Wednesday, 17 August 2022

Bills

Multicultural Victoria Amendment (Independence) Bill 2022

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Mr DAVIS:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (14:13): In Victoria we are proud of, we appreciate and we celebrate the multicultural and the multifaith communities that we have in this state. In fact the contributions from those communities have enriched and also strengthened the harmony of our state. In support of multicultural communities the government has some grant programs to support people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds to fully participate in the social and economic life of our state. They allow our vibrant multicultural communities the opportunity to express, to share and to practise their beliefs and traditions with the wider Victorian community. In fact the multicultural affairs portfolio has provided grant funding to more than 4200 organisations representing over 210 multicultural and multifaith communities. The program-specific guidelines, handled by the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing (DFFH), who are the administrators of the grant process, are developed by the department then approved by the Minister for Multicultural Affairs, as the responsible minister. These guidelines are then used as criteria when awarding grants. The eligibility of applications is then determined by the department according to a rigorous merit-based process.

In fact in 2019 the government commissioned an independent review which was undertaken by Mr Warren McCann into the administrative arrangements and the functions of the Victorian Multicultural Commission. The aim of the independent review was to make recommendations to clarify the working arrangements between the VMC, the minister responsible for multicultural affairs and the relevant Victorian government departments. The reforms that emerged from the independent inquiry included (1) providing the chair of the VMC with clarity around and control of the commission’s budget; (2) greater involvement in staff appointments to the VMC; (3) full control over the commission’s communications, including social media accounts; (4) clearly identified authority to the director of the office of the Victorian Multicultural Commission; and finally, full decision-making authority to deliver Cultural Diversity Week, one of the many functions of the VMC.

The report noted that, provided these functions were implemented, the current integrated model adopted way back in 2016 should be retained. Under the current model, the VMC is supported by the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing through multicultural affairs, which sits within the Fairer Victoria division. Various reasons were given to support the conclusions of the report by Mr McCann—namely, a general view that the form of structural support is a second-order issue as compared to clarifying the role of the commission; an integrated model offers the best opportunity for managing the intersectional issues between the commission and the department; the current arrangement is the lowest cost option; and finally, the current governance structure of the commission does not lend itself to the self-management of a body fully independent in financial and employment matters.

In fact the review made 20 recommendations, of which 19 have already been implemented, including through the development of an MOU with the VMC and via a new ministerial statement of expectations. The remaining recommendation—namely, recommendation 19—will be implemented if and when the Multicultural Victoria Act 2011 is reviewed. It has to be added that the review does not recommend that the act be reviewed but recommends that if it is—in case it is reviewed—it will be made more explicit that the skills potential appointees might bring to the commission will be a factor taken into account in the recruitment process. The McCann review also made it clear that the management of the grant process, including recommendations made to the minister, is in fact a departmental function and that the Minister for Multicultural Affairs has the final decision-making authority for all grant funds.

Because the review stated that the ultimate decision-maker for grants in the portfolio is the minister, the VMC currently only manages one grant program—namely, the chairperson’s support fund. It has an annual modest budget of $150 000 as compared to $50 million worth of grants that the DFFH administered in the most recent financial year. The chairperson’s support fund provides the VMC with the capacity to support matters of urgent need or activities that fall outside the scope of other multicultural affairs grants programs. There is no involvement by the minister, by her office or by the department in the VMC decisions on or implementation, management, assessment or allocation of the grants within the chairperson’s support fund.

The bill brought into the house by Mr Davis proposes to amend the Multicultural Victoria Act 2011 with a view to restoring the Victorian Multicultural Commission’s independence and grants and administrative processes. It is my duty to point out that the second-reading speech made by Mr Davis made a number of inaccurate claims related to the government’s response to recommendations by the McCann 2019 review and political interference. As stressed earlier, the VMC retain a level of independence consistent with their status as a statutory authority. There has been no change to the VMC’s status as a statutory authority since its establishment back in 1983. As a statutory authority, the VMC remains at arm’s length from the government, with the capacity to provide independent advice to government about the issues and the challenges faced by Victorian multicultural and multifaith communities.

The review handed down 20 recommendations, as mentioned, and all bar one have been implemented. It has to be clearly understood that recommendations 7, 14, 15 and 16, which Mr Davis referred to in the second reading of the bill, are not recommendations of Warren McCann’s 2019 independent review at all. Rather, they were proposals put forward by the VMC as part of its submission to the review. For this very reason they were not incorporated as recommendations in McCann’s final report—because those submissions were rejected by the independent reviewer, Mr McCann. Let me be clear: the four proposals mentioned by Mr Davis are not recommendations, and they were dismissed by the independent reviewer and not by the Andrews Labor government as Mr Davis has falsely alleged. Therefore I call on Mr Davis to withdraw his four assertions and stop misleading the house.

Victoria as a state has one of the most generous and ambitious suites of multicultural grant programs of any jurisdiction in the country. Also, in other states and territories they tend to look to Victoria for best practice when it comes to supporting our multicultural communities. Across most jurisdictions in our country, multicultural grant programs are in fact administered by state government departments themselves. Due to its deep links into multicultural communities, the VMC is already influential in determining what recommendations go to the minister. The report noted that the chair of the commission is content with the level of involvement of the commission and when invited during interview had no criticism to make of the process.

As the report notes, the VMC does not possess the capacity and capability to administer the multicultural affairs grants program, which has grown year in, year out ever since. In contrast, the portfolio of multicultural affairs administers more than 4200 individual grants, which is a huge number for the VMC’s capability and capacity. If the oversight and administration of multicultural grants were to be shifted to the VMC, it would significantly constrain and hinder the commission’s ability to carry out its primary function and duties under the Multicultural Victoria Act 2011. These functions and duties include advising the minister on systemic community issues relating to the adequacy of government services and settlement support and keeping the government abreast of factors inhibiting harmonious community relations and barriers to participation in the social, cultural, economic and political life in Victoria.

In focusing his attack on the grants process, which itself has been independently deemed as rigorous, transparent and robust, Mr Davis has failed to realise that the VMC is indeed very much an independent authority. So I call upon Mr Davis to withdraw his remarks and misleading of the house.

In conclusion, consistent with the findings of the McCann review, the administration of almost all grants within the multicultural affairs portfolio sits with the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing. The government has worked closely with the VMC to implement the recommendations from the two reviews of the VMC that have been undertaken. None—I repeat, none—of the recommendations have been rejected by the government. On this note I conclude my contribution to the bill brought by Mr Davis.

Mr ATKINSON (Eastern Metropolitan) (14:28): One of the things that I always regretted at school was the fact that I never got to mark my own homework. I am sure it would have been a terrific exercise to just go over what I had done and give it the thumbs up, because indeed that is one of the problems at issue here that is really the nub of why this bill has been brought to the house. Much has been made by Dr Kieu, who I think is one of the most terrific people within the Labor government in terms of multicultural affairs. He understands multicultural affairs. He is really dedicated to the advancement of all of those communities that contribute so much to Victoria. The problem with the presentation that he made today is that it relied very heavily on Warren McCann’s review of the Victorian Multicultural Commission, and the reason why I made the remark about homework, my homework, is that Mr McCann actually did two reviews. One of them was in 2016, where he restructured the way the VMC operated, merged it with other bodies and actually reduced its independence. In 2019 he got to review it again and he basically rubberstamped what he had done in 2016, which, as Dr Kieu said in part of his presentation, did not take up some of the concerns that were expressed in the VMC’s submission to the second McCann review.

Now the reality is that whilst Dr Kieu has presented a glowing report of the current status of the VMC, that conflicts very markedly with the information provided by IBAC after a review of some aspects of the VMC, particularly the grants process under the former minister, Mr Scott. It is very clear from what is on the public record that organisations that were sympathetic to Labor Party candidates, Labor Party MPs and particular factions were given extra benefits. They were advantaged by the grants process to the exclusion of other organisations which were not aligned with candidates or MPs or were not donors to the Labor Party, or in some cases were, heaven forbid, associated with other political parties in terms of some of the people who managed those organisations—not managed them for political purposes but managed them in a way that had proper governance.

These facts are beyond reproach. IBAC has found those facts to be established, and indeed this led to the resignation of Minister Scott. This is very much at odds with what is being presented in terms of the McCann bright and shiny view of the VMC. The reality is that Mr Scott’s office took an independent body into the department, initially the Department of Premier and Cabinet but subsequently moved it across to another department. They took that body and reduced its independence, and it led to the resignation of Helen Kapalos after a great deal of anguish about her being unable to fulfil the responsibilities and maintain the integrity of that organisation.

Ms Kapalos was faced with a situation where, rather than the VMC going through what Dr Kieu said was a rigorous process on grants, for instance, the grants list was presented to her from the minister’s office and she was required at short notice to tick it off to give it some cloak of dignity. It was supposed to be the other way around. To the rest of the world this is what was proclaimed, but the reality is that the grants process in Mr Scott’s office in particular was one of patronage. It was a process of winning political favour. It was a process that damaged multicultural communities. It meant that some organisations that were doing outstanding work in the community, organisations that Dr Kieu and I have attended—we understand just how important the work of those organisations is—were cheated by the process of political patronage that occurred with the VMC being emasculated by a previous minister and his department. I happen to like Robin Scott. I have always found him to be a person who is really interested in multicultural communities, so I am not sure that he acted of his own volition, that he was not instructed to do it for the sake of the party, but whatever the reason, it cheated multicultural communities. There are people in this house who are very much dedicated to those communities, and I would put to you that I think my passion for multiculturalism in this state is well known. My commitment and my dedication are well known.

For me this bill is important because what this bill does is it assures the statutory independence of the VMC. It ensures that it has the foundation to act properly and to be seen to act properly, to be seen to act with proper governance and without that political patronage and that in fact the processes are rigorous in terms of grants determination—but not just grants, also in terms of the advice that is given to the government on matters that affect multicultural communities. These are really important issues. One of them at the moment might well be visas. Certainly during COVID we could have done a lot better in this state, in my view, with the COVID response if we had concentrated earlier on how we got that message out to some of the multicultural communities. The VMC was not able to get that information out as it should have.

I have great faith in Vivienne Nguyen and I know that she leads a very good team of commissioners, albeit I would have concern about the diversity of some of those commissioners not in terms of the communities that they come from but in terms of their politics and experience and what they might bring to the table in other knowledge beyond their actual multicultural diversity, because all of that is important in having an organisation that is dynamic, that meets the needs of those multicultural communities and is seen to be independent, is seen to be well governed and is seen to be doing the right thing by communities.

The reason for the second McCann review, I dare say, was that it was recognised by this government that what had happened prior to 2018 was all about to come out. What was about to happen was the concerns and the distress of so many multicultural communities with the processes that had been put in place and with that political patronage were about to come to the surface. Mr McCann was the escape valve. He came to do a second review and basically to mark his previous homework and say, ‘No, no, no. I got it right the first time’, ignoring exactly what had gone on prior to 2018 and exactly what came before IBAC and what IBAC established were effectively rorts.

We cannot afford to have that. We value our multicultural communities. They are so important to the advancement of this state. They are so important to our linkages with countries around the world and with our global community. They are so important to the individuals in those communities who aspire to leadership positions, who aspire to do better in this country and who work in organisations that provide such social services—support during COVID, fundraising for things like floods and bushfire victims that are people beyond their own communities—organisations that do so much to support this state. And in some cases their work is compromised when a body that is expected to be independent, when a body that is expected to do the right thing by those communities and to select on merit the sort of projects that are going to most benefit the state and provide the best services, the most appropriate services to those multicultural communities, is compromised by political patronage.

We need, for the sake of those communities and for the sake of Victoria, to ensure that there is integrity in this entire process related to the Victorian Multicultural Commission. I share with a number of members in the government a real commitment to our multicultural communities, and I say to them—because I know what they think about it and I know that they cannot have had deaf ears when it came to the concerns that were expressed by appointees that had been made by the Labor government to the commission at the time of those reviews, both in 2016 and 2019—that their own appointees were saying, ‘This is not right; this is not how the VMC should operate’.

Now, I grant, as Dr Kieu presented in his contribution, that there have been some improvements, that it has been tidied up a bit and that in fact it is functioning a lot better than it did in the period from 2014 to 2018. I accept that, and I accept in part that that is because of the stewardship of Viv Nguyen and indeed the current minister. But we need to make sure that forever and a day we do not go back to the dark days of 2014 to 2018—that we provide assurance to our communities that this is a body that is independent, that does have the ability to act independently, that can provide ministers and government with advice without fear or favour in terms of those issues that affect multicultural communities and that has stewardship of a grants program that is based on merit and the benefits to the communities of those programs rather than on who the mates of particular people or particular factions or particular parties are, whoever those parties might be. This bill is an important bill, and I would urge the house to support it.

Mr ERDOGAN (Southern Metropolitan) (14:42): I rise to speak on the Multicultural Victoria Amendment (Independence) Bill 2022. I note that this is a bill brought forward by Mr Davis but that Mr Davis has not cared to listen to the contributions so far in the debate, which have been quite engaging, by Dr Kieu and Mr Atkinson, both of whom I must say I do see regularly in their ongoing engagement with multicultural communities. Mr Atkinson talked about the work that he has done and the work that Dr Kieu does, and I can attest to that. I have had the opportunity to attend festivals or events in this building or out in the community, and both of them are quite present. There are a number of my other Labor colleagues that I see quite a bit, like Mr Tarlamis and many others, that are also quite frequent attendees of multicultural events. I also noticed that Mr Ondarchie was a regular attendee, but the coalition has decided to part ways with Mr Ondarchie, which is quite unfortunate because he was one of the few members in the coalition that I would see at these events across all of Melbourne—north, east, west, south. Victoria is a very diverse state, and these events are held across metropolitan Melbourne and also in our regions, which are increasing in diversity.

The work of the Victorian Multicultural Commission is something that concerns all Victorians very deeply, and that is why I think this is a matter and a topic that we should all engage in and involve ourselves in. I think on the reflections of the previous speakers there is a lot to say. I wanted to start my contribution by talking about the foundations and the framework of how the VMC has been set up and why it is so crucial. I think some of the discussion has been about the independence or otherwise of the commission, but it is important to understand that it is a statutory body that was established in 1983 and constituted under the Multicultural Victoria Act 2011. It is a main link between communities and the government. The Victorian Multicultural Commission’s role involves identifying issues faced by diverse communities through consultations and our regional advisory councils, investigating and researching issues faced by communities, advising the Minister for Multicultural Affairs on community issues, giving recommendations to government to improve laws and policies through submissions, developing partnerships to improve settlement support services and helping diverse communities to access government services. It also involves encouraging all Victorians to embrace our shared multicultural identity by running a number of programs that promote cultural and social inclusion; encourage Victoria’s multicultural communities to express and preserve their cultural heritage—it is part of the integration piece in that people want a sense of belonging but also to practise their culture; and promote better unity, understanding and harmony across all communities in our state.

They hold a number of important events, some of the localised events that we all attend—usually the community festivals; it might be a new year event or it might be a different festival—but also bigger events that get more publicity, such as Cultural Diversity Week and the 2022 multicultural gala dinner. They are some that come to mind, but there are others, such as the Victorian Multicultural Awards for Excellence, the Victorian Refugee Awards, the Victorian Multicultural Honour Roll and the Multicultural Film Festival. They are some of the big headline events. But what the VMC does is more than just issue grants; it is also about the social cohesion and, because the VMC is so ingrained in our communities, giving that feedback to the minister’s office—but ultimately the responsibility is with the minister. That is an important tradition of the Westminster system.

There have been a number of reviews already conducted, and Dr Kieu elaborated on one of these or expressed what Warren McCann had already undertaken and provided advice on in relation to the functions of the VMC. The current model is supported by the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing through multicultural affairs, which sits within the Fairer Victoria division. General reasons to support the current model are that there is a general view that the form of structural support is a second-order issue compared to clarifying the role of the commission, that an integrated model offers the best opportunity for managing the intersectional issues between the commission and the department and that it is a low-cost option. We want to end the waste and duplication in some of these departments, and this is quite a clever way to do so. The governance structure of the commission is important, but it is not the only issue.

I think the McCann review made clear that the management of the grants process, including recommendations made to the minister, is a departmental function. I think that is important to understand, because people are reflecting on our great state, but other states and territories look to Victoria because of the work we are doing in the multicultural space. The level of engagement is second to none. Across most jurisdictions multicultural grant programs are administered by state government departments. For example, in New South Wales grants are managed by Multicultural NSW. Page 33 of the Warren McCann report states that there is no evidence that it is deficient in any significant way. The assessment of applications against established guidelines, including eligibility criteria, is robust and structured in such a way as to allow full participation by the commission and shared decision-making. The McCann report also notes that from the perspective of good governance it is appropriate that the minister is able to rely on the advice of the department rather than a statutory body whose commissioners are often appointed as representatives of the community.

Some are raising concerns about the risk to the independence of the body; I think the current structure actually strengthens that. I think the broader point about individual behaviours is a broader issue about codes of conduct and other behavioural matters, but in terms of the actual structure, I think the structure is right. That is why I will not be supporting this bill before the house.

Due to its deep links into multicultural communities, the VMC is already influential in determining what recommendations go to the minister. The report notes that the chair of the commission is content with the level of involvement of the commission and, when invited during the interview, had no criticism to make of the process. As the report notes, the VMC does not possess the capacity and capability to administer the multicultural affairs grants program, which has grown throughout our time in government. The multicultural grants program is massive. Before getting up to speak today I went onto the website just to look at some of the grants that are administered by that department: the Multicultural Community Infrastructure Fund; the Indian Community Infrastructure Fund—recognising that Victoria is home to the largest Indian community in Australia, and a growing one, we have a dedicated fund to help that community in particular to grow their community infrastructure; the community innovation grant program; the multicultural festivals and events program; the capacity building and participation program; the security infrastructure fund; and the multicultural sports fund.

These are just some that came to mind, so I thought, ‘I’ll jot them down before I get up’. This is the amount of work that has been done. It is a body of work. It is an amazing piece of work. Mr Atkinson reflected on the chair of that committee—exactly; they are doing amazing work. We have all seen it. We need to differentiate between individual poor decision-making and structural issues. I think the structure is right in the current system that we have, and that is why I do not support the bill before the house. Dr Kieu I think said that 4200 grants were awarded, to be exact. I do not know if I have got the figure correct there, but approximately 4200 grants have been administered by this department. So that is the body of work we are talking about.

The VMC—you would need to set up a whole new government department to manage that, but there is a government department that does that work: the public service, who make sure that the guidelines are fair. It is transparent. Any of us could go onto the website right now. I am sure they will be there—clear criteria and guidelines for community groups. As members of Parliament we are usually approached by community groups to lend support to their applications. They might ask for a letter of support or evidence of your attendance, so there is also a process of verification that those events have taken place and that they are adhering to compliance and what they said they will do. It is not like they just get the money and there is no follow-up. There are actually checks and balances in place, and for the most part, in my experience, the multicultural community groups that do get these grants make sure they comply. They understand the seriousness, but also they understand their privilege—that we are in a country and in a state where we celebrate our diversity. We can speak our language and practise our culture freely. We need to keep it that way.

There are always challenges, ongoing challenges. We know there are elements in our society that probably feel uncomfortable with that. In this chamber—and I can see Mr Meddick nodding—there are still challenges in making sure that social cohesion and harmony are maintained and people are educated about this stuff. That is part of the VMC’s remit, I feel. It not only provides that support and framework for those community groups but also explains the value of cultural diversity, whether it be cultural or faith diversity. The VMC’s role is second to none, and we are a leader nationally. I look at some of the multicultural work done in other states, and for most of them I say, ‘We’ve already done that in Victoria’. You see posts saying ‘First time ever’ for a kind of event, but we have done it here before. There is a lot more in the multicultural space that obviously can be done or we are in the process of doing, but as I stated, there are so many avenues for engagement.

There is obviously more work that needs to be done, because it is an evolving issue and it is not something where we can just say, ‘We’ve done fantastic work for multicultural communities, and it ends there’. I think it is that constant dialogue and engagement. Like I said, I have seen Dr Kieu and Mr Atkinson do it firsthand, where they speak to multicultural communities, get their feedback and pass that on to the decision-makers and the appropriate bodies—and that is important. As members of Parliament we have a responsibility to make sure everyone is heard. Some of the multicultural communities are some of the most disadvantaged or may not understand how to navigate our bureaucracy. But I think the guidelines, from what I have seen, are quite robust; they are quite clear. We need to separate issues of, like I said, individual behaviour or poor decision-making from the structures. I feel the structures are robust and strong. That is my main reason why I cannot support this bill, especially coming from Mr Davis, who is not even engaging in the debate.

Members interjecting.

Mr ERDOGAN: Mr Davis has re-entered the chamber.

Mr Davis: On a point of order, Deputy President, I have actually been in the chamber for some time, and the member is quite wrong in what he just said.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Davis, that is not a point of order, but I do note that you have been back in the chamber for some time now.

Mr ERDOGAN: Thank you, Deputy President. I was talking about the McCann review. The McCann review did make a number of recommendations. The review’s recommendations related to grants management. I guess grants management is important, because it is not the primary goal of the VMC but it seems to be the one that has the greatest public interest and it constantly comes up. From the government’s perspective the review’s major recommendations are that the management of all grants should be a departmental function; that content should be included on the websites of the department and the commission to explain the respective roles in the process, including that the Minister for Multicultural Affairs is the ultimate decision-maker—this is all there on the website; and to consider a strategic review, in partnership with the commission, of multicultural affairs grants categories to ensure that they are aligned to and support the achievement of the government’s multicultural policies and objectives. All those recommendations from his last review were adopted. Some of them have been completely implemented, some are at various stages of implementation.

I think in this space the government has a proud record of engagement with multicultural communities. Many members of the government are quite active and engaged with and participate in multicultural events across our great state. As I said at the beginning my contribution, from the coalition the only two MPs I would see regularly were Mr Atkinson and Mr Ondarchie. They will not be here next term, which is a loss to the Parliament because Parliament is better when we have the full spectrum of engagement with the broader community. Those two members of the coalition, the only two I would see regularly at these events, will not be here. But my Labor colleagues—like Dr Kieu, Mr Tarlamis and Ms Terpstra—I see at a number of events, and they continue their full engagement with multicultural communities.

In summation of this bill, I think it comes down to the issue that I feel that the structures are robust. We have had a number of reviews now—two reviews—which have come back saying that the structure is right now, and we should not confuse individual decision-making with a structural issue. I think the structures are right. If there have been some allegations about past individual decisions, I think that is a completely separate matter, but I think the structures are right and the VMC seems to be delivering. From my experience the events that have been sponsored or co-hosted by the VMC seem to be some of the best and most engaging with the most diverse range of groups, so I commend them on their work and hope that they can continue their work going forward. On that note I might conclude, but I will not be supporting this bill before the house. I want to make that clear.

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (14:57): I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the Multicultural Victoria Amendment (Independence) Bill 2022. Victoria is rich in its multiculturalism, both in the size of our culturally diverse population in this state and the vibrancy and strength of our culturally diverse communities. The recent census found that 30.2 per cent of households in the state use a language other than English, which is higher than the national average of 24.8 per cent and the 29.5 per cent recorded in New South Wales. We also saw the census data reveal 41.3 per cent of people in Victoria said both their parents were born overseas compared with the Australian average of 36.7 per cent.

I want to acknowledge the incredible contribution of our migrant and culturally diverse communities across the state—their experience, their wisdom and the values they bring that shape and strengthen our society. Despite this, there is a problem in this state with how our political institutions interact with our culturally diverse communities. We saw this revealed in the starkest of ways in that recent 60 Minutes story and the IBAC investigation that followed, which showed how some politicians treat multicultural communities—treating them only as numbers in factional wars. The ways communities were referred to, as was revealed in the transcripts of the IBAC investigation, were appalling. While they are not representative of all politicians, it is an extension of the top-down approach that governments all too often take to multicultural communities.

Today this bill and debate is focused on one of the political institutions in Victoria, the Victorian Multicultural Commission. At the outset I want to acknowledge the incredible work the commission has performed over years and years—incredible work that has reached broadly and widely across our culturally diverse and migrant populations in Victoria and really strengthened us through their advocacy work, their social cohesion work and all the community building and capacity building that they undertake to this day. But what this debate today is urging us to consider are the potential challenges to that work—namely, the challenge to how it remains as strong and as independent as it can be given what we know about the threats to that work as demonstrated in the investigations that have been revealed over the last year.

The most important part of this debate today, I consider, is the reminder that it gives us all about the dangers of those types of top-down approaches when you are working with culturally diverse communities. Governments and government agencies would do well to work with communities, listen and be prepared to acknowledge that communities may actually know what is best for them rather than telling them what is best for them. I know there is a lot of good faith and goodwill when working with culturally diverse communities, but we can all do with this reminder in the positions that we hold and the work we do with these communities.

By way of an example, I have been working with a number of incredible women from our culturally diverse communities who are advocating for more investment and resources to combat family violence in their communities, and particularly for funding support for culturally specific support services when it comes to family violence and a culturally specific family violence refuge in Victoria. We have none to date in this state. Yet they too are finding it very difficult to get the ear of government. They are advocating for culturally sensitive approaches. That means not just having interpreters and translators when you go to services and not just adding on culturally specific services to mainstream services but having a truly, deeply, culturally specific service that communities can feel at home in, can feel like it is accessible to them and can know from the interactions and interactions of their community members who have experienced that service that it is a culturally appropriate place for them to go.

The experience of the COVID pandemic over the last two years, particularly in 2020 and 2021, served as another clear example of how top-down approaches to multicultural communities do not work. The government was slow to understand the impacts of COVID on communities, obviously under extraordinary pressure in this really unusual and unprecedented event. I acknowledge that it was a challenge for all governments at all levels across the country and indeed across the world. However, there were challenges in the rollout of health advice in language and in understanding the different needs facing different communities. It demonstrated, I think, what had been building for many years about the need to strengthen trust with members of the community—for them to know what is best for them rather than taking solutions and presenting them to communities as a fait accompli. The work of really deeply listening and engaging probably had not been paid as much attention as was needed in the preceding years leading to those events. In those moments of urgency, if you do not have a strong system, the system collapses. It was clear that there were not the systems or political understandings to engage meaningfully with a number of these communities, who were disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. This was highlighted in the most dramatic way with the hard lockdowns of the public housing towers, which we know many of our culturally diverse and migrant populations live in, where it was the communities coming together and leading the support of their fellow residents in the public housing towers, ensuring that they were fed and had access to medicines and any other support that they needed, and obviously with the psychological distress and trauma of the really sudden event that was happening to them as well.

Now, in 2022, we see a strengthened approach from government when it comes to health advice about COVID and an improved way of engaging differently with multicultural communities and keeping them safe. I want to acknowledge the work that the government have done to really strengthen their approaches, acknowledging that it was an unprecedented event—something that we had not predicted, which really tests the strength of your existing systems. But there are moments like that where, if your systems cannot withstand that pressure, it is really important to acknowledge the areas where they need to be strengthened, and I certainly acknowledge that the government have done a lot of work to strengthen their systems. We are hearing back from communities that the information that is getting to them is much more timely. There are lots of areas still to improve, but it is certainly something that in the communities’ experience has been strengthened.

The pandemic has also showed us the economic intersection with our multicultural communities. We have a more starkly segregated workforce, with members of our multicultural communities more likely to be in low-paid, insecure but essential work in jobs that cannot be done from home but are necessary for our society to function. Indeed our multicultural communities need more than just MPs showing up at festivals and events and having photos taken and grants given out to friendly groups with an eye to an election. They need their issues and concerns taken very seriously, with proper engagement across time and across communities that listens to and trusts people and structural reforms that ensure we are still striving for social and economic justice for all to ensure no-one is left behind. Indeed that is what the pandemic is revealing to us about the sections of our communities that are left behind every day. A moment like that brings it into very stark focus and contrast. We must all listen to those lessons that the pandemic has revealed to us.

So in terms of the debate and what we are talking about here, I urge everyone—I understand that there will be contestation, questions and disagreements about the pragmatics of the bill and if that is the way and if those are the levers to be able to strengthen what we are talking about—to acknowledge and recognise what this debate is actually about, which is the approach we take to engaging meaningfully and deeply with our multicultural communities, acknowledging that it is a constantly evolving piece of work. It is not a ‘set and forget’, because our culturally diverse communities are always changing. Their needs are changing. The way they need governments and their political institutions to interact with them is always changing. We need approaches that acknowledge that the approach needs to be refreshed and revisited and strengthened constantly. We need to constantly listen to communities about how it can be strengthened and acknowledge that we have not always got it right. In fact there have been things that we have got very, very wrong. I think it is okay to admit when we have got things wrong. There are areas for much greater collaboration. Each MP that sits in this place, as we have talked about in debates over the last two years, has really strong connections with their respective geographic communities and other, for example, culturally diverse communities. There is real potential to use all those networks and links to bring communities together, to get information out to them and to help inform the ways our institutions make decisions with culturally diverse communities.

One of the most important things about this debate today—and I am glad we are having it; we do not talk about these issues enough in this chamber, so I really welcome the opportunity to talk about these issues—is the opportunity to stocktake what is happening with our work with culturally diverse communities, to address and acknowledge the areas where we are not getting it right and that need to be strengthened and then to recommit together to be able to strengthen those approaches. I think one of the biggest lessons is to move away from top-down approaches to collaborative approaches, which starts in the Parliament too. It starts with all the statutory organisations that are charged with doing this work to strengthen culturally diverse organisations, and with that commitment there is so much more work that we can do. We have vibrant, very, very strong, very wise culturally diverse communities who are saying, ‘We have the solutions. We are willing to try and test them out, but we need the opportunity, we need the area of government and we need some funding and support services. We need people to think differently about the way that things have always been done and try new approaches’.

In the work we have been doing, particularly with women from our culturally diverse communities looking for greater support and investment in culturally specific services in family violence services—for example, in Victoria’s first culturally specific women’s refuge for women escaping family violence—it is the kind of wisdom that they bring to the table that we need to be able to trust and invest support in, because otherwise we will never learn and we will never develop the systems that we know can really improve the way we support our culturally diverse communities. So I really welcome this debate, and I hope what it has done is increase our awareness about what we might need to do more of and what we might need to do better and reaffirm our commitment and a recommitment to working together to get that work done.

Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (15:08): I rise to speak on Mr Davis’s bill before the house today. It is always difficult when you are speaking on these sorts of matters when you follow somebody like Dr Ratnam, who has lived and breathed this all of her life. I certainly thank her for her contribution today but also her contribution in this space over many, many years and the continued pursuit of excellence. I think the one thing that we can all agree upon in this chamber when it comes to multiculturalism is that it will always be a work in progress, and it must be a work in progress. We must continue to strive for excellence wherever we can and whenever we can, understanding that as soon as we reach it on one issue another will pop up and challenge us in some other areas as well. Like Dr Ratnam, I think that it is so important for us to continue to have these debates in this place and continue to air grievances, issues, that emerge through these programs, these areas of public policy, because the more that we talk about them, the more likely we are to land on places which are taking us forward and improving the lives of the Victorians who come from such a diverse group of backgrounds, and wonderfully so.

Looking back at the commencement of the Victorian Multicultural Commission—and I think it is important that we do go back and we do remind ourselves, because it was not that long ago that it was established—it was established as a statutory body back in 1983, and it is now constituted, as we know, under the Multicultural Victoria Act 2011. The act spells out the role of the VMC, which includes things such as identifying issues faced by diverse communities through consultations and our regional advisory councils, investigating and researching issues faced by those communities, advising the Minister for Multicultural Affairs on community issues, giving recommendations to governments to improve laws and policies through submissions, developing partnerships to improve settlement support services and helping diverse communities to access government services.

The VMC, as we know, encourages all Victorians to embrace our shared multicultural identity by promoting the social, cultural and economic benefits of diversity; by encouraging Victoria’s diverse communities to express and preserve their cultural heritage and traditions; and by promoting better unity, understanding and harmony among all communities. These are fantastic ideals and fantastic objectives that I think everybody in the chamber is genuinely committed to, because I have not spoken to too many people in this place who do not understand the value of multiculturalism in this state. Everybody has a contribution to make—whatever that contribution is, whatever their background is—particularly our multicultural communities. And it is not lost on anybody, I do not think, in this place that outside of Indigenous Australians the rest of us are blow-ins. We have all come from different corners of the world, from different heritages, and we bring those differences to this place. In doing so we make it a far better place.

The VMC engages in a range of activities to promote the legislated objectives and obligations that I spoke about, in particular to promote unity and harmony among Victoria’s diverse communities. The VMC also deliver a range of significant events, and they have done so over the last couple of years, particularly during COVID. And that has been a difficulty, but nonetheless they did some remarkable work over those two years. We had Cultural Diversity Week and the 2022 multicultural gala dinner, the Multicultural Awards for Excellence, the Victorian Refugee Awards, the inaugural Victorian Multicultural Honour Roll in 2022 and of course the Multicultural Film Festival.

Over the past two years the VMC has also played that significant role in supporting the multicultural and multifaith communities to respond to the impacts of COVID—a very, very important period in our state’s history—and the role that our various multicultural and multifaith communities have played in supporting the broader Victorian community in getting through what has been a very, very tough time has been extraordinary. We know that those multicultural and multifaith communities have delivered regular community forums on COVID-19 in partnership with the Department of Health and that those forums were attended by more than 4000 community leaders and representatives. They have hosted more than 50 regional advisory council meetings across eight regions; hosted more than 30 community-specific and place-based round tables; co-chaired the North Melbourne, Flemington and Yarra public housing estates working groups; attended numerous community-led consultations; co-hosted anti-racism seminars with the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission; and continued engagement with the Multifaith Advisory Group, MAG, to provide advice to government departments on a range of legislative considerations and program initiatives. We understand the role that the VMC and all of our multicultural and multifaith communities play in honouring all who come from those communities and who participate in those communities, and we value all that they bring to the table.

I do want to digress for a moment and say that this is a bit ironic given, at one of the key events that the VMC put on this year, the 2022 multicultural gala dinner, the disgraceful performance of Mr Davis, which was widely reported. He acknowledged it, and I am sure that those that attended that dinner, witnessed some of that behaviour and were offended by some of that behaviour would be a bit bemused by Mr Davis coming into this place today and lecturing the rest of us on multiculturalism in this state. I will not play on that too much, but I think it is a bit ironic.

Mr Atkinson talked about Mr McCann, who conducted a review in 2016 and again in 2019. I know that Mr Atkinson was not casting any aspersions on Mr McCann. Mr McCann is a highly decorated public servant with many, many years of experience. He has provided tremendous service not only to this state but also to South Australia. He is absolutely above reproach, and I know that Mr Atkinson would share in that analysis of Mr McCann. Rather what he was referring to was Mr McCann conducting the review in 2016 and then reviewing that review some three years later. I think it is important to note, though—it is an important part of acknowledging that part of the VMC’s history—that Mr McCann’s review in 2016 was responding to recommendations that ostensibly came from a 2014 report by the Victorian Auditor-General. Mr McCann’s review was about implementing that review. It was a subsequent review following those recommendations that came from the Auditor-General’s report in 2014, so I think there is a natural flow-on from that report. I do not agree with the assessment that Mr McCann was reviewing his own homework. In fact what he was doing in the first instance was implementing the requirements laid out in that 2014 Auditor-General’s report, and in 2019 he was ensuring that all of the things that flowed from that were subsequently followed. I think that that has occurred.

I just want to go through, if I might, a couple of the recommendations of the McCann review. Nineteen out of the 20 recommendations from that review have been implemented, and it is important that we do not lose sight of where things are up to in this space. If one had tuned in to previous speakers, they might think that nothing is happening in this space, that it is just all stagnant, but that is not the case. For example, the McCann review recommended that the chair of the commission be consulted before the recruitment and appointment of staff who are assigned to support the commission in the performance of its functions. Status: it has been implemented. The review recommended that clause 7 of the MOU be amended to make it clear that the commission is not subject to the direction—this is particularly relevant to the proposition that Mr Davis has brought to the chamber today—of the minister in relation to its reports on the adequacy of government services and related matters. That has been implemented.

It recommends that a dedicated budget for the commission be determined and given effect through a separate cost centre in the Department of Premier and Cabinet’s chart of accounts, that the chair be given financial delegations necessary to exercise full authority for all items of expenditure and that the chair be held accountable for ensuring that the highest levels of probity in the expenditure of public moneys are observed as well ensuring that DPC’s financial and procurement processes are fully adhered to. That has been implemented.

VMC has its own cost centres within the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing. The director of the office of the Victorian Multicultural Commission and the lead director of the multicultural affairs and social cohesion division meet fortnightly or as circumstances require to exchange information and coordinate day-to-day work programs of the MASC and the commission. That has been implemented, and it is ongoing. You will see that right throughout the 19 of the 20 recommendations that have been implemented. We are following on from initially the report that was tabled by the Auditor-General back in 2014, seeking to implement those and continuing to strive for best practice and excellence in this space.

I suspect that what we are dealing with in this bill is something a little bit different to what has been talked about, but you know, you can only take people on their performance over a long period of time, and often Mr Davis likes to bring things to this chamber to muddy up the waters and suggest something completely untoward has occurred or is occurring, simply to fit a political brief that he has or indeed one he has conjured up himself. The VMC and all of our multicultural and multifaith communities and organisations do a sensational job, which we absolutely value.

I do want to say before I conclude that the other thing Mr Atkinson said when he was referring to Dr Kieu was about his commitment to multiculturalism in this state. As to Mr Atkinson’s long-held views in this space, he has been a champion—long before it was fashionable, I have got to say—in this state and is to be congratulated. So congratulations to you, Mr Atkinson, and to Dr Kieu. And for everybody, we can all do a whole lot better and we can all do a whole lot more, and we must. Let us put our shoulders to the wheel and let us improve the lives of all Victorians, but particularly of those who come from such diverse and wondrous backgrounds and cultures and bring so much to our Victorian community.

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (15:23): I rise to speak on the Multicultural Victoria Amendment (Independence) Bill 2022. I congratulate Mr Davis for bringing this bill before the house today, because it does address a really important issue, and that is the independence of the Victorian Multicultural Commission (VMC) and particularly the multicultural grants process. The independence of that grants process absolutely must be restored.

I am fortunate to live in one of the most multicultural communities in this state in Greater Shepparton, and we celebrate that diversity in Greater Shepparton. We celebrate it all the time. In fact our council even puts out a calendar each year on cultural events, and our local ethnic council does a tremendous job with our very vast multicultural community to assist them with celebrating all of those events. We have over 30 nationalities living in Shepparton, and we speak more than 50 languages. That is quite significant. In fact Shepparton is held up as the poster child for multiculturalism in the country. We have a lot of new settlers as well as cultures that have been there for a very long time. It is not always a bed of roses in Shepparton, but everyone works at it. The council work at it, the ethnic council work at it, the police work at it and the members of Parliament work at it, and we have a very, very healthy and harmonious community.

Many people put in a great deal of work to make that work, but they also put in a great deal of work to host and put on the vast array of multicultural events that we have throughout the year. I see that hard work. I see the hard work that goes into each event. I see the hard work that goes into planning each event. There is no doubt that when it came out that the minister’s office here in Melbourne was interfering with the independence of the Victorian Multicultural Commission and was giving grants to groups on the proviso that they campaigned for the Labor Party it would have been of great concern to our community. It would have been a great disappointment to them when they were applying for grants to do what the multicultural grants are supposed to do—that is, celebrate the diversity of the multicultural community in Greater Shepparton. I know they would have been greatly disappointed by that.

That is why it is so important that we restore the independence of the VMC and the independence of the grants process and take it out of the hands of a minister who can manipulate those grants and give them to people and community groups providing they support the ALP. That is just not what they were meant for, not what they should be used for, and it is indicative of this government and the way that they use public money to support the ALP, to support their re-election, to support their branch activities and even to support their membership payments. It is not what public money is meant to be used for, but so embedded in this government is the corruption and misuse of public money that they do not see anything wrong with it at all. With those few words, I will allow Mr Melhem to have his moment before we expire the time for this bill.

Mr TARLAMIS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (15:27): I move:

That debate on this bill be adjourned until later this day.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until later this day.