Thursday, 15 August 2024

Bills

Subordinate Legislation and Administrative Arrangements Amendment Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Gabrielle DE VIETRI (Richmond) (14:56): Water turned off, a politically manufactured famine ‍– I do not mention these horrors gratuitously, I raise them to ask this Labor government, to ask the Premier: what will it take for this government to say ‘No more’? The Lancet journal estimates that the true death toll could be almost 200,000 people. We will never fully know the pain and circumstances of each one of those deaths.

I interrupt the debate today because while all this is happening Labor continues on its lethal partnership with Elbit Systems, whose weapons Israel has boasted are battle-tested on Palestinians – combat proven on human animals. Illegal munitions containing white phosphorus, designed to burn the flesh off the bone; flechette projectiles, designed to go straight through the body; cluster munitions whose bombs break up into smaller explosives that are detonated sometimes years after conflicts have ended ‍– these are horrific weapons that cause unspeakable damage. War, destruction and genocide is the mission of Elbit Systems, whose machine and human testing centre for excellence this Labor government proudly launched, funnelling taxpayer money into the industry of war.

I interrupt this debate because Labor is pumping more money into death and destruction and will give Elbit a platform to showcase their weapons in Melbourne as it hosts the largest defence conference in the Asia-Pacific in September. The world’s major weapons manufacturers will exhibit their products and make deals with governments – weapons manufacturers that supply Israel’s genocide: BAE Systems, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Elbit Systems, Thales and NIOA. Labor cries poor, but it is spending unthinkable amounts of taxpayer money on perpetuating war and genocide through the Land Forces expo, and it is because war is to this Labor government a lucrative transition industry. Weapons have been made to fight wars and now wars will be fought to feed the weapons economy. How much more of this live streamed genocide will we take before Labor cuts ties with Israel’s genocidal regime? I have interrupted debate today to call on the government to cancel its memorandum of understanding, to end its partnership with Elbit Systems and to pull its funding for the Land Forces expo.

Daniela DE MARTINO (Monbulk) (14:58): For clarification, I believe that at the moment we are debating whether or not we adjourn the government business program and what we are currently debating, which is the Subordinate Legislation and Administrative Arrangements Amendment Bill ‍2024. My understanding – and I am not sure if the member for Richmond is aware – is that if this motion were to be, hypothetically, successful in adjourning the debate, the next thing that would occur is we would move to item 2 on today’s government business, orders of the day, which is the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024. We would then start debate on that. So I am not sure if that is the intention of the member for Richmond, but as I see it, that is exactly what would occur. I am not overly familiar, obviously, with all the conventions of the house, but that is my understanding of what would occur if we had this division and somehow we did not have the numbers and it was a successful motion. That is exactly what would happen. I am curious to know if that is the intention – if that is what is being sought here.

For those who are ready to speak on the Subordinate Legislation and Administrative Arrangements Amendment Bill – people who have spent quite a bit of time looking into this, who have contributions to make – I would imagine that they might feel they need to continue speaking about this because this is legislation which affects the people of Victoria. It is incredibly important that as a government we adhere to our government business program so that we can pass the laws that are affecting us here today in Victoria. Victorians have asked us to stand here in this place and do this for them. So it is quite important, in my opinion, that we continue with debating this particular bill. I will not be speaking on it but I know there are others who are ready to, and I am always interested to hear the contributions of everyone in this chamber at all times.

Again, I am just checking with the member for Richmond that she understands that what would occur if this motion to adjourn this debate that has been put to the chamber were successful is we would move to the next debate, which is on the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024. That is what would be achieved if the motion put to the house were successful. I am being quite enlightened by this; it would be quite interesting for me actually to see what would happen if this occurred. So without anything further I submit that we do not adjourn the debate on this particular bill, because I think we have a duty to speak to it and to continue the program the government has seen fit to put before the house today and which has been accepted.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (15:01): The Greens have attempted to move today from the business of the house to debating the conflict in the Middle East, and it is a matter that they have sought to debate repeatedly in this place, not in a constructive way but in a destructive way. No-one in this chamber wants to see people hurt. Nobody wants to see young people – any age of person – hurt. We want to see our community band together; we want to see our rich multicultural community band together at this difficult time as this difficult, in fact heartbreaking, event is happening on the other side of the world, a place where the member for Caulfield and I recently went. It is heartbreaking, and I am sure every member in this place wants to see an end to that conflict, wants to see peace and wants to see all of the good people of that region flourish and have wonderful lives.

To know that the Greens have again attempted to rip the social divide in this state is simply shameful. We will not support the Greens’ attempt to do so. In fact earlier on the motion the member spoke about the fact that charity should no longer flow to parts of the Middle East. Think that through: we have an argument that is being put that is pulling the social fabric of our community apart and asking people to choose sides in a conflict where both sides are full of innocent people. There is only one group of people that we can all unite in being opposed to, and that is terrorists.

We need to be careful with attempts like this, which hopefully will not see too much light other than the Greens’ media pack that are standing outside the chamber with their cameras ready. We know why this is being pulled – so that the social media can be filmed on the way out of the chamber. This type of motion will only hurt the fabric of the Victorian community, and we cannot stand for it.

Every time there is an attempt by the Greens to do that we have to stand united in this place and say, ‘No, we will not allow that. We are a rich multicultural community.’ There are elements around the world of extremism, and that clearly is ripping apart some of the edges of the fabric of Western countries, and there do need to be conversations around whether extremism fits within the value set of Western countries.

My view is that it does not, because you need to ensure when you have a people and a country and a community living together, that for the people within that community – of course they can be rich and vibrant and from all across the world – there has to be just a basic set of fundamental values that binds that community together, not in any way to take away from the richness of that social fabric but to make sure that the people around us live well and prosper. So there is a conversation around extremism. What is not a conversation that should be had in this place or any other place is whether or not an innocent person who has been hurt or died is more important than another innocent person who has been hurt or died.

This place I am sure is almost united in saying the events in the Middle East are deeply heartbreaking. Many of us feel so incredibly moved by them, but what we have to do as community leaders is stand together and say ‘Let’s not allow anybody to rip apart the social fabric,’ which is not easy to make in a community, but it is easy to pull apart. We have to stand up against any attempt by anybody, let alone a member of this place – shame, a member of this place – to pull apart that social fabric. So the coalition will be siding with the government in ensuring that this motion is voted down, and I hope the Greens consider stopping moving this type of motion in this house.

Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (15:06): Member for Brighton, we do not usually agree on things, but we are wholeheartedly agreeing on this. We have a situation here where there are people in this chamber that ignore the fact that we are here to legislate and provide policy for the people of Victoria and instead use this chamber to divide, to virtue signal, to use emotive language and to wax lyrical on social media. I think I am an agent for change. I think everyone in this house should be an agent for change, but I fail to see what we would be changing by supporting adjourning off the government business program to go with the Greens motion – which would be down the line anyway.

When we talk about MOUs, I have done a little bit of reading on this. There were several MOUs that were used in the debate by the Greens member. I think the fact is that some of the evidence around those MOUs is not being used correctly; it is actually being used to divide this house. Certainly this house is no stranger to virtue signalling, but I would hate to think that I am up here talking now and being broadcast on Instagram by the Greens while someone is commentating me – which could actually be against standing orders as well – because I am having my opinion here.

I do not support the motion to adjourn off this debate. I would remind people in this house that if you have watched the news anytime in the last little while, the war in Ukraine has not gone out of fashion but it has for some people. There are still people dying overseas everywhere. We need to keep in mind when we are talking about this that we are sensitive to the fact that there are people hurting everywhere, there are families hurting everywhere. This divisive kind of politics does us no good.

David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (15:08): I rise to speak against the member for Richmond’s motion and adjourning off the debate to speak on their motion. As we speak now there are 111 hostages that still are being held by Hamas, and they have been held for 311 days. We have not once heard from the member for Richmond or from the Greens calling on those hostages to be released. We have not heard once from the member for Richmond or from the Greens condemning Hamas – a terrorist organisation. We have not heard once from the Greens calling out why this war started in the first place. As the member for Brighton has quite rightly said, and the member for Frankston as well, this is something none of us want to be talking about. None of us want war. We all want an end of war. We all want peace. We do not want to see people killed on any side, on either side. But there is one thing that is clear: there is one party that is absolutely divisive, and that is the Greens on this issue. This is an issue that quite frankly we should not be talking about in this Parliament. And if we want to be talking about it in Parliament, let us talk about the things that are affecting Victoria and Victorians.

Not once have we heard the Greens condemn the incidents of 10 November, when we had a number of pro-Palestinians go out hunting for Jews in Caulfield on the sabbath. Not once was that condemned. Not once have we seen any condemnation of graffiti being scribbled on Mount Scopus college saying ‘Jew die’; we have not heard that condemned once from the Greens. Not once have we heard the Greens stand up and condemn the situation at Officeworks where a Jew was refused service by somebody who was a pro-Palestinian activist. Not once have we heard the Greens or the member for Richmond condemn it, even when we had families that had lost loved ones and that had hostages still in Israel in this Parliament to tell us members of Parliament about their situation. Not once was it condemned. Not only was it not condemned, the member for Richmond was taking photographs and sharing them on social media. This is appalling. This is a Greens Party that is so divisive, trying to fuel hate and fuel division, and all it is doing is sparking antisemitism in our community. The Jewish community, quite frankly, has had enough of the Greens. They have had enough of the shameful, divisive nature of the game that the Greens want to play each and every day. It is a political stunt.

Elbit Systems and the MOU that they have signed are about supporting Australia and ensuring that our Australian Defence Force are as strong as they possibly could be for Australians and for Victorians, not the other way around. Do you think we are going to be able to export our intelligence and our defence forces to Israel? That is not what this is all about.

This is about targeting Jews. It is about targeting the Jewish community. It is about inciting hate, and it is about riling up the people on the front steps, giving them a grab, saying to them, ‘Keep going, keep shouting out “From the river to the sea”, keep talking about genocide,’ because that is what ‘From the river to the sea’ says. Every time the member for Richmond and the Greens friends say ‘From the river to the sea’ it is a call for genocide to get rid of every single Jew in Israel. ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ means every Jew that lives there will be sent packing. And largely we are not hearing anything about the thousands of Israelis, both Arabs and Jews, that have been displaced since the war, that are living literally with the clothes on their backs and nothing more, because of the Hamas attack in the first place.

We all want peace. We all want an end to the war. We also want the end of the attacks, the Jew hate and the antisemitism that the Greens do each and every day. Victorians are sick and tired of it. The protests that we see and all this kind of stuff are fuelled by a political party that is all about votes and not about ensuring that we have social cohesion back in our state. This is a great multicultural state. We celebrate each and every person, no matter who they are and where they come from – except if you are a Jew, according to the Greens. That is why it is shameful, it is divisive and it is an attack on the Jewish community, and quite frankly the Greens and the member for Richmond need to grow up.

Michaela SETTLE (Eureka) (15:13): I rise to speak against this motion. I do note that we have had only one person speak for this motion, and it suggests to me that perhaps even within their own party there are variations on this motion. I object to much that was said in the preamble. The suggestion that nobody else but the member for Richmond understands the pain and suffering that is happening to all sides during this awful conflict is offensive. I will agree, however, with what she did say in her preamble: that many of us find her aggravating. I will agree to that point. What I would say as well, though, is that this is just a stunt, and it is using this house to push a very personal barrow to win votes. The last time that I saw such flagrant disregard for the processes of democracy was when Donald Trump’s followers stormed Capitol Hill.

The Greens come here to play with no respect for the institutions of this house. They are no better than Trumpians. They are populists, and they are singing a populist line and offending the order of this place in pursuit of populist appeal. As was pointed out by the member for Monbulk, this motion from the member for Richmond will achieve nothing but a 20-minute ramble. Even if we were to adjourn off this debate, which we will not, the next order of the day is to return to the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Bill 2024, and I think it speaks everything to the lack of respect and the lack of understanding of the procedures of this house that this procedural motion has been brought solely for 5 minutes of imagined glory on their social media. So I wholeheartedly speak against this adjournment, not because I do not care about the many, many people that are suffering during this conflict, not because I do not care about the ramifications across the whole of the world that we are seeing – I refuse to support this motion because I object to the game playing, the populism and the Trumpism of the member for Richmond.

Assembly divided on Gabrielle de Vietri’s motion:

Ayes (4): Gabrielle de Vietri, Sam Hibbins, Tim Read, Ellen Sandell

Noes (74): Juliana Addison, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Martin Cameron, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Chris Crewther, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Wayne Farnham, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, David Hodgett, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Emma Kealy, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Tim McCurdy, Steve McGhie, Cindy McLeish, John Mullahy, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, John Pesutto, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, Michaela Settle, David Southwick, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Emma Vulin, Peter Walsh, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Jess Wilson, Belinda Wilson

Motion defeated.

Jordan CRUGNALE (Bass) (15:23): I rise to speak on this bill, which makes some small technical changes to the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 and the Administrative Arrangements Act 1983. As I said, there are a lot of little technical things in this bill, but they speak to matters of government, especially when they are aimed at making life a little easier for those involved in Parliament’s day-to-day work.

We will start with the Subordinate Legislation Act or, as it has come to be known, the SL act. Changes made to this act through the bill we are discussing include clarifying its key definitions to help people interpret the terms ‘legislative character’ and ‘administrative character’, which are central to the act’s operation and application. The need for these changes has been identified by the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) and other departments, and the changes are also supported by all relevant stakeholders who were consulted on the bill. In short, concerns have been raised by departments and agencies that there was not enough information to help them distinguish between legislative and administrative character. They were concerned that the current definition of ‘legislative instrument’ used in the act is not clear enough and hinders them in trying to work out whether an instrument is subject to the requirements of the act.

It should be noted that ‘legislative character’ and ‘purely administrative character’ are not defined under the SL act, although section 3(2) of the act does provide a non-exhaustive list of instruments that are considered to be purely administrative under the act and there are SL act guidelines that do provide some guidance for staff on the principles they should apply when considering what is or is not a legislative instrument. This just goes to show exactly why the definition of ‘legislative instrument’ needs to be clarified.

Determining whether something is legislative or administrative is really important for the proper application of the act and indeed even the proper functioning of Parliament itself. If the definition is not applied properly, an instrument may be disallowed by Parliament or considered to not comply with the act and be declared invalid by a court. You can see why the departments and agencies raised their concerns. They need to be able to determine whether an instrument is legislative or administrative in order to meet the requirements of the act – and Parliament by extension. This bill will have real, practical implications and will effectively eliminate the issues raised by the DPC and other departments.

What the bill actually says about the difference between the instruments of purely administrative character and instruments of legislative character essentially can be summed up by saying one applies to individuals and one applies to groups. Under this bill we clarify that those instruments considered to be purely administrative generally apply to a specific person or a small number of people. On the other hand, instruments of legislative character are clarified to be those that can generally be applied to a large group of people or the wider public and include offences or have mandatory requirements for people to do or not do a particular thing, with penalties applying for noncompliance.

The bill goes beyond just considering the administrative, legislative and other character of an instrument. Other amendments to this bill will make an express provision that consultation with public sector body heads can occur. This will reflect the departmental consultation that goes on when developing the subordinate legislation that the SL act deals with. Note that it is an extension of consultation requirements within the act, not a requirement, but nevertheless it is important to clarify.

The proposed changes within this bill will also help to modernise the SL act and make statutory rules easier for the public to see. For example, they will require that the government printer aim to ensure that a physical copy of a statutory rule is able to be purchased either online or via an approved bookshop. A further amendment will require that the minister or entity responsible ensure a copy of the rule is available for free on a departmental website. This is because we are strengthening accountability for the people we are here to serve. It also amends the act’s definition of what a statutory rule is so that the act will now specifically say that a local law is not a statutory rule. So now local councils will know that they are not subject to the SL act.

This bill adds a new emergency exemption ground for statutory rules, bringing them into line with the emergency exemptions available for legislative instruments. In short, if this bill passes, a minister will be able to issue an exemption certificate as long as the proposed legislative instrument is not for more than 12 months duration and is necessary to respond to something like an urgent public health, safety or emergency issue or something that could damage our environment or economy. This will make sure the government can still respond quickly to urgent situations, something we have obviously had to do in the past. There will still be oversight for these situations in the form of appropriate consultation with relevant figures and reviews by the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, as per the SL act. As you can see, there is a thread of fairness running throughout this bill – fairness for those who have to apply it and for those people and things who are or will be subject to it. We will always govern with fairness and equity in mind.

The last lot of changes to the SL act were in 2010. The amendments made at that time divided subordinate legislation into two categories: statutory rules and legislative instruments. These amendments promoted greater scrutiny of legislative instruments. The changes we are discussing today will further clarify and correct the provisions that arose from the 2010 amendments. In this way we are building on the work we have already done to make this act stronger.

The amendments we are proposing today are minor and administrative in nature, as we have heard from the various contributions in the chamber. Largely they are insertions and clarifications, but that is not to say that they are not important. After all, it is the little things in life that count, and in this case those smaller parts add up to collectively make an important whole – or fill a hole, as is the case here. By inserting additional provisions into the act this bill will greatly assist departments and agencies as they go about their jobs and will ensure that what they do is legal and effective.

To the second part of the bill, which deals with the Administrative Arrangements Act, this bill provides for changes in admin arrangements for ministers, departments and officers, including updating references in legislation and elsewhere – things like portfolio changes or changes of departmental function. On the subject of clarity, the AA act means we do not have to enact new legislation to amend such references every time something changes. This will save us valuable time and simplify the behind-the-scenes processes as we get on with the task of governing while continuing the thread of clarity and fairness that I spoke to before. While technical, the changes are nevertheless vital for good governance.

One of the biggest changes we are proposing through this bill is to allow for a consolidated version of administrative arrangements orders to be made by the secretary instead of the minister responsible or the Governor in Council. The secretary may also allow this consolidated version of the AAOs to be published online. This purely administrative function is once again about clarity and accessibility. With this bill members of the public will be able to more easily access and see the AAOs and the history of the legislative or administrative arrangements in question, and interpretation of them will be made easier not just for the public but for all of us here today. Essentially, it is about cutting red tape. Clarity and fairness are two qualities this government prides itself on delivering. The changes proposed in this bill are certainly technical, but that is what they boil down to: making government processes clearer and fairer. I commend the bill to the house.

Richard RIORDAN (Polwarth) (15:32): As the designated survivor in the chamber this afternoon for the opposition, I rise to make a contribution –

Members interjecting.

Richard RIORDAN: Sorry, I am joined by one other assistant survivor here in the chamber for this stimulating legislative program that the Victorian government has again dished up to the Parliament this week. They are having to trawl through legislation that was made in 1899 and other older acts to try and find something to talk about. You would think that at a time when the state is going broke, projects are being cancelled left, right and centre and the government is single-handedly failing to build any homes or get any houses built –

Members interjecting.

Richard RIORDAN: They do – and I am getting a bit of feedback from the government at the moment – talk about new houses, but they do not talk about extra houses. This government has only brought to the homeless of Victoria 492 homes over six years, which is a pretty impressive fail. So we have got this legislation we are talking about today, the Subordinate Legislation and Administrative Arrangements Amendment Bill 2024, which seeks to clear up a few i’s and cross a few t’s here and there on the legislative program. I refer to a point made by the member for Bass in an earlier contribution when she talked about this government priding itself on clarity and fairness. If ever there were two words that could never be associated with this government, they would be clarity and fairness.

One of the clauses in this bill, clause 23, refers to providing a few sneaky little extra powers to the government of the day. I was looking at that and thinking it deals specifically with emergency management legislation and under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 the declaration of a pandemic. Of course Victorians have certainly dealt with states of emergency from time to time, but we had not really ever dealt with a mass pandemic.

One of the things I think everyone in Victoria learned at that time is that government has to be prepared to have more scrutiny, not less scrutiny. And why do I say that? Well, because there were some very mixed results in Victoria’s experience of the recent pandemic that we all endured for a couple of years. In fairness, I was one of the few parliamentary members who was involved throughout that process through the PAEC, the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, where we were left with the role of scrutinising and this government was not remotely interested in being scrutinised or monitored or given any extra analysis of decisions being made. We time and time again had a Premier and senior ministers who said, ‘These are not our decisions, these are someone else’s decisions,’ and the ‘someone else’ was anybody from the chief health officer to other senior bureaucrats, who all said, ‘We’re only able to do what the government tells us to do,’ and we ended up in a very circular motion with everyone making the decisions but no-one being responsible for them.

We know now a lot of people got hurt in the pandemic. A lot of families still today are suffering. I think there is not a member in this chamber that will not have constituents in their electorate, particularly teenage children – later teenage children I think more than any other group – who really copped a hiding during the pandemic. They copped a hiding because of the disconnect and some of the unforeseen consequences of pandemic legislation. But had we been prepared to have more open, honest and transparent discussions about the decisions the government was making at the time, we may well have found out that we could have tweaked them and done a better job of the pandemic.

So when I read in here that the government, strangely, is seeking to actually allow itself to have the ability to make more regulations and more decisions with less scrutiny in those two areas, I cannot really see a great value in that, and I would hope that our colleagues in the upper house will use the opportunity through the greater level of democracy that can exist up there from time to time, where the government cannot always get its own way. I would hope that in that environment people are prepared to look a little more carefully at clause 23 and ascertain whether in fact that power is entirely necessary for the government of the day and whether in fact we can build more safeguards in. When people write to us, when community groups come to us and when the facts and the figures prove to us that we do actually have to listen, we have to be prepared to change direction sometimes, because we are finding that this government has a very, very poor track record of listening. Particularly in the last two years and the term of government before that, they have, luckily, had a strong majority which has dulled their listening senses, there is no doubt about that. They are not inclined to listen very well, and it will be very interesting to see how the current Premier listens.

We saw today in question time once again that people can offer up ideas, can offer up criticisms and can offer up problems and we have a government and a Premier particularly who I think is averaging somewhere between 10 and 30 seconds per answer, and I do not think that is a benchmark for open and transparent government. For a government that might pride itself on clarity and fairness, I would have to say it is a pretty low benchmark. What we are seeing in this current Labor government under the new administration that is running, the new Premier of Victoria, is a real culture of ‘We’re going to make even less accountability; we’re not going to be held accountable at question time’, which is a many centuries old tradition in the Westminster system where the government of the day answers questions from the Parliament and puts it out there so the whole community knows. We have really seen now over multiple weeks the trend of the new administration, where they are just not prepared to answer questions at all, and we are actually increasingly seeing a ludicrous situation where just one word can be picked from a question and the Premier in particular will filibuster.

Iwan Walters: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, on relevance, as fascinating as it is to hear the member for Polwarth’s reflections on question time, it is not entirely germane to the bill.

Richard RIORDAN: On the point of order, I would just like to respond that it is entirely relevant because I am referring to clause 23, which references the ability of the government to listen to the community and give feedback. I would suggest to my fellow member that in fact I am being entirely relevant talking about question time because it is the living proof of how this government cannot be trusted. I would suggest that that point of order is out of order.

Nathan Lambert: Further to the point of order, Acting Speaker, I would note that the member for Polwarth’s comments and defence on standing order 109 directly contradict the substantive point he is trying to make, and I ask that you rule his point of order out of order.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): I would say this has been quite a wideranging debate, but I will bring the member for Polwarth back to the bill, please.

Richard RIORDAN: In the minute and a half I have left to comment on this remarkably thin effort ‍– although, mind you, it is not as thin as yesterday’s offering on the Prahran Mechanics’ Institute ‍– I would say, in my eight years, possibly this week has led to one of the flimsiest legislative agendas that this government has been able to put up. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the Minister for Police’s urgent, critical piece of legislation that he wanted to bring to the house, that he wanted done and dusted by today I think it was, has managed to have the wheels fall off. He is nodding with agreement there. He has had a delayed legislative agenda there, the minister at the table, the Minister for Police.

The opposition has looked at this bill and reviewed it cautiously. We have passed our concerns on to our colleagues in the upper house, and hopefully in that environment we will see greater debate, particularly on clause 23.

Anthony CARBINES (Ivanhoe – Minister for Police, Minister for Crime Prevention, Minister for Racing) (15:42): I thank the member for Polwarth, but I move:

That debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day.