so important because it means that the annual rate that is published on the Department of Treasury and Finance website is available for people. When there is legislation around fines for breaches of law or whatever, the acts talk about a particular monetary unit or units. But that has to be converted into a dollar amount, and that is what this legislation is talking about – so people do know exactly what it means and how much it will be when they are needing to know that information.
While this bill, as we have all talked about, is not greatly exciting or interesting or anything like that, it is important because it facilitates the flow of government to make sure that we all have legislation and regulations that are as easy to use as possible and as well known as we can have them. Under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 there are provisions to clarify the legislative instruments. Clause 3 of the bill amends the Subordinate Legislation Act to make this act clearer and to apply. So this bill regulates how this legislation is and how it is important that legislative instruments are made and scrutinised. It includes how the public is consulted in the process of making subordinate legislation, because again it is important that the public and Victorians know how they can have input or propose and improve understanding of legislative instruments. This is the sort of stuff that is not your everyday thing, so people do not necessarily know. But, again, this legislation outlines how that can be achieved and what it is, and it provides more clear definitions.
The public emergency changes – there was reference to them a while ago. Again, there are mechanical changes to that act just to ensure that it is updated and made more usable so that the way it operates is much more clear. For example, the changes in clauses 9 and 23 will assist the government when dealing with emergencies by exempting legislative instruments from the requirement to prepare a regulatory impact statement where the instrument is responding to a public emergency. Of course a public emergency means just that – it is an emergency, action needs to be taken and work needs to be done. In order to allow that to occur in a speedy way, things such as regulatory impact statements are not required as they are in other circumstances. That means the government can then get on with the business of dealing with the flood or the fire or the drought or the state of disaster when it is declared under the Emergency Management Act 1986. Again, this is about making sure that legislation works in a proper way – a way that helps Victorians in going about their daily business and assists Victorians when emergencies and difficult issues arise so that the government can respond accordingly and people can also be made aware of what it is they need to do, what it is that it does and how things are gone about.
The administrative arrangements bill makes it easier to find information online, provides for orders to be captured in one order and consolidated so you are not looking all over the place and also makes other technical changes to the Administrative Arrangements Act 1983 to improve clarity.
In closing, the Victorian Parliament must regularly consider amendments to bills that correct ambiguities, make technical changes in existing legislation or just update the way we do things to reflect the way technology has changed we way we work and live. Keeping this legislation up to date and clear helps to facilitate the administering of Victorian laws. Revisions to legislation are required to keep up with these sorts of changes. It is very, very important that we also ensure that the legislation reflects accessibility so that all Victorians are able to access that information – in particular, for example, online rather than paper copies – because of course we all know that this is how we do business and this is how we find information in most cases, although I know it is also important to have the old ways of providing information. I know just in the Thomastown electorate, for example, we have many, many residents coming in, particularly older residents, who do not have email and do have difficulty getting online. It is also important that this legislation provides for other systems in a variety of different ways so that people have access based on their needs, the way they like to go about finding information and what is most comfortable for them. I commend this legislation to the house and look forward to further debate.
James NEWBURY (Brighton) (11:22): I move:
That the debate be now adjourned.
What the government is doing in this chamber this week is an abuse of this Parliament. We saw only 10 minutes ago the Minister for Transport Infrastructure come in and spend 10 minutes joking around about whether he likes Times New Roman font. What a fool he is. But he is playing Victorians like fools because he is misusing this place. This place should be dealing with the important issues and challenges of the day, and it is appalling that we have seen day on day of abuse of this place. We have seen the minister come in and talk about his favourite font and we have seen how he looked talking about that, laughing away and giggling away with his backbench about whether he liked Times New Roman.
Yesterday we saw the government try and smash through the Lawyer X bill, only to vote against dealing with it in the other place. What an absolute disgrace. We had it rushed through this place with 1 hour to debate it and then rushed across to the other place. We know what that bill is about – that is purely a whitewash – but there are serious issues this place should be debating.
We have a crime crisis – there is absolutely a youth crime crisis. There have been appalling instances day on day. But there are also other important issues – for example, the lack of government spending in electorates. We saw the member for Kororoit – not someone you would describe as my friend, but nevertheless – raise an important petition signed by almost 5000 people in her electorate. Almost 5000 people, well over 10 per cent of her electorate, said that government expenditure in her electorate was not enough. Item 38 on the notice paper is a Labor member supporting a petition saying that the government is not spending enough in her electorate. It is unusual to hear that from a Labor member, I must say. It is usually the Liberal and National seats that the government purposefully ignores in terms of government expenditure, but we saw with this petition a Labor member talk about the fact that 5000 people have signed a petition to say that they are not getting enough government funding.
We need to move on from the bill we are currently debating, which is why I have moved the motion to move on from the current debate, because there are important issues. An example of that important issue is the member for Kororoit’s motion. I note the member is not here, but perhaps the government will provide the opportunity for a debate on the member for Kororoit’s petition. Five thousand people have signed a petition to call for more government investment in her electorate. That would be an issue that would be deserving of debate in this house, not the minister talking about what font he is interested in and giggling about it like the fool he is.
Sonya Kilkenny: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I think we have listened long enough here to some of the unparliamentary language that is being used by the member.
James NEWBURY: What is your point of order?
Sonya Kilkenny: Unparliamentary language that is being used.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): I bring the Manager of Opposition Business back to the procedural debate.
James NEWBURY: Thank you, Acting Speaker, and I do appreciate the fact that you have not overruled my definition of the minister. I also refer to motion 108 on the notice paper in relation to the sessional orders and the need for the government to actually provide answers in question time. We have seen day after day after day the Premier get up and refuse to answer any question. We need to debate the issues that matter to Victorians. We must debate the issues that matter to Victorians, and that is why the coalition has moved to move on from the current debate and on to an issue that matters to Victorians.
Iwan WALTERS (Greenvale) (11:27): It is hard to know where to begin with that tissue of abuse and pearl clutching from the member for Brighton about the proper state of this chamber and parliamentary procedure. This is from the Manager of Opposition Business who orchestrated a walkout during question time from a party which this morning began the parliamentary day, at a time when there were members ready to offer a condolence motion when the family of a late member of this Parliament was here to listen, by instead engaging in a series of ad hominem attacks on members of the government without even knowing what their seats were –
James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, this is a procedural debate, which I stuck to, and I would ask that the member be brought back to the procedural motion – not what he may have done this morning, which actually is not of much interest to the chamber.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): The member was just getting started. The member to continue on the procedural debate.
Iwan WALTERS: I was just getting started, and I will continue. The reason I will continue is to oppose the member for Brighton’s motion. I think it is important that we return to the government business program. I have been here throughout the duration of the debate on the bill currently before the house. I was here for the Melbourne for Malvern’s contribution, which was a wideranging, expansive contribution, and the member for Essendon, the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, responded in kind, albeit from a slightly different perspective. But to engage in this kind of, as I said before, pearl-clutching sanctimony about the proper way in which time in this house should be spent I think is both unreasonable and inaccurate.
We have had a government business program this week which has been I think addressing some of the really significant issues that Victorians face every day. The Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine (VIFM) bill, for example, provides enabling legislation to a body that provides Victorians with support and services at the most vulnerable possible time of their lives – for victim-survivors of sexual assault and for those who have died suddenly and their families, who are experiencing extraordinary grief. So to denigrate, as the member for Brighton has, the government business program and to suggest there is no merit in it I think is unreasonable, it is inaccurate and it is unfair.
James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, this is not a debate on the government business program. This is a motion that I have moved to move away from the current bill.
Iwan WALTERS: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, the member for Brighton in his own contribution was pretty wideranging and talked about the government business program, not solely the bill currently before the house. I am merely responding in kind to his contribution.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): It is a procedural debate, except the procedural debate is also about whether we should go back to the existing government business program, so I rule the point of order out of order.
Iwan WALTERS: As I was saying, the government business program this week has a number of pieces of legislation which are very important because of their impact on the services and organisations that Victorians – as in the context of the VIFM bill – depend upon at their most vulnerable stage of life. There has been a lot of behaviour by those opposite during this parliamentary week which I think has been deeply disappointing. There have been a number of contributions which have sought to politicise the grief of Victorian families, suffering extraordinary grief –
James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, this is, for a start, an outrageous abuse, and I would say: could you please ask the member to be relevant to the motion that is being moved? He has multiple times strayed from the motion.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): There is no point of order. As per my previous ruling, the debate is a procedural debate about whether to suspend the current debate or return to the government business program. I note that the bill that the member is referring to remains on the notice paper.
James Newbury: On a further point of order, Acting Speaker, how is it appropriate for a member to reflect on other members and for you to have ruled that in order?
The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): There is no point of order.
Iwan WALTERS: In the very short space of time remaining to me –
Emma Kealy: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, this is a very narrow procedural debate, and during a procedural debate it is not a time to attack the opposition. I ask you to bring the member back to the point.
Peter WALSH (Murray Plains) (11:33): I rise to support the member for Brighton in his move to suspend the government business program and go to debate on issues that are on the notice paper that are important to Victorians. We all come to this place to represent our communities, to table petitions on behalf of our communities, and communities quite often ask: ‘What happens with those petitions?’ What we are saying here today is let us actually debate some of those motions that have been made an order for the next day of sitting and debate the petitions that are on the notice paper.
Let us go and debate the petition from the member for Kororoit requesting that the Legislative Assembly calls on the government to review the urgent transport needs of the residents of Mount Atkinson and Deanside and immediately start the planning and delivery of the Mount Atkinson train station, bearing nearly 5000 signatures. That is a very important issue for that particular electorate. I know that the member for Kororoit is a member of the government, so the government are not going to want to debate this issue, because they do not want to be embarrassed by the fact that they have not actually provided public transport in the west to this particular electorate. So what we are doing on behalf of the people of the west is giving an opportunity for that issue to be raised in this house and be debated. What is the other side of the house so frightened of that they will not debate this motion and actually talk about the issues that are important to the west? The Labor government has taken the west for granted for years, and the west is starting to rise up and say, ‘What about us?’ So let us debate that particular –
Sonya Kilkenny: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I appreciate wideranging debate, but I would ask that you bring the member back to the procedural motion that is before the house.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): It is a procedural motion, but the Leader of the Nationals was being relevant to the notice paper. However, can I just remind all speakers that they should not anticipate debate on any matter that is within the notice paper. So you can talk generally but on the procedural debate.
Peter WALSH: I note that the Minister for Planning, who is at the table, is actually trying to gag debate about having services in the west. The westies think they have been taken for granted, and that has just reinforced the issue that they have been taken for granted.
There are other issues that are on the notice paper. The member for Gippsland East has a very important petition that he tabled about the wild dog program here in Victoria and the fact that the government is going to reduce funding to the wild dog program, which will increase the mauling and the cruelty to farm animals but also will actually damage the small marsupials that we have here in Victoria as the wild dogs breed up, because this government has the philosophical view that we cannot actually control feral animals. That is a very important petition that has been tabled by the member for Gippsland East about making sure that the wild dog program is adequately funded into the future.
The other one that is worth debating – if we had the time to speak on behalf of the community – is the one from the member for Eildon on the Mansfield hospital and the fact that she wants to make sure that the Mansfield hospital is sufficiently funded and has control of its own destiny. We have recently seen that there were over 2000 people in Mansfield – effectively the population of Mansfield – that turned out to a rally to make sure they could keep their hospital rather than have it merged or closed like the Minister for Health is proposing here in Victoria.
The last one that is absolutely critical that we would like to debate is the one from the Manager of Opposition Business about changes to sessional orders. Victorians are appalled at the fact that the Premier and ministers do not answer questions. They will not answer questions on the issues that are important to Victoria. All our hospitals in regional Victoria – yes, they are not going to be merged, but they are going to be put in a network where they are controlled by a body that is hundreds of kilometres away.
We want answers from the Premier. We want answers from the Minister for Health about what is going to happen to the health services in regional Victoria. People will have to drive further. Their health will be put at risk. They will not be able to get the appointments they need. There will be jobs lost in our community. There is a total lack of respect for the boards and the communities that have built up those health services over the years, and they are going to be told, ‘You are going to be told by the government, you are going to be told by the faceless bureaucrats in Melbourne or in a major regional city, about how you are going to run your health services.’ People will not get the service they need, and the health of regional Victorians will suffer.
Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (11:38): When the member for Brighton stood up I thought, ‘Well, okay, let’s see what he’s going to say,’ and I was listening and listening and listening, and I was trying to find a thread, a little bit of sense, a bit of a theory, a bit of something, but instead we got a bit of everything. We got youth justice, we got spending, we got wild dogs, we got some petition – we got a little bit of everything and a lot of nothing, much ado about nothing.
Emma Kealy: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I will take a little while to raise my point of order so the member for Albert Park can refer to the notice paper and look at the motions, because this is a very narrow procedural debate.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): What is the point of order, member for Lowan?
Emma Kealy: I ask the member to actually speak to the procedures of today and the actual motion that is put today as to what the next order of business should be. I think I have given her now sufficient time to get her thoughts in order and perhaps look at the notice paper, and therefore maybe she can continue with her contribution.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): The member for Albert Park to continue on the procedural motion.
Nina TAYLOR: I appreciated the patronising comment; that was just so thoughtful! But I must say obviously those opposite did not want to hear me replay to them what they just said. I am very sorry they did not like hearing the matters they had just been discussing. That is very unfortunate. Maybe they should have thought ahead before there was this wild spray in the chamber, let alone we should actually debate proper legislation that has already been laid out very clearly through the government business program. But if you do not want me to raise the issues – I should say, members in the chamber –
James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I am offended on your behalf about the way the member is attacking you. I can understand and can cope with her attacks on me, but it is not fair for her to be attacking you.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): The member for Albert Park knows not to make comments on the Chair.
Nina TAYLOR: Absolutely. It was not my intention to in any way reflect on the Chair. I was simply saying that I found it curious that members of the opposition did not want to hear the matters they had just transacted read back to them because they found them so offensive and intolerable, and yet they feel it is so urgent that we debate them now. This is all very confusing. As I said at the outset, what they have delivered is licorice allsorts. Nothing makes sense about what they are trying to transact here. They are wasting time.
Emma Kealy: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, again, as the member for Albert Park has just said, nothing makes sense. I just want to buy a little bit more time for the member for Albert Park to sort her thoughts because she has not actually addressed the procedural motion that is before the house today. It is a very narrow procedural debate, and I ask you to –
The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): There is no point of order.
Nina TAYLOR: As I said, it is extraordinarily curious that the very rationale that the opposition purport to be putting forward to justify wasting time in the chamber now – that they do not want to waste, but they are wasting, time – is exactly what they do not want to hear me enunciate in the chamber. It is curious, yes, because it is, as I say, a bit of something, a bit of this, a bit of that, but nothing to do with the legislative program that we are all here in earnest to transact on behalf of the community.
Having an orderly process in the Parliament says we are here to work, we are here to debate and we are here to do the right thing by those we represent in the community. I am sorry those opposite do not like the subject matter that they raised for this debate. It is really bizarre that they do not want to hear me reflect back to them what they had just transacted in the chamber. That is a great pity. Maybe they should have thought ahead before bringing forward those matters that they do not want transacted – but they do.
You see, the confusion is not with me, it is with the way you are presenting those matters in the chamber, because it does not make sense. There was not a thread. I was waiting, and I could probably wait hours; the thread will never come because they had not thought this through. They just said, ‘Quick, quick, how are we going to interrupt debate? Think of something. Wild dogs – that’s it. That’s a winner. Go with that. Youth justice’ – the only problem is the Youth Justice Bill 2024 has gone to the upper house. But he is trying to get it back. So it is a bit of something, a bit of everything. You had a go. It did not land terribly well; it did not make a lot of sense.
I suggest we come back to the government business program and do what we as representatives are here to do, and that is to transact business in an orderly manner to have the opportunity to debate matters before us and ensure that we can deliver what we have promised to do this week as part of the government business program.
Wayne FARNHAM (Narracan) (11:43): I agree with the member for Brighton that we should suspend the business program today, because quite frankly there are more important things to talk about. We have a lot of speakers still to speak on the budget take-note motion before the house. We have still got speakers waiting there. The point the member for Brighton made is that the member for Kororoit has put forward a petition with nearly 5000 signatures for the Mount Atkinson train station. She is obviously passionate about her electorate and understands that the lack of government spending on infrastructure actually needs debate in this house.
Members interjecting.
Wayne FARNHAM: Well, the passion is there, and if the passion is there, it should be debated. There are a lot of petitions on this paper.
I think the real reason why we have got Labor backbenchers putting forward petitions at the moment is because they are very, very nervous. The recent polls will tell them that a few of them are going to lose their seats, and they are not happy about it. They want their communities to know that they are still fighting for them although the government has forgotten about them, and that is the point of this petition. At the moment we have a very, very nervous bunch of backbenchers, and they know, because all the government’s eggs are in one basket on the Suburban Rail Loop, that they need to make a noise somewhere else so their community thinks they care and so their community thinks the government actually cares about them. That is why this petition is on the notice paper, because there are backbenchers over there now that are getting extremely nervous about whether they are going to be here after 2026.
There are a lot of motions on this paper, but the member for Kororoit’s petition is about infrastructure and the lack of government spending on infrastructure, like the Bunyip–Longwarry duplication, which was $380 million over budget, which this government has failed to deliver because of a report that does not exist.
Dylan Wight: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I love the bloke, and I know it has been a wideranging debate, but we are well into issues that are off the notice paper or not on the notice paper and we are far away from debating the procedural motion. I would ask you to bring the member back to the procedural motion.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): The member should note that it is on a procedural motion. Any anticipation of debate should be avoided.
Wayne FARNHAM: I am more than happy to come back to it. Let us talk about what is on the notice paper. Item 6, a petition for the Neerim District Rural Primary School, is on the notice paper. This school was threatened with closure. The community got behind it and have got the numbers now to keep that school open, but do you think I can get an answer from the minister about the next step for that community? No, no answer. I have requested meetings and I have sent emails. The community of Neerim district deserve to know whether their school will be reopened in 2025, as promised by the department if they got 12 students. So let us debate that. Let us get the people of Neerim district their school back. That is what they want.
The reason we should move on is because we do not oppose this bill. Why do we continue to debate bills for hours and hours that we do not oppose? There are so many more important things on the notice paper. I can go to the next item, item 24 on the notice paper: police resources at Trafalgar police station, a petition put forward for a 24-hour police station because they do not have one. They do not have adequate police resources, and that is what we should be spending time debating.
I think the problem is now the Victorian people have woken up. This is why government backbenchers are putting up petitions, because the Victorian public have woken up to this government and their lack of infrastructure. They said and they stated, ‘We can have it all,’ but the Victorian people are now figuring out we cannot have it all. Our debt is out of control.
There are more important issues on this notice paper than debating a bill that we do not oppose. Let us move on to something more substantial. Let us move on to something that the people of Victoria actually care about, because the bill before us at the moment is not that riveting – and I apologise to the staff, but it is not. Let us move on to something so that Victorian people can have their voices heard.
Lauren KATHAGE (Yan Yean) (11:48): I imagine that they read the notice paper very carefully before they sought to adjourn debate, because do you remember last time when we let them and we went straight to the nuclear motion? I am sure they read that very carefully.
I am so glad to see how shocked and confused they are by a member of our government representing her electorate. They are confused. Why would an MP go out, listen to the concerns of their electorate and then seek to represent them in Parliament? They are shocked and confused. They do not understand how it works. They have got a bit of confusion that needs to be cleared up, and I am sure after they referred this morning to the ‘member for calico’ that they have all had lessons today on this procedure. They have all had to sit down and practise saying ‘Kororoit’, don’t you think? There are all these places they have never been to and do not even know how to say, and meanwhile our fantastic member for Kororoit and member for Kalkallo are showing them how to represent people in this Parliament.
We know last sitting week they were the party that walked, and this sitting week they are the party that waste time. What a bunch of posers. This is the extent to which they do not know how to represent their electorates: they do not understand you have to be in the chamber. You have to be in here if you want to represent your electorate. I have got the Benny Hill music ready to play if they walk out again. All government MPs are here –
Wayne Farnham: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, it is a tight procedural motion. I do not see how Benny Hill music is relevant to this motion, and I would ask you to bring the member back to the motion.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): The member to continue on the procedural debate.
Lauren KATHAGE: One of the arguments they are putting for why they want to adjourn debate is that they feel that there are other things that we could be talking about. But the party of posers, the Hawthorn players, this morning –
James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, on relevance, I would ask you to bring the member to the motion.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): The member for Yan Yean to continue on the procedural motion.
Lauren KATHAGE: I am talking about them wasting time through this motion and how they do not know how to represent their people. We saw this morning the member for Eildon get up as part of their big stunt – which took how long; it took how much of Parliament’s time this morning? – not knowing how to represent her people, because she stood up and sought to condemn me for a fully funded project which I look forward to delivering for my community. So not only are they wasting time, but if she was really seeking to represent the people in the Parliament, wouldn’t she have spoken to me about the project? No, because they are not interested in people, they are interested in opposing.
James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I can understand that the member has thin skin, but that is not the subject of this debate. I would, on relevance, ask you to bring her back to the motion. This is not an opportunity to expose a glass jaw.
Paul Edbrooke: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, under standing order 110: irrelevant and tedious interruptions to debate from the member for Brighton.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): The member for Yan Yean to continue.
Lauren KATHAGE: They were speaking of the member for Kororoit’s petition, which is a genuine petition for her people, and that stands in stark contrast to the fake petition that we saw in the upper house. I was privileged to see the leader of that house speak to that motion. The Liberals had gathered all of their esteemed religious leaders there, and our member stood up and explained that the petition was fake, was about something that was not happening. And all the stacked blue Evan Mulholland bags that he brought in to hand out to everyone that came to listen – they went away carrying the truth in that bag. And that truth is that they are fake, they are posers –
Brad Rowswell: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, that is not the correct parliamentary title to use for a member of the other place.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): There is no point of order.
Lauren KATHAGE: I look forward to speaking on the bill on the agenda.
Sam Groth: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member for Sandringham raised that that is not the correct way to address members in the other place, and I would ask you to bring the member for Yan Yean back to addressing members by their correct title.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): The member’s time has expired.
Assembly divided on James Newbury’s motion:
Ayes (25): Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner, Jess Wilson
Noes (51): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Matt Fregon, Ella George, 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
Motion defeated.
Wayne FARNHAM (Narracan) (11:59): I am more than happy to return to the Subordinate Legislation and Administrative Arrangements Amendment Bill 2024, and I apologise in advance, Speaker, that you have to sit through 10 minutes of this. I am apologising because you are actually filling in for me in the chair, so I do appreciate that.
The SPEAKER: I hope it’s a good one, member for Narracan.
Wayne FARNHAM: It will be a ripper. I would like everyone to hang around and listen to this, because it is going to be riveting! The purpose of the bill is to make miscellaneous amendments to the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 (SLA), the Administrative Arrangements Act 1983 (AAA) – stop walking out, everyone; this is going to be good – and the Monetary Units Act 1994. There is a default commencement date of 1 March, except for clause 17, which has a default commencement date of 18 June. It makes minor and technical changes to improve the clarity and operation of the SLA and AAA.
The bill makes a number of minor and/or technical changes to the SLA, including clarifying that a local law is not a statutory rule for the purpose of the SLA, allowing the minister to consult with impacted public sector body heads when preparing statutory rules and legislative instruments requiring consultation, requiring the government printer to ensure that physical copies of statutory rules can be purchased online and allowing the Governor in Council to make regulations exempting statutory rules from the application of the SLA for a specified time not exceeding 12 months. This will in effect extend the application of an existing exemption from the regulatory impact statement process that applies to legislative instruments and statutory rules, providing the instrument or the rule is responding to a public emergency, an urgent public health and safety issue or damage to the environment, resource sustainability or the economy. There is an example in clause 23:
Regulations might be made which exempt a specific class of statutory rule from the application of this Act during a state of disaster declared under the Emergency Management Act 1986, a pandemic declaration under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 or a national emergency under the National Emergency Declaration Act 2020 of the Commonwealth.
This is the point where we get to what Victoria recently went through in the COVID era and the rules that Victorians had to abide by from this government and what the police had to try and police for the Victorian government. We are talking about a period in Victoria’s history when we saw the longest lockdowns anywhere in the world. Victoria was the state that was locked down the most. We had the longest lockdowns, and quite frankly it was a total debacle for the people of the state of Victoria. It was an absolute debacle. The rules changed constantly. People did not know what was going on. I remember at one stage hospitality businesses got literally 24 hours notice and were told, ‘You will be shut tomorrow.’
Members interjecting.
Wayne FARNHAM: They did. And those hospitality businesses had to throw out tens of thousands of dollars worth of stock. It was absolutely heartbreaking what these businesses had to go through. I think part of the problem with that point in time that Victoria had to go through was we heard the Premier of the day get up day after day – I think it was 100 days in a row – and say, ‘On medical advice, we advise this.’ Obviously I was not in the Parliament then, but I do remember questions from the opposition consistently asking the Premier of the day, ‘Will you release the medical advice?’ I do not think it ever got released.
The rules around it were ridiculous. The member for Malvern brought this up earlier: who can forget the shutting down of playgrounds? You are locked up for 23 hours a day, you get an hour’s exercise to get the kids outside, and they have locked playgrounds down. The part of COVID where the Victorian public got really angry was just the nonsensical stuff that people had to do. You could not play on a playground but you could go to a brothel. I do not know how you socially distance at a brothel; I have no idea.
A member interjected.
Wayne FARNHAM: A different playground, yes. But it does not make sense. You could not play golf. It was amazing to me. I was a captain of the golf club at the time at the Warragul Country Club and the local members were very, very upset. One thing that got brought up to me was, ‘How come we can’t play golf but we can go to Bunnings?’ It did not make sense, because I can tell you now, there are not too many golfers that can hit a ball within 1.5 metres of each other when they have to socially distance from each other. It was an absolute abuse by this government, and I felt very sorry for Victoria Police. Victoria Police had to enforce laws and rules that they were not comfortable with.
The one thing that really sticks in my mind from this period was the poor pregnant woman that got dragged out of her home and arrested for putting up a social media post. Now, to me that was –
Juliana Addison: On a point of order, Speaker, on relevance, I am scratching my head to understand what he is talking about and how this is relevant to the bill that is before the house. I normally speak Narracan, but not today. I do not comprehend –
The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Wendouree, that is not the way to raise a point of order. I ask you to come back to the bill, member for Narracan.
Wayne FARNHAM: I will come back to the bill. At the end of the day, on our side of the chamber we do not oppose this bill. The bill is put forward for very good reasons by the government. Our Shadow Attorney-General in his half-hour contribution today did a fairly comprehensive review of the bill, and obviously in his contribution he delivered his thoughts and outcomes. I respect the member for Malvern’s work that he has done on this, and no, we do not oppose the bill. I will leave it there.
Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (12:07): Granted this may not be a bill that necessarily drives deep and profound emotions in the acute moment, nevertheless we cannot resile from the fact that regulations impact all of our lives every single day. When you actually drill down to the regulations that we are referring to more broadly – because of course this is the Subordinate Legislation and Administrative Arrangements Amendment Bill 2024 – there is no question that the elements that we are debating here, or the thread, underpin some of the very necessary democratic processes in our state. So whilst it might not be providing the excitement machine for those opposite – I do not know, maybe they thought every day in Parliament would be a thrill – we are here to work, and sometimes we just have to knuckle down and evaluate and debate and make sure that we process legislation appropriately, because of the ultimate impact it will have on the Victorian community. Fundamentally, if we get to the core of this, what is this about? What does it actually mean for the Victorian community? The bill will make government decisions more transparent – I say that broadly, but I do not think anyone should resile from the fact that that is an important element when we are looking at legislation – and it will make it easier for the community to find information online. Accessibility for community for matters such as we are referring to in this moment surely is not a negative. I would say, on the contrary, this is important and to the benefit of the broader community.
The bill will also improve the operation and clarity around the making of subordinate legislation such as regulations, which I have already referred to, and legislative instruments, and so it is important even if those opposite do not see the value. I would say that regulatory elements are important in our state, amongst the many bills that we have to transact here – not always exciting but otherwise definitely impactful when it comes to what they mean for the community more broadly.
Basically, one of the main things the bill does is amend the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 to make this act clearer to apply. I want to drill down, and this is actually in clause 3 of the bill. If I cut to the chase, correctly characterising instruments as being of legislative character or of purely administrative character is central to the Subordinate Legislation Act operating as intended, because instruments that are of a purely administrative character are exempt from the requirements of the Subordinate Legislation Act. So why does this matter? This is important because if the definition of ‘legislative instrument’ is incorrectly applied, an instrument may be disallowed by Parliament or could be held by a court to be invalid. Therefore not only are you creating a whole series of processes that are arguably, one could say, wasting time but for the significance of the particular matter that is being transacted they may very well need or warrant a court process. It would seem to make good sense therefore to actually provide that clarity through this instrument so that we can mitigate the risk of an instrument being disallowed by Parliament or being held by a court to be invalid. I hope that the opposition will respect that that surely does have some merit, and hence there is a purpose to actually debating this legislation today. While there are longstanding guidelines – and I make the emphasis on that word – to assist with this process, it can still be tricky, and this bill will give crucial guidance. I hope that that lends something to the merits of the debate that we are having today.
Another change in the bill is to provide for departmental consultation processes to occur in the development of subordinate legislation. When we are looking at the issue of transparency, this is really being very up-front about the processes that occur. This is in clauses 6 and 12. Currently the Subordinate Legislation Act provides that consultation occurs between ministers, whereas the bill will reflect the reality that it occurs between departmental offices. Again, is this an exciting fact or otherwise? Well, that is a moot point. But it is certainly about being very up-front about how matters actually are transacted, and hence when we are looking at democracy and supporting the processes that ultimately lead to regulations being made and the way that they impact our community there is some strength to these arguments.
On public emergency changes in the bill and exemption grounds for statutory rules, there are two important changes in clauses 9 and 23 of the bill which will assist the government when dealing with emergencies by permitting statutory rules to be extended during emergencies and excluding statutory rules and legislative instruments from the Subordinate Legislation Act – for example, to prevent the automatic revocation of such rules and instruments during an emergency. Turning to the first of these changes, I will explain a little further on this matter. Legislative instruments can be exempt from the requirement to prepare a regulatory impact statement where the instrument is responding to a public emergency, urgent public health or safety issue or damage to the environment, resource sustainability or the economy. No-one is resiling from shedding light on exactly the kind of scenarios that this legislation here is anticipating.
Of course a pandemic is horribly inconvenient – funny about that. Nobody wants a pandemic. Why would anyone want one? Nobody would wish that on anyone. Unfortunately they do occur. I have to say some of the speeches I heard from those opposite I think conspiracy theorists would have really enjoyed. They would have got a lot out of these debates here. That is something to just park there for this moment in time. It is funny, I remember during that time – in an authorised period I should say, just to be very clear about that – the upper house had a trip to Bright. We had a sitting up there. I did a visit to a local farm where they produced pumpkin seeds, and I think they had received a Victorian government grant to support the business. I remember that one of the owners formerly used to work in big pharma. As a result of that he said he planned ahead for the pandemic because, working in pharmaceuticals, they know, not unlike insurers et cetera, that from time to time there are global incidents that can gravely impact the health of human beings. So he actually anticipated that because of his experience in the pharmaceutical industry. Albeit pandemics are inconvenient.
I do find extraordinary the number of public health experts on the opposition team – oh, that is right, they do not have public health experts. They certainly speak as though they are, and I do find that curious. I am just going to leave that there.
The core elements of this bill are sound: on the one hand transparency, and on the other hand anticipating that human beings actually are vulnerable and that there are moments in time against all the best wishes and all the best attempts of all of us when we can fall horribly ill, so it is always good to know that there is a wonderful healthcare system in this state and wonderful people who are looking out for our best interests. I remember in Italy there were people who were fighting to get respirators in that early part. There were thousands dying day after day. I remember seeing coffins on the street in New York and whole buildings of people dying because of course not everyone was an expert in the pandemic, funnily enough – although there are some public health experts over there, or they purport to be. It was a very traumatic and tragic period in history. I also remember a federal Liberal government that delayed providing vaccines.
When we look at these issues we should look at them with a holistic regard instead of just diminishing it to ‘Oh, my hip pocket’ and other things. There are broader issues. The pandemic did impact everyone in a devastating way; hence it is very necessary that we have legislation that anticipates the vicissitudes of human experience. This is why there is merit in debating this legislation here today and why there are these very nuanced and important changes that have to be properly transacted in a very open and up-front way.
Kim O’KEEFFE (Shepparton) (12:16): Today I rise to stand and make a contribution on the Subordinate Legislation and Administrative Arrangements Amendment Bill 2024. As we have mentioned in the chamber, this is a fairly straightforward bill and perhaps it could have been done in a more timely manner to get this through the chamber. I do note the member for Albert Park also acknowledged clause 23, which is an important part of the bill in discussion today when it comes to declarations of the states of emergency that we have all experienced over a period of time. It would be good if you stayed in the chamber, member for Albert Park. I have got some really important contributions that you might be interested in, but that is okay.
The reforms listed in the bill, coming back to the bill, are all minor and technical in nature, as I have mentioned, and address issues identified by the Department of Premier and Cabinet as well as other government departments in the administration to improve the operation and clarity of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 (SL act) and the Administrative Arrangements Act 1983.
Clause 1 sets out the purposes of the bill, which are to make miscellaneous amendments to the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994, to consequentially amend the Monetary Units Act 2004 and to make miscellaneous amendments to the Administrative Arrangements Act 1983. The Subordinate Legislation Act requires that the minister must in the preparation of statutory rules and legislative instruments and, when the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 guidelines require consultation, ensure that consultation occurs with any other minister whose area of responsibility may be affected by the proposed statutory rule or legislative instrument. In addition, the bill provides that the responsible minister may consult with any relevant sector body head whose area of responsibility may be affected by a proposed statutory rule. This is intended to give the responsible minister a broad discretion to consult with public service bodies, public entities and special bodies as relevant.
It is interesting to see that the bill does provide that a failure to undertake this consultation will not affect the operation of the statutory rule or legislative instrument. Public consultation under this government and its ministers has been significantly lacking, and time and time again communities are left out. It is definitely an area in this place that must be done better. Time and time again we see a lack of public consultation, leaving the voices of those that are often best informed and with lived experiences not having the opportunity to contribute.
The recent shock announcement of the closure of the Dhurringile Prison is a prime example. Just over a month ago a media release was put out by the Minister for Corrections in the other place announcing that Dhurringile Prison, which has a significant impact on my electorate and the member for Euroa’s electorate, will be shut down. The staff were notified 90 minutes before the media release. It is appalling this announcement was handled the way it has been handled. There has been no consultation or insight into the lead-up to this announcement, which also significantly impacts local businesses who provide goods and services. Last week the member for Euroa and I held a community meeting, and many attendees called on the government to show interest in their communities and show up and actually engage with the people that this is affecting. The question for many attending was: why was there no consultation to prepare and to assist those who have been so severely impacted?
Some other amendments noted in the bill: clause 3(2) amends the existing definition of ‘statutory rule’ by inserting ‘or a local law made under division 3 of part 3 of the Local Government Act 2020’ after ‘or locality’ to clarify that such local laws are now statutory rules for the purpose of the SL act. This amendment is intended to remove any doubt about municipal councils being subject to the SL act when making local laws.
Clause 7 substitutes for ‘Department of Justice’ the ‘Department of the Minister administrating the Infringements Act 2006’. This change is intended to ensure that the department responsible for administrating the Infringements Act 2006 is consulted about a proposed statutory rule, which provides for the enforcement by an infringement notice.
Clause 9(2)(a) replaces a reference to ‘the annual rate approved by the Treasurer in relation to the state budget’ with a reference to ‘the annual rate fixed by the Treasurer in accordance with section 5 of the Monetary Units Act 2024’.
When it comes to the budget there are many changes that this side of the house would like to see. Wouldn’t it be great if we could put in place that this government address their financial mismanagement and cost blowouts, actually acknowledging that Victorians are in a cost-of-living crisis, and prioritise health, housing, education and much-needed services and infrastructure instead of blowing billions of dollars on the Suburban Rail Loop and the debacle with the CFMEU, which has run rampant on taxpayer-funded construction projects.
Clause 26 makes consequential amendment to the Monetary Units Act 2004 by inserting new section 5(8) to provide that the Treasurer must ensure that the annual rate ‘as soon as practicable after it is fixed’ is published on a website maintained by the department for the minister administering the Monetary Units Act 2004.
Clause 29, which inserts new sections 8, 9 and 10, provides that:
The Secretary may prepare a document that consists of an Order made under section 3, as amended from time to time.
I note that the intention of these new sections is to ensure that the public can more easily access resources to inform themselves of the current or past responsibility for legislation and administrative arrangements.
Another significant element of the bill is public emergency exemption. Currently under the act legislative instruments can be exempt from regulatory impact statement processes where the instrument is responding to a public emergency, urgent public health or safety issue, or damage to the environment, resource sustainability or the economy. The bill will extend these emergency exemptions grounds to apply to statutory rules that have not already been extended under section 9 of the Subordinate Legislation Act.
Whilst we are talking about public emergency, urgent public health and the economy, the pandemic was a debacle here in the state of Victoria. We were the most locked-down state, and in fact Shepparton was the most locked down regional city. At one point we had 20,000 people in isolation – this is a third of our city. Supermarket click and collect went down and we were running out of food. I was the mayor at the time, and it was a crisis like I had never seen before. And do you know what happened? The community took it into their own hands, setting up food relief stations and a convoy of people using their own vehicles to get food and medical supplies to the people. We could not depend on this government at a time when we needed them most.
And of course who could forget the debacle with the hotel quarantine – or the lockdown of playgrounds, which was appalling. They could not leave the house, and keep in mind some people do not have yards. They were locked up in apartments with no outlet – literally locked up in their homes. My daughter was living in an apartment in Melbourne with her partner at the time, locked up with no connections, no yard or outlet and not able to leave Melbourne for months. I saw firsthand the impact on her mental health and the choices made during that time that still impact her today. Then there are those who were unable to go to loved ones’ funerals, restricted numbers at weddings and the list goes on.
We know the impact of the pandemic is still ongoing, and we know that many businesses did not survive. We know the impact on people’s mental health and that many children are still struggling to get back into the classroom. My niece, a year 7 student, was homeschooled for months following the pandemic. In fact she did not really get to experience her first year at high school, in what should have been an exciting time. She still struggles and is in need of mental health support.
One thing that definitely came out of the pandemic is that regional communities were there for each other, and we see it time and time again. The floods are another example where this government let our communities down. Last sitting week the Legislative Council Environment and Planning Committee handed down its final report of its inquiry into the 2022 flood event in Victoria. In the committee’s final report it exposed and highlighted the government’s failure to plan and respond to flood emergencies. The report contained 90 findings and 73 recommendations, from which the Allan Labor government has many lessons to learn with respect to flood preparedness, flood warnings, emergency response and recovery. It is vital that the government –
Ros Spence: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, on relevance, I have been listening to the member for quite a while, and I think she has strayed very far from the bill. I would ask you to bring her back.
Emma Kealy: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, the member is directly referencing clause 23 regarding emergency management.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): There is no point of order. The member is being relevant, and the member can continue.
Kim O’KEEFFE: In particular recommendation 45 of the committee’s report recommends that the Victorian government improves the flood warning systems so that warnings are accurate and that the most up-to-date information is delivered in a timely way, clear and easily understood; and makes sure that relevant formats are in place. A number of Goulburn River towns, including Shepparton, Mooroopna and Toolamba, which are all communities in my electorate of Shepparton district, did not receive VicEmergency alerts for the peak flooding weekend of the 2022 floods. Every Victorian should know that the VicEmergency app can give them the information that they need about whatever is going on, and it should be accurate, reliable and up to date. It is clear from the committee’s inquiry and final report that this was not the case.
The committee held a public hearing in Mooroopna. It is critical that those that are directly impacted are heard. The floods highlighted the extreme need for the Shepparton bypass causeway between Shepparton and Mooroopna, which was completely shut down during the floods and caused a complete disconnect of the two towns. This was an example of emergency services being directly impacted, and the management was a major concern raised in the flood inquiry. I will finish it there.
Sarah CONNOLLY (Laverton) (12:26): I am so pleased to stand here this afternoon and speak on the Subordinate Legislation and Administrative Arrangements Amendment Bill 2024, because sometimes it is the smallest changes that are the most impactful. Indeed I was just sitting here wondering how many speakers those opposite would have on their list, and I thought, ‘Well, this is a bill that probably doesn’t sound as exciting to some people.’ But jeez, I have not seen that many of them make a contribution to a bill in some time, so this one really must be meaningful to those opposite. But I am standing here to speak on this bill today because I love speaking on these sorts of small but really important changes that we make to legislation in this state.
As someone who spent many years in their career trawling through some really intense legislation – the National Electricity Rules, in fact, which is a really, really solid piece of legislation and many pages in volume – it was these kinds of smaller nuances that from time to time I would come across and make a note of so that the next time the federal government, in that case, was making a legislative change I could try and make a submission and whack these in. So I thank people that have picked these things up and worked hard to make sure that they are here in this bill before the house this afternoon.
This bill is yet another one of those really technical amendment bills which make small legislative tinkerings just here and there. The changes nevertheless are important. They are about process and administration. What this bill does make is changes to the way in which subordinate legislation works – in particular, regulations that impact our day-to-day lives. Things like road safety, building regulations, even food safety, are subject to subordinate legislation. Changes to these do not come through bills like this one, and we normally do not debate regulatory changes. A lot of them are here in the Parliament but they are tabled and we approve them. But the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 – and I will call it the SL act – we are amending today is the main act that governs how these regulations and other legislative instruments are made and are scrutinised.
The changes in this bill are not too drastic, but the main purpose of them is to ensure that our departments, who interact with these pieces of legislation on a regular basis, can work as smoothly as possible. I am going to give you an example of this: the bill is going to provide some assistance to interpretation of legislative – I love this, because I spent so many years looking at things like this in my role, particularly at Energex in Queensland many years ago – and administrative characteristics, which will assist public servants whose role includes interpreting this SL act and working out if it applies to particular subordinate instruments.
This is an important distinction because what this does is it tells us whether or not those regulations are subordinate to the SL act, because under the current legislation, instruments that have a purely administrative character are exempt from the act’s requirements. This change has come about because what we know from feedback brought to us by departments which exercise this legislation is that there are significant grey areas where they could benefit from more precise guidance, which means that this act could be clearer to apply.
I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during those conversations, because I can only assume that those public servants would have been so passionate about getting them here before the house to finally change. If any of them are listening, I will say on behalf of this side of the house that this one is for you guys, and we are very pleased today to be debating it here in this chamber.
Getting changes through to make an act clearer to apply is not always an easy thing to do. In my experience, in the energy sector it could take many years to get changes before Parliament to change legislation that then filtered down to what I was working on, which was compliance with energy networks in relation to the National Electricity Rules. It could take a lot; a lot of work was put into it. Here before us there are longstanding guidelines that the department use to help them with this, but what this bill will do is give them a bit of extra guidance, because extra guidance is always an important thing. It will help identify instruments that are of a legislative character if they include things like offences, regulations that set out mandatory requirements to take actions or refrain from actions, importantly, that apply to the public at large or a large class of people, or regulations that include penalties or other sanctions for noncompliance. If a regulation or other legislative instrument has these features – such as road safety regs that, for example, may impose a fine – these are less likely to be legislative in character and therefore fall under the Subordinate Legislation Act.
In addition to this, the bill also aims to improve the way that consultation takes place on the making and development of subordinate legislation, and there has been just a little bit of discussion from those opposite around consultation here in Victoria undertaken by our government. I do reject the premise that consultation is not undertaken correctly or in good faith. There is so much consultation that goes into bringing legislation and reforms before this house in the lead-up to introducing bills for us to debate. The consultation that I think they probably dislike most is that we are not spending hours and hours and hours consulting with them on matters that we are trying to push forward in the interest of all Victorians in this place.
But back to the bill: we just talked about how the bill aims to improve the way that consultation takes place on the making and development of subordinate legislation. Currently, whilst the legislation states that consultation takes place between ministers, this does not actually reflect the reality that a lot of these discussions that take place – and they are really important discussions – take place between departmental offices. As such, the bill amends this requirement to now allow for consultation to take place between public sector body heads. This does not really change anything, but it is an important reflection of how these arrangements work in practice and it puts it expressly on the books, which is always a really important thing.
One of the more interesting parts of this bill, which I found surprisingly informative – I did not know it – is that there is currently a legislative requirement that physical copies of statutory rules must be printed and must be supplied by the government printer for purchase from a prescribed bookshop. The first thing I thought was, ‘Well, what bookshop is that, and where is that located, so I can bolt down there and get a copy?’ If anyone is listening is actually wondering, the prescribed bookshop is TIMG bookshop, which is located all the way at the other end of Bourke Street. If you have got nothing to do after Parliament finishes this afternoon, you could pop on down there and actually see what they have on the shelves.
Further to this, the legislation requires that the minister make available a copy of the statutory rules, a physical copy related to their portfolios for inspection by the public. The public come in and they are looking to see what this is, and they make it available for the public for free at their department office or other office specified in the Government Gazette. What this bill does is improve requirements – I think it kind of gets with the times – for there to be online access to the statutory rules. While this may seem insignificant, if the rules cannot be accessed, inspected or acquired by the public, then if someone commits an offence under those rules they will have a complete defence and will not be able to be penalised. That is something I did not realise, and I thought that was a really interesting nuance. So next time you are down the other end of Bourke Street or doing anything down that end of the city, you might see that bookshop and you will know that it has a very special place in the heart of Victorian legislation, and you can understand why.
In summing up in the next 15 seconds, this is another really important bill before our house. They are small changes, but they are meaningful. If nothing else, we will be saving paper with people being able to access these rules online. I commend it to the house.
Martin CAMERON (Morwell) (12:36): Acting Speaker Farnham, I rise to speak on the Subordinate Legislation and Administrative Arrangements Amendment Bill 2024, and who would have thought a couple of tradies like us would be talking on such legislation here in the chamber. As the member for Laverton articulated then, it is necessary that we do clean up and streamline a few bits and pieces that are in this bill. Of course, as she was just saying before, it stops the need for so much paper. Well, that is a perfect thing to happen because the white paper industry was ripped out of my area down in the Latrobe Valley, so we cannot actually use Australian-made white paper anymore. We have got to have imported white paper, which does get stuck in the printers as it goes through every now and again. I am wondering, the bookshop that is down the end of Bourke Street, if one day you and I may make our way down there. But in all seriousness, we do need to move through and do our work and do our homework on these bills and amendments that come through. We will do our best.
I would like to thank the member for Malvern – he has had a massive week this week in the chamber talking on a lot of bills – for being the lead speaker and helping us out with our research as well as we move through. In saying that, the purpose of this bill is to make miscellaneous amendments to the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 (SL act), the Administrative Arrangements Act 1983 and consequently the Monetary Units Act 1994. There is a default commencement date of 1 March 2025, except for clause 17, which has a default commencement date of 18 June 2025. I could not find out why it was not the day before, on the 17th, but so it says here, it is 18 June 2025.
Clause 23, which a few of us on this side and on the other side have spoken about, inserts a new paragraph into section 28(1) of the SL act to provide that the Governor in Council can make regulations exempting statutory rules or legislative instruments from the application of all or any provisions of the SL act for a specified time not exceeding 12 months. The example in this section reinforces that the Governor in Council might make regulations to maintain the status quo of regulations which would otherwise expire due to the operation of section 5 during a period of a state of disaster or national emergency, of which we have had a few of late.
This will allow a government to deal with the emergency and then return to complete the remake of the statutory rule that would have otherwise expired. They did give an example in the bill briefing: regulations might be made which exempt a specific class of statutory rules from the application of this act during a state of disaster declared under the Emergency Management Act 1986, a pandemic declaration under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 or a national emergency under the National Emergency Declaration Act 2020.
I just want to concentrate on this clause for a little bit and take us back a few years, not to the pandemic, as others might think I might do, but to the floods that we had in Traralgon back in 2021 and how still to this day we have ongoing issues with trying to get things repaired and fixed down there. In June 2021 the flood went through Traralgon and the emergency management plan was put in place, but it was put in place a little bit too late for the residents of Traralgon around the CBD and also the ones that live along the Traralgon Creek. Further to that, there have been investigations and reports were tabled in 2022 underlining the faults and mishaps that took place. People with houses that were flooded were trying to access clean-up and also insurance to actually fix the houses. Those houses, two years on, are still being worked on to make sure that they are livable again.
I just want to touch on the Traralgon Football Netball Club. Since the 2021 floods they have been without a home, without workable rooms for both the football and the netball people and also the female football side of it. The entire Traralgon Recreation Reserve was devastated when the water came through. The Traralgon Men’s Shed is a wonderful organisation. They are currently still in the existing building that was flooded. All their tools and all their hard work back in 2021 was ruined. A lot of the machinery that they did have was from fundraising and people donating goods. At the moment they are still after a new venue to be put into.
We want to make sure that when we do have these emergencies we act on them very, very quickly. We do need to have rules in place that take over existing rules so if we have an emergency these rules can run concurrently until the emergency is over.
It was funny – or not funny – for the emergency services that went into the three-storey building that looks over the Traralgon CBD. They actually parked their cars across the road at a new venue in an underground car park. There were live feeds going around of this flood disaster that we had in Traralgon, and all you could see was the underground car park filling up and their cars floating. They could nearly see this live as it was actually happening. We need to make sure that when we do have these events we do have procedures in place that can override whatever else is happening at the time to make sure the work is done.
I touched on before how Emergency Management Victoria had released a report into its handling of the storms in June 2021 that flooded parts of the Traralgon community and left thousands without power. Almost a third of the residents surveyed in this report did not receive a warning call. Normally when a flood would come through, I think there are stages. It used to go to the council, and they would ring up the residents in that area, but there was no prior warning. I think the first phone calls that people started getting were when they were actually knee-deep in water in their houses. So to be able to circumnavigate this and make sure these procedures are in place is a good thing, and I hope we can do that into the future.
Also, just touching briefly on this, we have talked about the pandemic and the public health system, which also come under clause 23. Of course we all know of the devastation for people who were locked down to try and keep them safe. As a small business operator running a plumbing business down in Traralgon and the Latrobe Valley, we were working in aged care facilities, so we were classified as emergency services to actually go in and make sure that the day-to-day running of those places went on. I remember, when we were allowed to go out into the supermarkets, the panic on people’s faces when they were not able to find any toilet paper on the shelves in regional country towns, and this was right across the state at the time. People were made to feel helpless because they were locked down, there were food shortages in the supermarkets and the supermarkets were diligently trying to make sure that there was enough for everybody. The lockdown of the playgrounds was a big one for young mums and dads with their families. So we need to make sure when we actually have all these things happening that clause 23 is invoked and we can have special rules that are put in place that make sure we run as we should and give the people of Victoria the confidence that these things are in place.
As noted by the member for Malvern, we do not oppose the regulations and things that need to be done in this bill. Once again I do thank the member for Malvern for all his help with being able to stand and talk about this today.
Lauren KATHAGE (Yan Yean) (12:46): I am pleased to rise and speak in support of the Subordinate Legislation and Administrative Arrangements Amendment Bill 2024. There are a couple of things that I would like to focus on in my contribution today. The first of those is around government responses in emergencies, which is a theme that has been dwelt on by most speakers so far during our discussion of this bill. What this bill does is make sure that during an emergency the appropriate legislative instruments and administrative arrangements are appropriately maintained or initiated so that the time that is needed for focusing purely on the emergency response is devoted and is available. That is really emblematic of this government, which has provided such strong support to communities during times of emergency. In fact just yesterday we heard in the south library from local government representatives, and there was a comment about the excellent coordination between this government and local councils during what have been a really tough few years for Victoria with floods, fire, landslips and the like. I commend all parties for working together so well during those times.
It reminds me of some of the great work that the fantastic Minister for Local Government has done in making sure that funds are made available really quickly to councils so they can get on with the immediate work of cleaning up and responding. We know that the Council Support Fund, a further $8 million, was recently provided for relief and recovery efforts. And not only do we have those immediate responses, but we know that recovering from an emergency is a multistage and long process. As a member that represents areas affected by Black Saturday, indeed it is a decades-long process for people to heal after such an event.
We take emergencies really seriously. We know that in the 2024–25 Victorian budget there has been really strong support for our emergency services. For the CFA we have had funding for 15 primary response urban pumper appliances to be replaced. They are for domestic structural fires but have important breathing apparatus as well. In the area that I represent, grassfires are one of the key risks, through greenfields to new estates, so when an emergency like that occurs, facilities like this are really important. There are also the new aerial platform pumpers for Fire Rescue Victoria in the 2024–25 budget, another example of how this government is supporting emergency responses.
It is a big figure: $300 million across government for fire, flood and storm recovery from recent emergency events, and some of that includes temporary accommodation. We know the member for Ripon was right there with her community when they were impacted by fires, at the temporary accommodation services, talking with her community and standing side by side. We know the member for Monbulk was with her community when they experienced terrible tree and land falls during the storms; she continues to fight for her community through her #TellTheTelcos petition to make sure that people are still able to use the phone during times of emergency, and I absolutely support her in that work. On using the phone, the 1800 hotline has been funded in the 2024–25 budget along with regional coordination for disaster relief and recovery. And I give a small shout-out to BlazeAid, who have done some great work in my area and all across the country now, for the work that they do to support farmers after fires and other emergencies. To their fantastic volunteers who give so much of their time and to their CEO Melissa Jones, well done.
Plenty CFA was part of a trial of the new emergency management radios, and I know that it made a good impact there and it was rolled out subsequently to other CFAs. At Doreen CFA we do have some sadness with Captain Robert Bury stepping down and ending his time as the leader there, and from his time he is just so well regarded in our community. His leadership has gone beyond just the CFA to be a leader for our whole community, and his integrity, his advocacy for the CFA and his concern and care for the volunteers that he leads have been exemplary. Our community is so thankful to Captain Bury for all he has done, and we wish him well with his wife Carole in this next stage of his life.
The other thing about this bill which I want to touch on is around transparency. This bill ensures, as we heard from the member for Laverton, that if you go to that bookshop or if you go to the particular website you will be able to find all the details of the relevant legislative instruments et cetera there, and that transparency is a hallmark of our government. It is a hallmark of our government that stands in contrast to the most famous politician, I think, against transparency, who liked to say ‘Don’t you worry about that’ to journalists who dared to ask about what his government was up to. And I of course speak of Joh Bjelke-Petersen; don’t you worry about that. This is another example of the work this government has done to improve transparency. We are the government that made major reforms to FOI laws in 2017, and thanks to those reforms we have got a single body to oversee Victoria’s FOI public sector privacy and data protection laws, and that makes it easier for people to access government information. We gave the information commissioner more investigative powers than its predecessor and introduced faster response timeframes for all FOI applications.
We talk about the accountability triangle and the three points of the accountability triangle, which are us as the elected representatives, the citizens and the bureaucracy. What this bill does is it makes sure that that triangle is complete through the sharing of information between those different points of the triangle. I know from work overseas how important transparency is to ensure that good services are provided to citizens so they can see and understand what the government is doing and what rules and laws apply to them.
I would also like to say that another aspect of how this government has improved transparency in Victoria is by being the government that passed the strongest donation laws in Australia. The strongest donation laws in Australia were passed by this government. They provide for real-time disclosures, and that improves transparency and accountability in the electoral process. Those opposite think that they have a total monopoly on these topics, and they absolutely do not. When we came to government we took what the Age described as ‘a lame duck body in its original Baillieu-era form’, IBAC, and gave it the strongest powers it ever had, and that was in 2016. So we will not take lectures from the opposition on matters of transparency and integrity. Actually I think IBAC was formed – wasn’t it something to do with Liberal Party councillors? Anyway, strong donation laws – (Time expired)
Gabrielle DE VIETRI (Richmond) (12:57): I move:
That debate be now adjourned.
I ask that the next order of business be considered in the following context. On 19 July the International Court of Justice stated that Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories is unlawful. Its discriminatory laws and policies against Palestinians violate the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid. It also advised that all states have a responsibility not to aid or assist Israel in its occupation. So all states must review all diplomatic, political and economic ties with Israel, including business and finance, pension funds, academia and charities.
I am interrupting this debate today because in light of the tens of thousands of Palestinians dead, the hundreds of thousands starving to death and now this ICJ report nothing could be more pressing than ending Victoria’s complicity in these crimes and doing everything in the government’s power to end the genocide. That means the Victorian government cancelling its secret memorandum of understanding with the Israeli Ministry of Defense and that means ending this government’s partnership with Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer, and placing sanctions on Israel until it ends this genocide.
I do not want to be this person. I am very much aware that many people in this place find my approach abrasive. I am very aware that people would rather I not insist on raising this issue. I have been instructed to use the tools available to me within the Parliament rather than disrupting outside the rules. I would rather do that, but when there is so much community anxiety and disquiet around this, when there is so much silencing and political censorship going on and when the Greens are the only voice within this place to be raising the concerns of the community and standing up for the lives of the tens of thousands that have been murdered, I have no choice.
This decades-long oppression and violence has come to this. Is everyone else in this chamber seeing what I am seeing? Babies dying alone in incubators; children with their faces and their limbs blown off; boys and men stripped, blindfolded and herded like animals; children shot by snipers; polio; hepatitis; starvation; humanitarian aid blocked; water turned off –
The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Member for Richmond, we are now going to break for lunch.
Sitting suspended 1:00 pm until 2:02 pm.
Business interrupted under standing orders.