Thursday, 18 April 2024
Bills
Statute Law Revision Bill 2024
Bills
Statute Law Revision Bill 2024
Second reading
Debate resumed on motion of Ingrid Stitt:
That the bill be now read a second time.
Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (14:11): It is great to speak on the Statute Law Revision Bill 2024. I want to thank my colleague Michael O’Brien. Usually my colleague Mr O’Brien goes to great lengths to consult with stakeholders and review the bill in detail, but really all he needed was maybe that program Grammarly or a spellcheck to actually go over and learn about this bill. Safe to say it is probably the easiest bill report he has done for colleagues. The briefing he gave to me was very short, but nonetheless I thank him for that.
This bill I think is indicative of this Labor government. It does nothing to fix Victoria’s crushing debt. It does absolutely nothing to address the cost-of-living pressures Victoria is facing. It does nothing to fix the housing crisis, nothing to improve youth crime and nothing to improve productivity in this state.
Jaclyn Symes: On a point of order, Acting President, it is important when speaking on legislation to address what is in the bill. There are plenty of topics in the bill that you might like to draw your attention to, and actually what you are advocating for is that outdated bills, errors and legislation should not be improved and amended at an opportunity such as now. I think that that is a poor reflection as an MP to have – that we should have laws that are incorrect and wrong.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): Thank you, Attorney-General, for the point of order and the debate that went with it. On that note, you are correct. We are here to debate not what is not in the bill but rather what is in the bill. I call the member back to the bill.
Evan MULHOLLAND: Thank you, Acting President. I was trying to say I think it is extraordinary that the government has chosen this for a regional sitting. I would think there might be a few more issues of substance they could grace the good people of Echuca with; perhaps the SEC bill they could have put forward here in Echuca, knowing how locals oppose that.
It amends a number of acts that I want to speak on. I find it quite extraordinary – it actually amends some of the Building Act 1993 and the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995. Under this government’s watch, with their reckless agenda and their wasteful Big Build causing massive inflation of building materials and labour, we have seen the collapse of many domestic building companies, including Porter Davis Homes, Montego Homes, Chatham Homes and Apex Homes. Under this government’s watch we have seen a huge failure to enforce the law to ensure that dodgy builders are purchasing legally required domestic building insurance. It is emblematic of this government. They have created a crisis in the domestic building industry, which we know –
Members interjecting.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): Order! Mr Mulholland, this is great, but can we keep it to a dull roar and at least about the bill. Mr Mulholland, without assistance.
Evan MULHOLLAND: We know the Assistant Treasurer was warned, well in advance, of these building collapses and the risks to the domestic building industry, but of course he did nothing in the way of any serious reform, and we still have not seen any serious reform in this space. Not even a crisis in the domestic building industry is enough to jolt them into action – just a few grammatical changes. I have spoken to countless Victorians, including those in northern Victoria, like those in Doreen and other affected places, who have been victims of the lack of government enforcement of the law and victims of dodgy builders who do some pretty abhorrent things. We need action here in Victoria beyond some grammatical changes. I think they have lost all sense of urgency and priority in regard to this space, and I think that is emblematic of an almost decade-old government that has just run out of puff when it comes to governing Victoria and rectifying problems they have created. The consequences are becoming increasingly devastating for so many Victorians.
What does this bill do? Does it do anything to improve the domestic building industry? No. Does it do anything to fix the Victorian Building Authority (VBA) and the chaos that this government has overseen? No. They are changing ‘draftsperson’ to ‘building designer’.
Following the collapse of Porter Davis Homes, the opposition, including my colleague Jess Wilson, dragged the government kicking and screaming to establish a support scheme for affected customers. It was an appropriate response to assist victims of a disgraced company, but what did this government do to stop history repeating itself? The government did absolutely nothing approaching enough. And what did we see? The collapse of Montego Homes, with around 60 customers without domestic building insurance. There were customers like Jessica Rodriguez, who had her life shattered. A single mum from Doreen in northern Victoria, in the seat of Yan Yean, she spent almost a decade sacrificing mornings, afternoons, weekends and special occasions working to save for a deposit to build a house in Doreen for herself and her nine-year-old daughter. Under this government’s watch the great Australian dream has become the great Labor nightmare. She trusted Montego Homes, but she also trusted this government to effectively enforce the existing law that would keep builders honest. Jess was not alone. We saw gut-wrenching situations, including in western Victoria, in Mount Duneed, where families lost absolutely everything.
The initial response from the minister to our calls to extend the support scheme was no. ‘There is no money,’ is what the Premier’s office said, and the minister responded with a resounding no to our initial calls. It was only after our tireless advocacy and, I have to say, the advocacy of these victims, who did not give up. They rocked up to the front steps of Parliament. They were in the gallery for question time. They contacted ministers. They were on the front page of both the Whittlesea Review and the Geelong Advertiser telling their stories. It was only then the government was dragged kicking and screaming to extend the support to customers of Montego Homes, which had collapsed, and Chatham Homes as well.
But, predictably, in the intervening period between 20 February, the date it was extended to, and 6 March, when the government announced it, Apex Homes collapsed into liquidation. Again, this was despite Labor announcing the extension of the scheme on 6 March, after Apex had gone into liquidation on 21 February. They failed to include them in the scheme. When my colleague Jess Wilson asked the Assistant Treasurer in question time, he was clearly unaware of the collapse. It just beggars belief that he would be unaware of Apex Homes going into liquidation, affecting so many customers in the south-east, and I would be concerned on that side of the house if this minister is rumoured to be the next Treasurer of Victoria, having been continually not across his brief.
This was another company going into collapse. I followed up with the minister straight after that question and emailed him several examples of people who had written to me very, very concerned that they had lost everything and had cruelly not been included in the scheme that was announced because the minister was not across his brief. It was only this past Monday that we realised that very quietly the government, when the support scheme opened, had extended it to 28 February. That would not have happened without the advocacy of the opposition, the Liberals and Nationals.
Members interjecting.
Evan MULHOLLAND: The minister – and I know they are embarrassed for him – did not even know they had gone into liquidation. That is how not across his brief he was. The minister did not even know he had cruelly left them out of that support scheme. Because we made him aware of that, those families are now included.
I want to thank the advocacy of my colleague Ann-Marie Hermans but also the local member Brad Battin for listening, for sitting down with these victims who had lost everything and for advocating on their behalf to the minister. Since the collapse of Porter Davis, Labor have made no meaningful changes to stop dodgy builders stealing deposits without taking out the legally required insurance. Labor have done nothing to improve the VBA, which I hear deeply concerning stories about every day. But they are bringing this bill here today, to a historic regional sitting, which makes no substantive changes, as if to torment and insult Victorians.
In the Building Act 1993 they propose to change ‘pools’ to ‘pool’ and in the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 ‘draftsperson’ to ‘building designer’. Another act Labor is proposing to amend is the Road Safety Act 1986. Once again it does nothing to improve road safety, but I do love getting out to northern Victoria. I have been to northern Victoria quite a bit recently, whether it be places like Doreen or Mernda, or in Broadford with my great colleague Annabelle Cleeland. Late last year I was up in Yarrawonga with the great local member Tim McCurdy, who is here today, visiting some builders there. A couple of weeks ago I was with my colleague Wendy Lovell up in Wodonga hearing firsthand about the impact of this government’s land tax, which is forcing people to sell up and go and invest in Albury instead, because of this government’s addiction to taxes. It is great to be here in Echuca, in the electorate of Peter Walsh.
The bill does amend the Road Safety Act, and certainly when it comes to road safety this government has been found wanting. Particularly in my electorate, the roads are littered with potholes. Labor has reduced road maintenance funding by 45 per cent since 2020. In 2023, 295 lives were lost on our roads, an increase of 22 per cent on the previous year. Despite this, Labor cut $230 million from road safety programs in 2021–22 and 2022–23. Labor is clearly not serious about road safety. I think it is obvious to anyone who has had the misfortune of driving on a regional road filled with potholes, this fact. In my electorate I just want to shout out to locals in Wallan, where potholes are a very, very big issue, and I want to shout out to students from Our Lady of the Way Catholic Primary School in Wallan, who did some artwork on their best potholes and their roads, such is the seriousness of this issue for them. The government is seemingly not doing all that much about it.
People have had to fork out hundreds of dollars to pay for a new wheel, a new tyre or to have their suspension checked, many times in multiple incidents. One individual incident will reach the threshold of about $1600 or $1700, but they are having to pay several thousand dollars because it is over many incidences with potholes. I drove up here on the Northern Highway. The Northern Highway actually ends in my electorate, and it is probably about the worst stretch of the Northern Highway coming onto the Hume because of this government’s lack of maintenance on the Northern Highway, and I want to say lack of maintenance on Watson Street as well, which seems to be a permanent slow-go zone without any roadworks. There has been a 414 per cent increase in claims by drivers of damage to their vehicles from our roads in the last three years. But what does Labor do on our roads? It just permanently reduces speed limits. You see it everywhere. Roads that used to be 100 kilometres per hour are now 80 kilometres. You see ‘60 kilometres, roadwork ahead’, but you do not see any roadworks; you just see Labor potholes. Victorians do not deserve this, but this is the price we pay for a government that cannot manage money. It is Victorians that pay the price.
The government are obsessed with shiny megaprojects like the Suburban Rail Loop, the biggest pork-barrelling exercise in Australian history, but not on actually fixing our roads to make our roads safer and make life easier for regional and rural Victorians and Victorians in metropolitan areas as well. It seems like the government has no interest in actually fixing road safety besides a few grammatical errors. The government is admitting it has made mistakes in the past by fixing these acts, but in terms of potholes it has no interest in fixing potholes, and things seem to be getting worse and worse and worse. I think what we need is serious investment. What we need is no more cuts to our road maintenance budget as we have seen under this government. As we have seen recently, they are paying off the credit card with more credit cards. Perhaps they could invest money into fixing our roads and road safety.
Tom McIntosh: On a point of order, Acting President, it would be great to come back to the bill at some point. There has been a fair bit of leeway, but if we could come back to the bill, it would be great.
Evan MULHOLLAND: It is a road safety act; I was talking about road safety.
Members interjecting.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): Order! Enough! Lead speaker, it is a road safety act, so keep on going.
Evan MULHOLLAND: Hopefully the member for Eastern Victoria, who lives in my electorate, has learned a few things about the Road Safety Act. Another act that I would like to talk about as well is the Gas Industry Act 2001. With the way this government treats the gas industry and the way it treats Victorians who use gas in their business or may want to use it at home, you would think that there might simply be an amendment to ban it, and we know this government has a secret plan to ban gas. They have banned gas developments for new homes, so they are saying to some Victorians who are going into our growth areas they are not allowed to use gas, but they are saying to everybody else it is all good. If you actually dive deep into their Gas Substitution Roadmap, you see some pretty scary stuff about what they are planning on doing in the future. You do not create a Gas Substitution Roadmap if you are not planning on banning gas altogether, and that is what this government is doing. I was meeting with some families from our Hindu community out in Mickleham recently, and they are very concerned about Labor’s proposed gas ban. They have got new family members moving into areas like Mickleham that will not be able to get gas – they cannot get gas – and they are really concerned about that and what that means for them.
A member interjected.
Evan MULHOLLAND: What we are going to do we have already announced. The Liberals and the Nationals, when we form government in 2026, will reverse that gas ban, because we understand the needs. As I said, I was up in Wodonga recently, and we recently saw Seeley International, who produce gas heaters, announce that 120 jobs would be lost from the local community in Wodonga after they relocate to South Australia, which actually has a Premier who is begging our manufacturers to come over, whereas this government, including the member for Mill Park, seem to be very anti-gas, which is also anti-manufacturing. I have been meeting with manufacturers in my electorate in the northern suburbs who are very concerned about this government’s approach to gas and their ability to manufacture in the northern suburbs going forward, but also in regional Victoria as well. Seeley International said:
The accelerated disruption to our industry caused by the Victorian government’s inexcusable anti-gas obsession, and using taxpayers’ money to pay consumers to replace Australian-made gas heaters with imported reverse cycle systems, is extremely detrimental.
You might think protecting regional jobs was more important than moving a quotation mark, but apparently not. We saw the same with Qenos recently, and I know my colleague David Davis said in the media that Qenos had long played a central role in Australia’s manufacturing sector and said the state government’s energy policy was driving manufacturers out of the state, which is true. He said that frightening surges in taxes, energy costs and regulation in Victoria make us uncompetitive, and:
A firm like Qenos uses gas as both a feedstock and an energy source and has been hit hard by the surge in energy costs under Victorian Labor. Security of gas supply is also critical …
But it has botched its gas policy, and it is ‘a significant impediment and must be reversed if businesses are to survive and compete’. But they are not competitive in Victoria because of this government’s approach to gas. A premature exit from gas without creating viable alternatives and credible solutions is entirely reckless and will end up costing consumers the most.
Another act that is proposed to be amended is the EastLink Project Act 2004, and I know my colleagues from the North-Eastern Metropolitan Region and the Eastern Victoria Region will be interested in this one. I use EastLink every now and then, and it is a fantastic road, a long time in the making. It was first shown in the Bolte government’s visionary 1969 Melbourne transport plan as the F35 freeway. But on this side of the house we do not like broken promises. The Bracks government promised that EastLink would be toll free, so that little beep – everyone hears it – when you are travelling along should be a reminder of Labor’s broken promise of no tolls. Unfortunately, I suspect people think this more regularly lately since cost of living is out of control under this government. It was one of the most famous broken promises in the history of Victorian politics, and we condemn that side of the house for it.
Another act proposed to be amended is the Safety on Public Land Act 2004, with the removal of a provision of that act which was repealed by the Sustainable Forests (Timber) and Wildlife Amendment Act 2014. It is very disappointing to see this government bring an end to sustainable native timber logging in this state. What you hear from Labor is they stand up for working people but what working people get is a slap in the face, and that is what they see. They do not care about good blue-collar jobs like in manufacturing; they let gas prices get out of control and end the manufacturing of Australian-made gas heaters like Seeley in Wodonga. They up-ended the livelihoods of forestry workers across Victoria. They promised to stage transition through to 2030 and then fast-tracked their demise by announcing a total shutdown – just disgraceful. Haulage operators affected have been offered just 50 cents in the dollar and harvesting contractors 30 cents in the dollar for the remainder of their contracts, some of which will end soon. It is just terrible. They have failed 2500 timber workers. The industry has generated more than $770 million each year, much of it in regional areas such as Gippsland. Worse still, we are left without a valuable local source of timber and a gaping hole in fire management.
I was pleased to be up Gippsland way in Sale last year as part of the native bird hunting inquiry, and I know many locals spoke to me about that issue as well. It is a sad result when you have a party beholden to the Greens political party. I would not quite want to be allies with them or cheering them on there. The closest the Greens have ever gotten to a forest is when Adam Bandt flies over it in one of his taxpayer-funded private jets. Many of these workers, be they forestry workers, manufacturing workers or even workers in the government’s own projects, enjoy the great outdoors. But we know that government MPs did vote for a ban on duck hunting that was only stopped after the advocacy of the Liberals and Nationals. There were the over 900 that signed my open letter to the Premier and over 400 that attended my forum in Craigieburn, many of whom were wearing CFMEU hoodies and Electrical Trades Union (ETU) caps and steelcapped boots and who worked on government projects, that put enough pressure on this government to reverse their ban on duck hunting.
I know Mr Galea was pretty disappointed, but the Premier made a captain’s call. You know what, it was the right captain’s call on duck hunting. If you speak to anyone out this way but particularly in the growth areas of Melbourne – places like in my electorate the seat of Kalkallo, which has over a thousand registered duck hunters; the seat of Greenvale has even more registered duck hunters, thousands – many people that live in our growth areas and across regional Victoria enjoy it as a generational recreational activity, and it should remain so. But you know they are clamouring to go further. We know, if given the opportunity, they will lock up our national and state parks and they will also end four-wheel driving. That is not me saying that, that is people like the ETU. They have already locked up the Grampians, closing off some of the best and most historical walking tracks, banning wild camping and scrambling across rocks. The Grampians was once a place where people could go to escape the hustle and bustle of everyday life, to perhaps escape to forget they had a Labor government. Now they do not even have this. You must always do what Labor tells you to do is what they say: stay on the worn path and only swim with a permit – just ridiculous. You can tell this government has dreams –
Evan MULHOLLAND: Maybe if the member was not interjecting, he would understand. You can tell this government has dreams of finding new ways to end the weekend, and it salivates at the prospect. All I can say is if only Labor defined ‘path’, because the government has clearly lost its way. It is a decade-old government, and this is the best it can bring of substance to a historic city in regional Victoria. Despite this bill being indicative of a tired, old – almost decade-old – Labor government, we do not oppose this bill. It is worth fixing mistakes and ensuring legislation is correct. I just wish the people of Echuca were treated with a bit more respect than this bill.
Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:37): I rise to join what is already a wideranging debate on the Statute Law Revision Bill 2024. In doing so I want to acknowledge that we are here today in the city of Echuca and how wonderful it is to be here, especially as I see the Murray River behind my Liberal colleagues on the other side of the chamber. I see that we are on the right side of the Murray River as well. I do want to acknowledge the people of Echuca, who have so warmly welcomed us all here today. I also acknowledge that I am here speaking on the land of the Yorta Yorta people.
This regional sitting is a great opportunity for us to take a slice of the Parliament – not the entirety of the Parliament, not everything that we do of course –
Nick McGowan: A small piece.
Michael GALEA: a small piece of the Parliament to regional Victoria to showcase a little bit of what we do. But more importantly for me this week it has been a real opportunity for us to not just stand here and perform to them but to actually listen. I particularly appreciated two speakers this morning, Ms Tara Atley and Mr Cameron Barnes, who came and spoke to us so powerfully about their experiences as young people in this region. I think one of the biggest takeaways for me not just today but from this entire week has been the voices of people, especially young people, in northern Victoria and listening to what they have to say.
It has been quite a busy week up here for some of us, starting on Monday in Shepparton. The Public Accounts and Estimates Committee has launched an inquiry into tobacco and vaping controls in the state of Victoria, and we held our very first hearings in Shepparton. We heard from local police, from healthcare providers, from schools as well and from various other stakeholders. We heard lots of really interesting, incisive evidence, but the most powerful for me was to hear from two marvellous school captains from Greater Shepparton Secondary College, a terrific school which has had an enormous rebuild under this Labor government, with $160 million and some really quite incredible facilities there. These two school captains, Sabri and Bella, came and spoke to us and shared their experiences of how school students in different age groups view the issue of vaping in particular, and it really, really helped to inform where we go next with that inquiry.
I also had the great privilege of attending a youth forum in Shepparton along with Ms Lovell and the member for Shepparton, Kim O’Keeffe, where we had a Q and A and also heard from young people about what their desires are for the future of their region and what they want to achieve. That is where it ties in so well to the bill that we are talking about today.
Nick McGowan: On a point of order, Acting President, I may well have lost the plot – it happens from time to time – but on a point of relevance, I gave Mr Galea I think some leeway in sharing his delight at being in Echuca, which we all feel, and his delight at the speeches this morning, which we were all delighted about, but I would like to at least draw him to the bill before the chamber today, if that would be possible.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): I will uphold your point of order, but I will also point out that just as you stood up Mr Galea said, ‘And it brings me back to the bill we’re here for today.’ So, Mr Galea, as you were.
Michael GALEA: Thank you, Acting President. It would not be a parliamentary sitting without my friend Mr McGowan raising a point of order on me.
Nick McGowan: On a point of order, Acting President, could I withdraw my point of order?
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): I am not sure that is actually allowable, but Mr Galea, keep on going, please.
Michael GALEA: With great appreciation, thank you. Statute law bills are among the many important bills that our Parliament does from time to time put through. It is not perhaps the most exciting bill, but it is one of the very important bills that we do because, as Minister Symes referenced earlier, it is part of what we do as housekeeping and making sure that our laws are current and up to date. Most of the bills that we put through have substantive changes; this is a different format than that. This is making sure that the bills that we already have in place are correct and up to date and that any errors in them can be fixed. They are an important part of the process as well. I note, though they may complain, that members opposite have certainly had no hesitation in using that to their great advantage to speak about many various different issues today.
The last time we debated a bill such as this, the statute law amendment bill of last year, we had some rather interesting contributions as well. It was the first time having a statute law amendment come through following the passing of the late, great Queen Elizabeth. There was, as part of that, the requirement for us to update various terminologies – ‘Her Majesty’ to ‘His Majesty’ of course – and it was also used to reform some rather outdated modes of address. It came to our attention with the bill – it was the first time that I became aware – that the official title of the opposition was actually ‘Her Majesty’s or His Majesty’s most loyal opposition’. Those opposite did protest very much about that change, about being reformed to just ‘the opposition’. I know that others in this place, such as Mrs McArthur, were very upset about us taking out that reference. She wanted us to refer to her as ‘His Majesty’s most loyal subject’. I am not sure if my sartorially deficient friend Mr McGowan disagrees with that as well. Perhaps he may also wish to be referred to as ‘His Majesty’s most loyal subject’; he can fill me in on that on his next point of order. The statute law bill that we debated at that time did address that, and it became a lot more, I think, interesting than those of us on this side expected, because there was such vociferous opposition from those opposite accusing us of republicanism by stealth, which was an extraordinary statement to make. That brings me back to some of the many things that this bill will do.
In the case of the royals, of course the royal family has a strong connection with the city of Echuca, where we find ourselves today, as well. I understand that in 1934 His Royal Highness Prince Henry, the Duke of Gloucester, who was the brother of King George VI, visited Echuca during centenary celebrations, and the mayor greeted him before he left for the local agricultural show in Victoria Park. His visit was brief – apparently he spent 30 minutes in Echuca – so I am happy to say that we have already spent a lot more time in Echuca now than His Royal Highness.
Evan Mulholland: On a point of order, Acting President, it was the previous statute bill that mentioned the monarchy and made changes, not this one, so I would ask the member to come back to the question. As much as I would like to see a republic one day, it is not part of this bill.
Michael GALEA: On the point of order, Acting President, the purpose of my discussion was to highlight the sorts of things that statute law amendment bills cover, and this is an example of that.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): Mr Galea, I think I will just bring you back to this bill. I think that is the safest course of action.
Michael GALEA: I will gladly comply with that, Acting President. I was about to get to a good bit, because the Queen herself did visit. It is a shame that we do not get to go through that, but there are of course a number of various changes that this bill will make to various acts, and that will affect people across the state of Victoria. Whether you are in Echuca or whether you are in Eumemmerring or Edithvale, there are various parts of this bill that will make changes.
Michael GALEA: And even Ringwood. That does not start with an ‘E’, Mr McGowan, but yes, that will also be affected by the changes in this bill. Amongst the significant changes will be changes to the Building Act 1993, the Docklands Act 1991, the EastLink Project Act 2004, the Forests Act 1958, the Gas Industry Act 2001, the Heritage Act 2017, the Impounding of Livestock Act 1994, the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009 and the Heavy Vehicle National Law Application Act 2013. As my friend Mr Mulholland referred to, it also makes some changes to the Road Safety Act 1986, and he was very excited to talk about potholes. How excited I am to make a contribution on this point, which is that we have had many, many people in the Rowville area contact me and Mr Tarlamis over the past few months concerning the state of Napoleon Road, which runs along the Rowville–Lysterfield border. Many people have raised issues with us concerning the condition of the road. We have of course listened, and we have raised that with the minister. In fact I made an adjournment about it not in this particular place but in this house just a couple of months ago. How wonderful it is now to see that the government has committed not just to patching up those potholes on this important local road but to a full resurfacing of Napoleon Road, the entire section of the state-managed road –
Michael GALEA: we got it, Mr McGowan, through advocacy, which is what a lot of MPs do – all the way from Kelletts Road through to Glenfern Road, including a rebuild of the intersection at Lakesfield Drive as well. So, a terrific thing to be able to share – unlike the doom and gloom of Mr Mulholland. Whether you are in the Rowville electorate, whether you are in other parts of the south-east or indeed metropolitan Melbourne or whether you are in regional Victoria, we are getting on and delivering these projects to make sure that our roads are as safe as possible. We can actually do that at the same time as doing future state-shaping projects such as the Suburban Rail Loop as well, which in addition to supporting residents in my constituency of the south-east will also benefit regional constituents. So a university student living in Gippsland will be able to access education at Monash or at Deakin or elsewhere, and in time, as the project continues around the north, that will flow on to other parts of regional Victoria as well.
Members interjecting.
Michael GALEA: To say that we cannot be doing big projects because we have to focus on one particular issue really just goes to show, unfortunately, the narrowminded way in which you view things, and it explains why the last time you were given the gift of government, Ms Crozier, you did not actually deliver anything at all for the people of Victoria, let alone northern Victoria.
As I did say, there are many factors of this bill, including the Heritage Act 2017, and it would be remiss of me to talk about heritage and not mention the fantastic heritage that we have here in the city of Echuca: from the old port of Echuca right through to the Hopwood’s punt hotel all the way through to our iconic paddle-steamers, which we heard from earlier today. I think some in this place were hoping that our traditional bells would be replaced by the sound of a paddle-steamer. We did not quite get that, but we still nevertheless heard them humming along on the Murray today. There is a rich history in this city, which is great to be a part of and great to experience.
Again, as I say, whichever part of the state you are in has a history, whether it is Echuca or my region of the south-east, where of course I was privileged to take part in the saving of the historic railway house in Beaconsfield just last year, which is a big asset for the community, and that is something that is really exciting to see – that we can protect that heritage whilst at the same time removing that level crossing at Station Street in Beaconsfield, one of I think 76 now that have already been completed across Melbourne, with more underway. As we do that, and as we do these state- and city-shaping projects, it is really important that our heritage, as best as can be, is still protected, and those amendments regarding the heritage act will bear that through as well.
I mentioned paddle-steamers. Another iconic activity on this river behind us here today is the Southern 80. I have spoken to many constituents in my region who love their trip up to Echuca each year whether to participate in or to watch that particular event – a great driver for the local economy here that is taking advantage of this fantastic river and scenery that we have behind us today. I am certainly not personally equipped to partake in that sport – you would not want me to do that – but I am happy to see it as a great part of this local economy.
Whether it is the historical value of the city that we are in now that we can talk about or the various other aspects of this bill, and I am sure future contributions by others will also be fairly wideranging, this is an important bill. It may be relatively procedural compared to some of the things that we deal with, but it is nevertheless an important part of what the Parliament of Victoria does. As I say, as great as it is to be here showcasing the Parliament to Echuca, for me the benefit has been far more in the listening – listening to people, whether it be stallholders here today in Echuca, and we just had a farmers market across the street, right through to, as I said, those young people in Shepparton, who I really do want to thank for sharing their time with me. This is a straightforward bill. It should be supported, and I commend it to the house.
Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (14:51): It is often said that within this house we focus on issues within the tram tracks, and never has that been more obvious than today when we have a regional sitting and we have a bill that focuses on typographical errors. I find it, to be honest, quite insulting. I think for people, even those that have come into the gallery today, it is quite upsetting that rather than talking about jobs, rather than talking about the cost-of-living crisis, rather than talking about the fact that one in three children in Victoria cannot read proficiently – and that goes to one in two when you get to areas like this – we are not talking about any of that but we are talking about whether we should have a semicolon or a comma. I think that is absolutely ridiculous.
I have seen this in my own area, particularly with the closure of the native timber industry, that locals have been crying out, saying, ‘Hang on, we aren’t a little city. We are a regional area with our own set of issues. They are things that people within Spring Street might not understand, and can you come and actually listen to us?’ That is something that has been completely ignored.
However, I will talk about this bill. The purpose of this bill is to amend minor errors in a number of acts – typographical errors, grammatical errors – and to just basically tidy things up. There are quite a few acts that are going to be amended, but there are two that I would like to focus on particularly, the Forests Act 1958 and the Gas Industry Act 2001. With acts like that you would think when coming to a country area you would be talking about substance within the forestry industry – an industry that has created thousands of jobs within regional Victoria, an industry that has put billions of dollars into Victoria, and that has been shut down against the consultation of locals. You might have consulted with some people. You have probably consulted with activists for the yellow-bellied glider, but you have not consulted –
Jaclyn Symes: What’s the yellow-bellied glider? You’re making up animals.
Renee HEATH: no, I am not – with people who have had their lives and their towns ripped apart because of decisions made by this government.
With the gas act, we read in the newspaper today that gas is becoming more relevant to Victorians than ever. Albanese has spoken about how he would like to see more industry, he would like to reboot manufacturing. This is what Mr Heffernan from the gas industry said:
Despite the rhetoric slamming gas, its importance to Australia is increasing.
We are not talking about that aspect though, are we, within the gas act. We are talking about grammatical errors. I think it is absolutely ridiculous.
Renee HEATH: I will pick up on that interjection. I think that it is such an insult that you cannot even listen to a country member – and I know you are one, but stuck in the city – because here I am talking about things that actually matter to country people, and I think it is worth saying.
Like I said, I have seen the closure of the native timber industry, we have seen with the power industry the local industries being shut down – the gas industry. It is so funny that even though we stand on top of resources that are enough to power the nation we are still in the midst of an energy crisis, but we are not looking at those aspects of the bill.
Locals have felt – and I have spoken to many within my region, which is the Eastern Victoria Region – that members of this government have somehow viewed country constituents’ opinions as less, their quality of life as less important and their ability to make a living, to educate their children and to have good, sustainable jobs as less worthy of being fought for. Just because there are less people in the country does not mean that they are less worthy of being fought for – absolutely not. Some have expressed that while their local MPs have fought for them, in the bigger picture when it comes to the government it has been like they are out of sight and out of mind, and I would tend to agree with them. Like I said, never before has it been more obvious than now, when we are in Echuca and we just use this time to talk about a perfunctory bill that is completely of no consequence. It is like the government is happy to come, maybe get a couple of photos up here and spend time just tidying up an act that they could not be bothered doing while they were in Parliament in Melbourne. What we are discussing today is –
Renee HEATH: Exactly. I will pick up on that interjection. It is purely procedural work; it is of no importance. What this government is basically doing is running a spellcheck over legislation –
Jaclyn Symes: Which is important.
Renee HEATH: Yes, it is important, but it is running a spellcheck over legislation. Here we are debating things of little or no consequence. This just proves that it is a city-centric government that has finally come to the country, and when it does, this is the quality of the debate. They do not choose a bill that delivers cost-of-living relief, they do not choose a bill that talks about local industry –
Members interjecting.
Renee HEATH: We have not spoken about it. We have not spoken about a bill that talks about jobs. They have not spoken about a bill that is going to address the difference in children’s outcomes between the city and the country.
Of course I will commend this bill to the house because it is about typographical errors. It would be pretty stupid to even consider going against that, so I support the bill. I support running a spellcheck over acts. What I do not support is a government that chooses to come here and not listen to people, not talk about the things that actually matter in their lives but just get an administrative little thing out of the way. I think it is quite insulting. Thank you so much for listening to me. I commend the bill to the house.
David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:59): I am going to disagree with both the government and the opposition on this bill. This bill is important. I am very happy to be in Echuca and experience the beautiful town and talk to lots of the people, who are very friendly. They are going to be able to witness something that is very unusual by this bill being put forward and debated in that the bill is effectively government – and not just this government but government in general – admitting that they have made mistakes and trying to fix them, which is a very unusual thing. I think this is a rare opportunity, so I am quite enthusiastic about this bill. There was discussion earlier by Mr Galea about sartorial deficiencies, and I hope I am not sartorially deficient. But also in the last statute law bill that was brought up – I did have an amendment; I do not have amendments this time – we identified that one of the acts we were changing was the Unlawful Assemblies and Processions Act 1958, which to my shock and my team’s shock actually excused murder in certain circumstances. This time we are not amending that, but we are amending some other acts.
Let us have a look at some of the mistakes. I do not claim that these are mistakes of this government; they are mistakes of government in general. As was pointed out by the Attorney-General in an interjection just before, some of these acts that we are amending were actually put through by different governments.
The Building Act 1993 – let us look at a mistake that happened with building cladding. We all know about the flammable cladding problem, but what lots of people do not realise or do not think about much is that the whole flammable cladding disaster was essentially caused by government regulations on heating efficiency in the first place. They said, ‘Well, you have to have X, Y and Z level of efficiency.’ Of course people jumped in to try and produce products which helped meet that efficiency and ticked the box of the government regulation, and it just so happened that they happened to be flammable and very dangerous. This was a problem caused by government itself.
I am very happy to be amending the Docklands Act 1991 today. In fact if you read today’s Age newspaper, you will see an article in there about the Docklands and about my idea of how to do something about Docklands. I am proposing that we set Docklands aside as a special economic zone, and what that means is that state government taxes in the area would be abolished for a period of 10 years to allow economic growth. If there are any people in Echuca who want to advocate for this area to become a special economic zone, I would very enthusiastically support that as well. I think it would be a very great boost to the local economy.
We are also amending the Heritage Act 2017. In the Heritage Act I think what we are actually amending here – I will check my notes – is a spelling error. I know that I have at least one staff member who would like to repeal the Heritage Act completely, but I will note that in the last term of Parliament the government made a very big mistake and subsequently did not actually go through with it. They tried to heritage list the Eastern Freeway, if you recall. At the time, I spoke about my love for the Eastern Freeway and how beautiful it is, but heritage listing it is probably a step too far.
Similarly, the Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Act 2007 – nearly everything about this endeavour was a mistake. Think about what happened recently with the dodgy fridges that were apparently not suitable for shops or with the power boards many years ago that were distributed to households that were supposedly going to save power – no doubt the carbon emissions saved by those power boards that never actually happened were counted. I also heard a story about these balloons that you could stick in old chimneys that stopped drafts. Of course the process of the government giving away these products destroyed the market for those products and anyone selling those products went out of business, but that is a whole other thing.
I definitely will not be opposing this bill. As others have said, it does perform changes which are necessary to ensure that there are not errors in our acts in the state of Victoria. I would encourage people, especially the government, to find more mistakes that they have made and fix them, like what we are doing with this statute bill today.
Motion agreed to.
Read second time.
Third reading
Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (15:04): I move, by leave:
That the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to.
Read third time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.