Tuesday, 18 February 2025
Business of the house
Program
Please do not quote
Proof only
Business of the house
Program
That, under standing order 94(2), the orders of the day, government business, relating to the following bills be considered and completed by 5 pm on 20 February 2025:
Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Bill 2024
Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2025
Energy and Land Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Bill 2025.
We have before us an important government business program this week. In circumstances that we have not seen often in this place, we held over a very important bill for a second week to ensure that every member of this place has the opportunity to get on their feet and tell us exactly where they stand in relation to the implementation of anti-vilification legislation in this state. I want to say this: there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that here in the state of Victoria we have seen an absolutely unacceptable increase in antisemitic behaviour. We have also seen an increase in Islamophobia. Recently two women were attacked at Epping plaza, and police are investigating this as a crime of prejudice. It is really important that this legislation be in this place today and that every member get up and tell us why they will be supporting the bill or to the contrary why they will not be supporting the bill despite the fact that we can all agree that right now we have too many hate crimes happening in this state and that hate speech is being enabled by those who stand to profit from it, including the big tech giants. It is an important bill, and it is an important sitting week because this will tell the people of Victoria just what those on the other side of the house really stand for, or as the case may be what they do not stand for. The Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Bill will be debated later this day.
The Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2025 is also an important bill. There are a number of areas of government that it attends to, including ensuring that we continue to support the cultural rights of First Nations community, that we strengthen the safety of Victorian residents, we improve processes for environmental protections and we enable families to connect – those who were the victims of forced adoptions in this state.
I will just take a moment to reflect that it was previous minister Jill Hennessy – I might say, at the urging of both me and the former member for Yan Yean – that established and then the member for St Albans who led an inquiry into forced adoptions in this state, so it is very satisfying to be in this place and see the work that was commenced some time ago come before this place. We are making real legislative changes. I know this is an issue that the member for Eureka feels very strongly about as well. That bill makes amendments to 14 acts of Parliament, so it is an important omnibus bill.
Finally, we will be debating the Energy and Land Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Bill 2025. Everyone in this place knows that in the member for Mill Park we have the most consequential energy minister that this nation has ever seen. In her time as the minister for energy the member for Mill Park has completely transformed energy in this state, and we are now well placed to head into the future with secure, reliable and affordable renewable energy, all delivered by the member for Mill Park as part of this historic Andrews and Allan Labor government. I want to commend the minister for the extraordinary work that she has done, and she does not tire when it comes to this very necessary transformation of our energy supply, energy transmission and energy markets. The bill acquits commitments that our government made to making sure that safety of the energy system is always maintained at the highest level, and it acquits part of that commitment by ensuring that Energy Safe Victoria is able to adapt to the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy and that Energy Safe Victoria can maintain its position as a strong and effective regulator.
We have a very important government business program to debate this week, and I know that it is always members on this side of the house that are champing at the bit to get up on their feet and speak to their values and outline to the people of Victoria why they will be supporting these bills. We look to the other side to see if we will get any ideas from them or whether, as usual, it will be ‘No, no, no’ to the legislation, which is actually designed to advance the interests of all Victorians, no matter where they live. I commend the government business program to the house.
Bridget VALLENCE (Evelyn) (12:48): I rise to make a contribution on the government business program. I thank the Leader of the House for the explanation that she has provided of the government business program, but I regret to inform the house that we do not share the same approach as the government on their legislative program for this week and will be opposing the government business program. The principal reason why the opposition will be opposing the government business program is because we had sought from the government to go into consideration in detail on certain bills. The Leader of the House just asked the question: will the opposition be champing at the bit to talk about these bills? Absolutely. That is precisely why we asked to go into consideration in detail: to further scrutinise the bills that the Labor government is putting forward. But did they agree to do that? No, they did not. They denied that very simple request. Anyone would say that increased transparency is something that the Victorian people would like, but unfortunately the Labor government shut down that request.
The Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-Vilification and Social Cohesion) Bill 2024 we know was on the government business program last sitting week, but the Labor government went into hiding and took it off the guillotine. It is now back on this week. It was listed on the notice paper again for further debate. If there was ever a bill that deserved to be put under further consideration in detail, this bill surely is most deserving. It is a bill that has been the subject of considerable debate in the community, and there have been genuine concerns raised by community members and by members of the Liberal and National opposition in debate last sitting week about whether the new defence which will be introduced by the Labor government at the last minute – the new political defence – will actually undermine the principal purpose of the bill and allow religious and racial vilification to continue in the state of Victoria. It would be absolutely shameful for the Labor government to deliver on that.
As I have said previously, we on this side of the house consider there is merit in having the opportunity to scrutinise bills put before this house. We do not think this Parliament should be treated as a mere rubberstamping exercise by the Labor government, and it is a pity the government does not share this view. It should be remembered that the opposition and crossbench members have only had two weeks notice of these bills and one of those was a sitting week, so we need to be able to have the opportunity to go into consideration in detail on some of these critical bills, particularly when there are questions unanswered by the government through the bill briefing process. Given the limited opportunity we on this side of the house have been provided with to consult with key stakeholders and the lack of opportunity to go into consideration in detail and considering the particular attitudes to the proposed changes of many members of the community, we think there should be an opportunity to question the government further about their motives – about why they have introduced these bills in the first place, about some of the fees and charges proposed in some of these bills, about some of the very questionable provisions that the government has in these bills and about how they will impact on everyday Victorians.
Over the last couple of weeks I have had the privilege of speaking with many people in the Prahran electorate and in St Kilda, Wyndham and Werribee. The common issue that we keep hearing on this side of the house is that, in terms of this Labor government, the people in Werribee, in Wyndham, in Prahran, in St Kilda and in Windsor are no longer listening to this government. They are sick and tired of this government, and it was known further from the results. The vote in those two by-elections should be telling for this government: that we have listened loud and clear to those people, that they want more consultation on the legislation that this government is introducing and that these people in these electorates, and in fact people right across Victoria, deserve to be listened to. They do not want to be taken for granted by this Labor government anymore.
In terms of the Energy and Land Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Bill 2025 that will be introduced by this government, it seeks to make many significant changes, including abolishing a couple of consultative committees – again an effort to limit transparency by this Labor government – which is precisely why we want to go into consideration in detail. We may move some amendments on that bill because we want to make sure that Victorians are not punished by this Labor government, that they are not worse off from the increased fees and charges and by the limiting of scrutiny and transparency by this Labor government.
Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (12:53): It is great to rise on the government business program and to follow the member for Evelyn, who gave a great commentary around things outside of the government business program. I just did not want to call a point of order acknowledging the commentary and the leadership change during that time and how significant that was and that half the time they were in a position where they were listening to themselves rather than Victorians.
But I come to the government business program and its significance this week. The anti-vilification laws are really important. We see once again a really important community discussion. I will be fascinated and really intrigued to hear some of the commentary and speeches that will come forward this week in this Parliament. I am up on this bill as well. We have seen the opposition in different frames on this bill: opposed, talking down the bill, asking for different things to change, like moving reasoned amendments, which I will come to in a moment. Where exactly is their prism on reducing the risk of vilification of people in our community? It is a really important frame. I am hoping that every member of Parliament on that side will do their communities justice and speak on this bill, put it forward and have a discussion, rather than just the consistent well-worn path of reasoned amendments.
We played reasoned amendment bingo last week. We saw how many pieces of legislation would have significant amendments or simply reasoned amendments that said to push the bill off for months and consult. Some of those things last week were interesting because some of the reasoned amendments suggested that there was not enough consultation and others suggested that there was too much – too much delay, too much impact – and we should go back and consult again. When they call for time on consideration in detail and there are literally two sentences offered up on feedback on a bill post the shadow minister’s lead speech, it does not really lend itself to the depth and the engagement that is required in this Parliament.
When we are talking about time and bandwidth – and I think there is roughly 30 hours of time we have as part of a sitting week – if you look at what the contributions are and how many shadows speak, once again we see a consistent theme. We see a lack of contribution to bill speeches once again.
I would not say that about the junior coalition party. The Nationals do carry a large load. I think you would have seen that if you are a real big fan of Hansard. I know sometimes the volumes are sent to the office and you might have a look at them. You will see a consistent theme. They are a junior partner in that coalition, but they carry a heavy load. I am just wondering when some of the Liberals on that side might actually start to put their name on the speakers list and not just put forward their Nationals colleagues. The Shadow Treasurer is here. He is not speaking as much as he often does. I think he is making sure that he is across his brief on Treasury and going through that. But let us front up to the fact that there is a really important part of democracy here that is the contribution of the opposition and government members to how bills are commentated on and find their way into the upper house, and the bandwidth that is given to time and discussion and debate is really critical to that as well.
This government business program builds on some of the great work and legacy of the Allan Labor government. We see the next iteration of legislation coming forward with the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Bill 2024, and there will be discussion around that; the Energy and Land Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Bill 2025, relating to Energy Safe and some of the regulations that have come forward and improvements there; and the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2025 as well. Again, it is a full program of output.
One of the tasty morsels I am looking for this week, though, Speaker – and I think you will be there on Wednesday afternoon – is the matter of public importance. The opposition have the MPI coming forward this week. We want to see the constructive, collaborative, visionary policy and discussion that will be put forward, what tasks, what things –
Members interjecting.
Tim RICHARDSON: The member for Brighton asks if I am up. I will just say I might be getting a few runs away; I might be on the list this week. If the member for Brighton is asking, then I think the member for Brighton might have the MPI. We will see how we go.
It is a really important discussion around what is coming forward, what the narrative is and what is being put forward by those opposite, because at the moment it is low-altitude flying. We have reasoned amendment after reasoned amendment rather than offering up substantive amendments. Then if we vote down their reasoned amendment, they let bills sail through, which I think is the laziest form of shadow ministry work you could ever have. Come forward with ideas, policies and rationales in those debates and then get on the speakers list. One of the fundamental roles in this place is to actually front up and talk on behalf of your community. If you are knocking out one every two months as your bill speech contribution, it is just not enough and it is not being serious as a parliamentarian in this place.
Martin CAMERON (Morwell) (12:58): It is great to be back this week. I rise to talk on the government business program. As we have articulated this week we will be opposing the government business program for many reasons. As the member for Mordialloc just said, we are quite happy to stand up in the chamber and talk on all of these subjects that actually affect Victorians and also affect the people in our own electorates.
One of the bills, which is on for a second week in a row, is the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Bill 2024, which I did get up and talk on last week. I think we are strong in the opinion that this bill does not go far enough. That is why we are opposing it. Our Shadow Attorney-General put forward amendments that need to happen, because we do not want loopholes for people so that when we go and make these changes they are not going to make any difference. We do not want to be part of something that is going to cause grief and then be back again in a month’s time or six months time having to change the legislation again. We are here so we can stop these people that use hate speech on the streets. That is why we put these amendments up and we are so strong and getting up and talking on that subject.
The Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2025 is another one. As was said, it is an omnibus bill. What happens in there – and I am just starting to get my head around it – is that we get a lot of bits and pieces which are good in these omnibus bills, but then we get the sneaky passage of a couple of other bits and pieces that need to be pulled up and spoken about.
While we may agree with 70 to 80 per cent – maybe 90 per cent sometimes – of these bills, that last little 10 per cent needs to be called out because we do not want to send these bills on their way when they are not right and we are going to be back again in 12 months discussing these sneaky bills again.
The Energy and Land Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Bill 2025 is up. We heard about how wonderful the member for Mill Park is and her visionary ways of turning to renewables at a rapid rate and how they are going to be life changing for so many Victorians. We are at the stage now where we need to be conscious that the timeline for when our coal-fired power stations are shutting is coming up rapidly. Yallourn starts to shut in 2028, so the clock is ticking. We need to make sure that we do discuss these regulations and the legislation that needs to be done, but we need to dive into the detail and make sure that we are not making a rod for our own back into the future.
Last sitting week when we were here in the chamber the Shadow Attorney-General raised a private members bill regarding bail, because this is the number one issue on the streets in my electorate and what we need to be concentrating on. The Premier stood in this place and said ‘We will have a review of the bail laws’ and then we get to today and there is nothing on bail laws here, which we need to be able to talk about. That is a fault of the government. We should be fast-tracking so that we can talk on these incredibly important bills, one being making sure that the bail laws are much more stringent and make it harder to put criminals back out on the street. They do have the blueprint. The Shadow Attorney-General put up the blueprint for the government to follow. When we do get that back in, it will be interesting to see as we go line by line how many of the recommendations of our Shadow Attorney-General are in there.
Only a couple of weeks ago Harry Wright, who was a constituent of mine, was killed in his home in an aggravated burglary down in the Latrobe Valley. These are constant things for families that I have got to talk to, and these are the issues that they want addressed. They want tougher, stringent bail laws. All it shows is the Labor government cannot manage money and cannot manage our safety.
Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (13:03): It gives me great pleasure this afternoon to rise in support of the government business program, and what a fantastic government business program it is. It is also fantastic to follow my friend from Morwell, the member for Morwell, and his contribution, although I am slightly confused. We had the Manager of Opposition Business earlier, as part of her contribution, talking about the need for reasoned amendments and the need for amendments to our legislation so we can undertake more community consultation. I make the point on anti-vilification that I think it was three to four months in terms of consultation. I would think that that was sufficient, but now we have the member for Morwell saying that we need to fast-track our legislation. We announced a review two weeks ago and we should have legislation before the Parliament already. I am not quite sure which one it is, but it is indeed confusing.
As I said, I am rising in support of the government business program, as you can imagine. What I will say is it is incredibly disappointing to have the opposition once again not support the government business program, particularly today when we have such an important piece of legislation on the government business program, and that is the anti-vilification legislation. Further to that disappointment, not only do they not support the government business program but they do not support the legislation. We can talk about community consultation. I can tell you now that I have consulted with my community, a community that is disproportionately affected by vilification and by hate speech in this state.
I have gone and consulted with my community, and they say that this is an incredibly important piece of legislation. Whether that be the disabled community in Tarneit and Hoppers Crossing or indeed whether that be our multicultural community, it is important legislation so that young people in my community, young schoolkids, are not affected by hate speech.
This is a real test for this opposition. Indeed –
Bridget Vallence: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, this is a narrow procedural debate on the government business program, not an opportunity to actually go into debate on the bill. I think the current speaker is seeking to debate a bill and not speak to the government business program. I would ask you to ask him to get back to the government business program.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I can rule on the point of order. The motion is a procedural debate. However, members are able to put context to their agreement or otherwise of the government business program.
Dylan WIGHT: As I was saying, this is a massive test for the opposition. It is, I believe, the first test for this new opposition. Do they want to stand with us –
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, this is a tight procedural debate, and what the member is doing is seeking to sledge the opposition rather than deal with the substantive motion before the house. This is just grubby politics on a procedural motion. There has to be a line.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am not sure it can be a substantive motion and a procedural debate at the same time. The member needs to bring his context in regard to the government business program. Most members have given context.
Dylan WIGHT: Seriously, how embarrassing. The proverbial sausage fest that is the Victorian Liberal Party has one woman –
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, this is just cheap, nasty politics from the government and from this speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is?
James Newbury: On relevance. There has to be a line where the government’s behaviour is called out.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is a matter for debate, although I will caution the member for Tarneit. He was getting close to unparliamentary language there, and I ask him to come back to the rules of the house.
Dylan WIGHT: Let the Manager of Opposition Business do her job. You do not have to undermine her at every single opportunity.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Through the chair, member for Tarneit. It is early in the week. Let us be civil.
Dylan WIGHT: As I was saying, this is an opportunity for the opposition to stand with us in stamping out hate speech and supporting – (Time expired)
Chris CREWTHER (Mornington) (13:08): I rise today to speak on the government business program, which includes, as noted, the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2025, the Energy and Land Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Bill 2025 and the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Bill 2024.
This is the second time the anti-vilification bill has been in the government business program. It was originally, in the last sitting week a fortnight ago, up for debate and vote, but then the government changed their business program to only debate it last sitting week, seemingly because of all the uproar about it from so many community groups and organisations, including the Australian Christian Lobby, Jewish groups and more. However, the government have seemingly tried to make out that they only ever intended to debate it in the first place last sitting week.
It seems the government does not have confidence in what it is doing. I do not have confidence in what the government is doing, nor do my colleagues have confidence in what the government is doing. That seems to be what is happening with the government at the moment with, for example, the Minister for Police expressing confidence in the police chief commissioner and then 87 per cent of police voting no confidence, which saw the government quickly backflip. This shows a government out of touch after over 10 years in power, not knowing what its people want and trying to divert from its own failures, like with this government business program and with this anti-vilification bill in the government business program.
Colin Brooks: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, it is a noble effort, but the honourable member is a long way from this debate.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will take that as a point of order on relevance. I will counsel the member for Mornington, similar to the member for Tarneit, that context is acceptable in regard to the government’s business program but to please stay within the procedural debate.
Chris CREWTHER: Of course, Deputy Speaker. It is of course important to give context to this debate. But moving to the specific government business program that we are debating today, as the member for Evelyn pointed out, we are opposing this business program in its entirety. As the member for Evelyn pointed out as well, it is in part because there is less transparency from this government and they have sought to block us and have denied us having consideration in detail on certain bills and more.
If we go into what is happening under this business program this week, on the anti-vilification bill, I understand that the government will also table some amendments in this regard. This is, I understand, after further consultation has taken place, but this is consultation that should have taken place in the first place. And I understand that these amendments still will not go to addressing many of the concerns that have been raised by Jewish community groups, the ACL and many other constituents and more. The government should indeed go back to the drawing board on this bill, which is why we are opposing the bill itself under the government business program.
Then we move to the Energy and Land Legislation Amendment (Energy Safety) Bill 2025. This bill is pitched as a key reform to modernise energy safety laws in Victoria, yet it raises concerns about the broad, sweeping powers handed to regulators with the potential for excessive penalties – another example of big government regulation where tradies could be penalised for trying to do their jobs. While aspects of this bill, such as moving bushfire mitigation plans to a five-year cycle, have merit, the government’s plan to axe advisory committees like the Electric Line Clearance Consultative Committee only reduces expert oversight and transparency.
The final bill on the government’s business program is the Regulatory Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2025. This is a huge omnibus bill proposing changes to 16 different acts across nine portfolios. Some changes are of course positive; some are negative. As the government likes to do with omnibus bills, they try and make the coalition look bad if we oppose positive things but equally try and make the coalition look bad if we support elements which go against our own philosophy. This is primarily an administrative bill. However, there are some concerns about new fees and charges around property transactions, Service Victoria’s expanded fee-charging powers and various licensing provisions. We have a cost-of-living crisis, and this government seems hell-bent on increasing the cost of housing, rents and more with 57 – or is it 58 or more – new taxes introduced since they have been in government. We look at the Prahran and Werribee by-elections as well. This government is on the nose, and it is time they listened to the public.
Assembly divided on motion:
Ayes (51): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Eden Foster, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Danny Pearson, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson
Noes (31): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Gabrielle de Vietri, Wayne Farnham, Will Fowles, 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, Tim Read, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, Ellen Sandell, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Jess Wilson
Motion agreed to.