Thursday, 6 February 2025

Bills

Statute Law Repeals Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Harriet Shing:

That the bill be now read a second time

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (15:30): I rise today to speak on the Statute Law Repeals Bill 2024. As the opposition has made clear, we will not be opposing this bill. The removal of spent, obsolete or redundant provisions is a routine function of the Parliament necessarily, but hardly something to hold up as a sign of effective governance. It is the kind of bill you put up when you do not really have an agenda, when you are still trying to reach in that bottom drawer and trying to find a solution to the state’s ongoing woes.

Enver Erdogan interjected.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I know Mr Erdogan in his heart of hearts probably knows there are things in the bottom drawer that would have previously never been approved by cabinet when they were blocking their ears to the crime crisis they caused when this Premier was weakening our bail laws, but now that there is a crisis of her own making they have all of a sudden realised there is an issue. They have all of a sudden realised that crime is an issue. They have all of a sudden realised that the cost of living is an issue. They are still yet to realise that the state of our roads is an issue, actually.

What this bill highlights is a government with no agenda, no plan and no answers to the very real challenges that Victorians face today while this government busies itself with administrative tasks like repealing section 235 of the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012, which previously repealed the Carriers and Innkeepers Act 1958, and clause 8 in schedule 4, a transitional provision that is now redundant. Instead of coming here and coming up with a solution to the crime crisis, which could be in the bottom drawer, they are repealing a redundant definition duplicated in Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 from the Docklands Act 1991. Instead of coming in here and addressing some of the challenges to do with infrastructure in the growth areas of Melbourne and their failure to deliver on that, they are repealing section 9 and schedule 2 from the Filming Approval Act 2014. Instead of addressing the debt, which is heading towards $188 billion, where we will be paying about $25 million a day, which is over $1 million an hour, just to pay the interest on the debt they have racked up on that side of the chamber they have decided they will use their time to repeal division 2 of part 18 of the Greenhouse Gas Geological Sequestration Act 2008. Perhaps while they are at it they could have a real conversation about the use of gas and natural gas exploration to drive down power prices and provide a solid base for manufacturing in this state. Perhaps they could address the housing crisis by looking at land taxes, which are driving up rents – and we know that through a multitude of stakeholder organisations. But instead they have decided to repeal section 3(5) of the Marine (Drug, Alcohol and Pollution Control) Act 1988, which removes redundant regulation-making powers in schedule 5.

Instead of addressing some of the issues on our roads they have cut road maintenance funding by 81 per cent, from $201 million in 2023 to $37 million in 2023–24. They have had a 95 per cent decrease from 9 million square metres addressed in the previous year in terms of road resurfacing. Instead of fixing the issue of potholes in our growth areas and regional communities they have come here with a big idea from the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, which is to repeal sections 95B and 95C of the Road Safety Act 1986. That is their solution.

When we talk about roads and we talk about the state of our roads, in particular I see it as my residents see it, as my constituents see it, which is as a cost-of-living issue. The state of our roads is a cost-of-living issue, and it certainly is for the people of Wallan, who face these challenges every day regarding the deterioration of their roads. Some might know Wallan only from the viral moment that town residents created when they filled in a VicRoads pothole with a flowerbed, with a flowery garden and shrub, and called it Wallan botanical gardens sponsored by VicRoads, which was quite funny. Indeed funnier was that a pothole that was there for some time and had numerous complaints, numerous Snap, Send, Solves, was gone within 24 hours after that.

In all seriousness, people in Wallan describe the state of our roads as a Wallan tax, a tax for living in a suburb like the growing community of Wallan. Wallan is one of those old regional towns that is growing into a growth area, is growing into an outer suburb, and with that has not come investment, investment for the amount of new road users that will be using those roads. When my residents say that it is a Wallan tax it is because residents are forced on average to pay about $600 a year to get their tyres replaced after they have exploded, have their suspension fixed or have their gears fixed because of the potholes in places like the Northern Highway and Watson Street. Of course we know the threshold for VicRoads for them to cough up any sort of compensation with potholes is around $1600 to $1700. I know some residents, through speaking to them, that have racked up that amount in costs over a year, but because it is over several instances VicRoads of course do not pay up, because it has to be a single instance. That is what I mean by a Wallan tax. My residents have had enough of it.

I do not know how many times I need to keep speaking about potholes in Wallan for this government to notice. A Current Affair has been out. That is how bad it is. We have had multiple news stories in the Herald Sun about potholes in Wallan. Both the Labor member for Kalkallo, who locals describe as the Labor member for Craigieburn, and the Labor members in Northern Metro do not understand the issues that are going on there and the amount of potholes that are causing this cost-of-living crisis, which means that people are paying over $1600 a year over several instances, with tyres exploding, damaged suspension, damaged gears, damaged cars. That is why residents describe it to me as a tax on Wallan or a Wallan tax – because the state of the roads is atrocious. The state of Watson Street is atrocious and so is the state of the Northern Highway and the main road. You do not drive on the left side of the road; you drive on what is left of the road in Wallan.

That is a reality – and I know Acting President Bourman has similar issues in his electorate – for the people of Wallan, who are still being promised the long-delayed Watson Street interchange. The money from the federal government has been on the table since 2019 and budgeted. $130 million was promised by the Labor Party for the Watson Street interchange at the last election, as it was by the opposition, but what they failed to say is that money was inclusive of the coalition’s federal government funding of $50 million, which was budgeted in 2019. All the signs that Labor have say, ‘$130 million for the Watson Street interchange’, but in fact they have only provided $80 million. You have still got the federal member for McEwen – the outgoing member for McEwen – carrying on about how $50 million was an Albanese government contribution, even though Major Roads Projects Victoria (MRPV) documents acknowledge that the funding was budgeted and received in 2019, which does not make it an Albanese contribution. That means it was a contribution by the former Liberal coalition government.

We still do not have a start time. We heard last year that planning works would be completed by late 2024, and now the documents have been updated to ‘planning works continuing’. We have seen no work underway in Wallan on the Watson Street interchange. No land acquisitions have taken place. Indeed the whole premise of the project, to build the southern-facing ramps, was that you would also duplicate Watson Street. From what I have heard, they have completely removed that from the project. So clearly when you have budget blowouts in other projects – like the North East Link, the Suburban Rail Loop, the Metro Tunnel and the West Gate Tunnel – it is growth areas like Wallan that pay the price. Wallan is one of the fastest growing communities in Victoria, and to not futureproof a project like this by duplicating Watson Street is outrageous. They have already penny-pinched –

Michael Galea interjected.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): Order! Mr Galea, you are out of your place. I will not have this place rendered moribund by unruly behaviour. If you are going to interject, interject from your spot, please.

Michael Galea: I will comply. Thank you, Acting President.

Evan MULHOLLAND: They have already penny-pinched their contribution from $130 million down to $80 million, and clearly part of that is duping the people of Wallan by removing a duplicated Watson Street from the interchange project. So once again growth areas of Melbourne get dudded because Labor cannot manage money, they cannot manage major projects, and unfortunately it is people in Wallan that are paying the price.

I know my good friend the Liberal candidate for McEwen Jason McClintock has been advocating on these issues and speaking to almost all of Wallan through doorknocking. I have been out with him speaking to residents, and they are furious that nothing has happened. Rob Mitchell told us all he needed was a federal Labor government and a Victorian Labor government to get things done: we would be able to get bulldozers on the ground and we would be able to get diggers on the ground to get going. The federal government has been in for a while now and nothing has happened because of the state government’s belligerence, clearly, and cost cutting, which has meant that it is at the back of the queue.

We still have not had a builder approved from MRPV. But all of a sudden, when you have got projects in Werribee and a by-election, they can approve builders very quickly – probably the quickest builder approval MRPV and this government have ever done. It has been done for the Werribee by-election, but unfortunately the people of Wallan miss out. It is because you really just have not very hardworking members, like the member for Kalkallo and the member for Yan Yean, who do not listen to their community. When the government says, ‘We’re not duplicating Watson Street; we’re going to have to cut that back,’ there is clearly just stunned silence and no advocating to keep the duplication of Watson Street in there because you have got ineffective members for Kalkallo and Yan Yean and obviously a very ineffective outgoing Labor member for McEwen as well.

I will not stop fighting for my community. Obviously those on the other side will interject and jeer, but they have not provided this crucial project. They promised planning would be complete at the end of last year, and now the document says planning work continues. It has clearly been pushed to the back of the queue. MRPV is clearly rushing to announce builders on projects in Werribee that have only just received funding. The Watson Street interchange has had funding for a long time – no builders approved, planning work still underway. This is what happens when you have a Labor government that prioritises political interest over the interests of communities and you have the government spending $35 billion, at least, on the Suburban Rail Loop East while areas like Wallan are still on the V/Line, still have deteriorating roads and still have long-awaited infrastructure projects that are yet to be delivered, again because they are very poorly represented by Labor members of Parliament at all levels. I would say they have been very well served by the advocacy of Liberal candidate for McEwen Jason McClintock and I also would say by south ward councillor and deputy mayor Bob Cornish, who has been a strong advocate for his community and is standing up for his community.

It is important to note, regarding the Road Safety Act – I touched on this yesterday in the Parliament. Indulge me, Acting President, to speak about my own electorate, but it does have to do with road safety. One thing that continuously gets raised with me from residents in Greenvale is the lack of street lighting on Somerton Road, particularly between Fleetwood Drive and Aitken Boulevard, which is completely devoid of street lighting and is quite hilly. When you are driving in the dark it is not a very safe place. I have spoken to many residents who have been involved in near misses but also accidents on that stretch of road, which is almost completely dark when you are driving through it. I have had countless representations from residents, representations which I have –

Enver Erdogan interjected.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Mr Erdogan would be pleased to know that I have received lots of representations from residents. I know he is a local resident, and I would be happy to pass his representations on. I have passed numerous representations on to the Minister for Roads and Road Safety about this stretch of road, so I hope they do not take as long as they did to reopen Fleetwood Drive to put in some streetlights on Somerton Road, because the neglectorate of Greenvale deserves better. It deserves not to be neglected. This stretch of road is causing us real issues out in the northern suburbs. Many residents not only want it duplicated but just want some decent street lighting. That goes for the northern section of Mickleham Road as well, which is single lane each way. If you are driving in the middle of the night or, like me, you are driving home from a multicultural event that went a bit too long and you stayed around for a bit too long and you got a bit too much food, you are wearing a garb or a scarf and you are driving down Mickleham Road from places like Yuroke or Mickleham, it is quite frightening because you have got cars coming either way and no streetlights available. Given the government have fast-tracked, without community support or council support, the Craigieburn West Precinct Structure Plan, putting in about 8000 homes on one side of that stretch of Mickleham Road – a side that they have not committed to duplicating – you would think street lighting would be an appropriate first step, an appropriate commitment. But with all the funds going to the Suburban Rail Loop, the blowouts on the North East Link and other places, I fear that the residents of the north will be left behind and the government will not listen to the community.

But I hope that given the minister at the table is also a member for Northern Metropolitan he can glance across the table at the Minister for Roads and Road Safety and say, ‘I’ve had representations about this. I’m also a local resident, and can you please install some street lighting on the northern section of Mickleham Road and on Somerton Road, because not only will it help me, it will help the community?’ I would greatly appreciate the minister making that kind of contribution, because we know when communities or when Labor members have advocated on other parts for this kind of stuff, they have been met with deaf ears. That kind of advocacy would be really important in terms of road safety.

I did not intend to talk about this, but I will. One thing that is causing a real threat to road safety is the North East Link, particularly for residents of Macleod, of Yallambie and of Viewbank, because of the parking situation for North East Link workers. This is something that I have barrelled up the member for Bundoora about and spoken to several Labor MPs about. The fact that there is no set parking for North East Link workers around there has meant that you have hundreds, if not thousands, of cars, big utes, parked in suburban streets. We have had lots of residents miss their garbage collections because of the parking situations. You have got North East Link workers parking out the front of childcare centres where it specifically states there is no project parking, which has created a really dangerous situation. But we saw the other day that the government has forced over 7000 people to sign non-disclosure agreements regarding the North East Link project, and that just seems an incredible amount to do and goes to the transparency of this government and openness of this government to be forthcoming. I know on 3AW on Jacqui Felgate they started talking about the North East Link in Bulleen and the kinds of issues they are having, and almost every caller was from Macleod, was from Viewbank and was from Yallambie calling about the parking situation.

I for one am a big supporter of the North East Link and have long been a supporter of the North East Link, and as Mr Welch would remember, it was actually my older brother David as the Liberal candidate for Jagajaga in 2016 who was the first to advocate for the North East Link and promised funding for the North East Link – remember, this is long before the state government committed to the North East Link – and was advocating to fix Rosanna Road, and having grown up in that part of the world I know the issues that Rosanna Road faces. The way the government have managed this project is a problem, because they have forced silence out of the community. They have not engaged properly with the community. They have signed over 7000 non-disclosure agreements, and I worry that you have got a tunnel in the Suburban Rail Loop that is actually shallower, that will cause more issues – how many non-disclosure agreements are they going to get locals to sign for that project? If they are having this many issues with this project, obviously they are going to have a lot of issues with the Suburban Rail Loop.

I support the North East Link, but you have got to have some scrutiny, particularly when you go from about a $5 billion price tag to a $10 billion price tag to a $16 billion price tag to about a $26.9 billion price tag. But this is also what happens when you have Jacinta Allan as the responsible minister for all that time. When she was busy with other things like being the Minister for Commonwealth Games Delivery, the North East Link was blowing out massively, and again it is causing a huge road safety issue for those communities. I was very pleased to attend, with my colleagues Jess Wilson, Matthew Guy, Richard Welch and the federal member for Menzies Keith Wolahan, a North East Link community forum at the Veneto Club in Bulleen, and we would have had about 400 people. Four hundred people attended. More than a thousand residents expressed interest in coming and sent emails as questions. The North East Link project were invited – they declined. Any representative was invited – they declined. The minister was invited – they declined. Any government representative –

Sonja Terpstra interjected.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Ms Terpstra says that she was not invited. We asked the minister for any government representative to attend, and they all declined. So we had 400 people in Bulleen, and the issues were huge in terms of environmental issues, in terms of pollution, in terms of light pollution as well and in terms of noise, and the government solution to all of this seems to be to just sign a waiver – ‘Just sign a waiver, and we’ll make it go away.’ But the community is strong; the community is resilient and will not be silenced. They want to have their voices heard, and I would have thought the least this government could do is send along a government representative to at least listen to the community, to hear what the community has to say. But unfortunately they were found wanting.

Richard Welch interjected.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Yes. The printer had run dry from NDA forms. So roads are obviously a very big issue in my electorate. I am looking forward to Mr Erdogan passing on my representations about Somerton Road and about Mickleham Road and particularly the pothole crisis that we are facing in places like Beveridge, in places like Wallan and in places like Mickleham and Kalkallo as well.

John Berger interjected.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Mr Berger has previously told me to stop talking about Donnybrook Road but I will not, and I will mention again Donnybrook Road, because they have got a single-lane farm track –

John Berger interjected.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I am actually in Wallan about twice a month. I have been doing the Wallan market every month since I was elected –

John Berger interjected.

Evan MULHOLLAND: but I have never seen –

Members interjecting.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): Order! It is getting hard to hear Mr Mulholland, and it would be handy if we could hear him down here.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I have never seen the member for Kalkallo in Wallan. I have been in Wallan a lot. And I tell you, Mr Berger says no-one has ever heard of me – over 1000 people in Wallan, about 1300 people in Wallan, have signed my petitions to fix Wallan’s potholes. So they clearly have, because I am the only one advocating on their behalf, because no-one else is.

John Berger interjected.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Well, if you know Wallan, you would know that Wallan residents often call the member for Kalkallo the member for Craigieburn, because she never visits Wallan and has forgotten this community. But I have not forgotten about this community. Neither has the fantastic Liberal candidate for McEwen Jason McClintock, who has knocked on almost every door in Wallan.

People are suffering. People are suffering a cost-of-living crisis and people are suffering because of the roads crisis that they have created. The fact is that the state of the Northern Highway and the state of Watson Street are a disgrace. They are complaining about the fact that the government promised to duplicate Watson Street as part of the Watson Street interchange, and now they have reneged on that. So they have forgotten the people of Wallan because they are plunging everything into blowouts, from the North East Link to the Suburban Rail Loop. They have forgotten the people of Wallan and they have forgotten the people of Donnybrook along Donnybrook Road in Mickleham and Kalkallo as well, where you have got a single-lane farm track.

John Berger interjected.

Evan MULHOLLAND: And Mr Berger would be interested to know the government recently reduced the speed limit on the Hume going north from 100 kilometres an hour to 80 kilometres an hour. Why is that? Because of exit congestion at Donnybrook Road. Why is there exit congestion? Because the government has failed to duplicate the bridge over the Hume and the rest of Donnybrook Road. When the Liberals were in government we sat the developer down in Mickleham and we signed a developer contribution agreement which duplicated the Mickleham side of Donnybrook Road, funnily enough, when Mickleham was being built – before people moved in, not years after. The government now owes millions of dollars to the City of Hume and the City of Whittlesea in development contribution grants but has failed to stump up and has delivered nothing for these growth areas.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:00): I always enjoy the opportunity to rise and speak on the statute law bills that we are faced with in this place from time to time and including today with the bill that is before us. I always enjoy having the opportunity to speak after my colleague Mr Mulholland over there as well. Quite an interesting speech today, as I was appreciating and enjoying the twists and turns it was taking, particularly in linking everything to his particular part of electorate. I think we heard ‘Mickleham Road’ maybe 20-odd times or thereabouts. I thought for a minute there you might have been in trouble, Mr Welch, because we seemed to be straying into a bit of your region, into Bundoora, into Watsonia, into Rosanna, which reminded me of that great level crossing removal in Lower Plenty Road, Rosanna, which has significantly improved traffic around that area.

I did mention in the chamber yesterday that I did for a couple of years live in Prahran. In fact when I was young I lived in Bundoora for a brief period as well, and I know, going back there today and seeing those level crossing removals, what a difference it has made. At Keon Park station, where I used to get the bus down Keon Parade to school in primary school, there is an incredible new station there. There are yet more examples, whether it is in Reservoir, whether it is in Keon Park or whether it is in Rosanna, just as there are all across the south-east, all the level crossing removal projects that have actually made a huge difference, whether you are in the south-east, whether you are in the north even or whether you are in the west as well, such as I mentioned yesterday, the Cherry Street level crossing too in Werribee. What a difference that is making, and indeed when I was out with our fantastic candidate in Werribee John Lister –

A member interjected.

Michael GALEA: I note your Werribee candidate did not cop a mention in your speech, Mr Mulholland, but I am very happy to be giving a fair plug to John Lister, a local Werribee teacher, a CFA volunteer who rents in Werribee, who is going to make a great difference to his community, building off the legacy of 10 years of Labor government, which has included seven new schools. Just as in your electorate, Mr Mulholland, I missed from your speech the part where you spoke about the brand new Greenvale Secondary College opening a few years ago, and in fact stage two of Greenvale Secondary College, funding for which has been secured by the outstanding local member there Ewan Walters – another example of this government’s commitment to education as well as transport and health. As we have discussed many, many times in this place, there have been many, many projects that Mr Walters, the member for Greenvale, has been able to secure. So it has been very, very nice for me, having lived in that area a very, very long time ago in those north-east suburbs, to hear them come up again. Indeed I am not sure if you are going after Mr Welch now with his region, but if you are speaking, Mr Welch, I look forward to your contribution as well. Perhaps you could get him back and start talking about Greenvale too? I know Mr Walters will be all too enthusiastic to hear you mention his seat as well.

Now, I could of course go into many other areas, but I think it is important to touch on some of the various acts which the bill before us today will seek to amend. It starts with Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012, the Docklands Act 1991, the Filming Approval Act 2014, the Greenhouse Gas Geological Sequestration Act 2008, the Marine (Drug, Alcohol and Pollution Control) Act 1988, the Road Safety Act 1986 and the Yarra River Protection (Wilip-gin Birrarung murron) Act 2017 as well. There is quite an array of acts in there. Now, one that jumped out that is not something that we typically see in this place was the Filming Approval Act, some amendments there to the Filming Approval Act 2014. We know that Victoria is one of the hearts of the creative industries of this nation, and that is definitely true in the case of film and TV production. In fact a recent show produced in Victoria, again with the assistance of Film Victoria, was High Country on the Showcase channel on Foxtel, a terrific police procedural show set up in the High Country, with some beautiful scenery. If anyone has not seen it, I strongly recommend that you watch it and support some great local Victorian-made content and remind ourselves of just how beautiful our state is too.

In fact whilst you are up there, if you are up in the Lake Eildon region, you can then go onto the water and enjoy that safely with the changes to the Marine (Drug, Alcohol and Pollution Control) Act, which set those regulative controls around Safe Transport Victoria and around safe boating and not being under the influence when operating a water vessel, which is a very important thing, because we want people to get out there, enjoy the great outdoors that we have in this state in places such as Lake Eildon and in places such as the Murray River, Western Port Bay, wherever it might be, but to do so safely.

With amendments to those two acts, we can see ease of filming continue in Victoria but we can also see the regulations and responsibilities around Safe Transport Victoria enhanced and improved to enable them to operate more effectively. Indeed I should clarify for the benefit of colleagues across the chamber that the Filming Approval Act, whilst very important, does not in this instance cover covert recordings, so secretly taped recordings are not covered by this. I know they like to engage in that in their party meetings, in their meetings with their own members and with their colleagues. They like to record each other as much as they can. I am sure you have got a very big hard drive yourself, Mr Mulholland, at home, with all your little caucus meetings in there and all your preselection meetings as well. Indeed I am sure it has your conversations with Mrs McArthur when she came for you – two votes short. I know you clinched the victory over Mrs McArthur despite her regal rise to the front benches, despite her knocking off others there and pushing some other people down the corridor. You have held onto your seat in the chamber. One across, perhaps, but you have held onto your seat, Mr Mulholland.

John Berger interjected.

Michael GALEA: Closer to the door, but that is not kind. I congratulate you for that, Mr Mulholland. I am sure that you will continue to rely on your recording devices whenever Mrs McArthur is near, whenever she is watching you. Because we know that that knife-sharpening machine in your party room is working at full capacity. It has not been put away. We see that this week. We see it in the Assembly. We see you are still just as disunited as you have ever been. You cannot be trusted to govern for Victorians because you cannot even trust each other. That is the situation that we still find ourselves in week after week in this place.

We have a new Leader of the Opposition, the member for Berwick. He is from my region in fact, a region where we have invested a great deal in new roads, in new schools and in health upgrades, including the Clyde Road level crossing removal in the heart of Berwick, which has made a huge, huge impact. We had the now opposition leader bringing up all sorts of issues about that, but it is working terrifically.

Ryan Batchelor interjected.

Michael GALEA: There were a few things he did not like out there. Schools – we have got three new schools that have opened just in the last week in Clyde North in the Berwick electorate alone. There are two primary schools and one high school, adding to the very many private schools which we have also supported with some government funding as well in that electorate. So whilst those opposite come in and try to deflect from their bruises and from their failings of two years – it feels like longer than two years – of complete chaos and division, here we come again and see that the seats may have changed, everyone might be in a new seat this year but the chaos and the division is just the same as it ever was. Isn’t it, Mr Mulholland?

Evan Mulholland: On a point of order, Acting President, on relevance, there are a lot of things that this bill refers to, but it does not refer to the opposition.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): Mr Galea, please return to the bill.

Michael GALEA: Thank you, Acting President, disappointed as I am, though, as I was giving Mr Mulholland considerable leeway.

Ryan Batchelor: It refers to road safety. They are a car crash.

Michael GALEA: I will take up Mr Batchelor’s interjection that, yes, they are a bit of a car crash. But there are many, many important acts this bill does seek to cover. As I said, it is a part of the process of this place that we do come in and discuss from time to time statute laws, refine those bills and acts that are already in place without a whole new bill in each case. It is important to do that work. I know Mr Mulholland likes to sort of denigrate that, and he has done that a few times in his remarks. He has given a bit of a sideways jab at these sorts of bills. But they are an important part – not as important as other things we continue to do in this space, not as important as many of the investments in health, in education and in transport infrastructure that this government is continuing to do as we do our bit for Victorians so that they can have as strong a future as possible.

It is always enjoyable to speak on these bills, but perhaps not as much as it was around 12 months ago when we had some unexpected controversy – maybe it was a bit longer – when members opposite were outraged that they were being reclassified, having the monarchy removed. They thought it was a subtle ploy to remove the monarchy from Victoria. Of course nothing could be further from the truth, but those members of His Majesty’s most loyal opposition opposite, as they prefer to be referred to – indeed it is disappointing that our new frontbencher Mrs McArthur is not here –

Evan Mulholland: You’re speaking to a republican. You’re not going to offend me.

Michael GALEA: You are a republican, Mr Mulholland, so it is even more disappointing to me that your newly minted shadow cabinet colleague Mrs McArthur is not here, because I am sure she would be revelling in the opportunity to once again be referred to as part of His Majesty’s most loyal opposition. That is the sort of thing those opposite like to bring to this place. Indeed earlier in the week we thought that the first motion they were going to bring under the new broom – under the new leadership – was going to be a culture war motion about Australia Day. You changed your mind on that. I guess you may have won that battle, Mr Mulholland, over Mrs McArthur. I can only presume. I am making a wild assumption about where things are, but you guys are very transparent. In the very first week under the new leadership we would have been debating something that happened a couple of weeks ago, bringing us back to the culture war and bringing us back into Peter Dutton’s vicious negative cycle of throwing rubbish everywhere.

Evan Mulholland: It is not a culture war, it is settled. People love Australia Day.

Michael GALEA: Indeed, but again, apparently you guys want to talk about it, so there we are. But instead we got some not-at-all-political motions about a couple of by-elections this week. As I said, we are never shy about talking about our record and our plans for the future, more importantly, because we do have a strong record but that means nothing if we are not going to stand here and say what we are going to do next. That is what a good government does. It does not just rely on the past; it says, ‘This is what we’ve done, but more importantly we’re hearing you and this is what we are going to do next.’ And that is exactly what John Lister, our candidate in Werribee, will do as well. As I say, he is a local to Werribee. He does not need to hitch a lift with the education minister on the way into his electorate. He is a teacher; he knows the issues. He is a CFA volunteer. He is a renter – not a real estate agent, a renter – and he knows the issues. As someone trying to buy his first home, he knows what young homebuyers are going through. He, like other millennials, knows how hard it is to get into that housing market.

We have an opposition over there who do not care about that, who do not care about getting young people into homes, who would rather see more and more development on the outskirts with no infrastructure and no investment. We saw at the last election a plan by the Liberal Party for 55,000 new homes in the outer suburbs of Melbourne with not a single matching infrastructure or service plan – not a single piece of infrastructure or service to match those 55,000 homes – because that is your policy. Never mind having sensible infill development in inner to middle Melbourne that would actually provide those millennials and those gen Zs and alphas after them with a chance to live where they want to live – in the outer suburbs, in the inner city or in the regions. You would force them all out to the outer suburbs with no choice. That is no choice at all. 55,000 new homes are what you promised, with no infrastructure plans announced to go along with them.

That was under, of course, your previous, previous leader, Mr Guy, the current shadow – what is his role, Ms Watt? Shadow for returning to government? Maybe it is shadow for being the next person to roll the opposition leader. That is probably what it means. Maybe when Mr Guy comes in for his third attempt to fight a state election, if he does come out with a plan to offer 55,000 homes on the outskirts of Melbourne, he can actually come to that with a plan to develop the infrastructure and the services along with them, because that is what Labor has done. Whether it is the schools, whether it is the roads, whether it is the other transport or whether it is health upgrades, that is what Labor has been doing for well over 10 years across all the outer suburbs of Melbourne.

Meanwhile we recognise the fact that as wonderful as these places are and as much as many people do want to live there, including in my electorate and yours, we should not be forcing people in terms of where they live. We should be giving them that option. If you want to live in the outer suburbs, great; if you want to live in the inner city, great. But those over there say, ‘No, we’re fine. We’ve got ours. You go out to the outer suburbs. We’ll keep our nice little lots in Brighton and Hawthorn.’ No wonder you are in such trouble even those areas, because people there know that their kids cannot get into that housing market and you will not provide them with those options. So that is your plan for Victoria. It really is no plan at all, and once again we see Mr Mulholland in this motion today raising up all sorts of points to deflect from the fact that, as he knows, his colleagues, should they get the chance to come back into office, will be the NIMBY government of Australia.

Evan Mulholland: On a point of order, Acting President, on relevance, I could not find anything about the opposition once again in any of the acts that this government is changing.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): So just listening to the debate, it has been very broad on both sides.

Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:16): Actually, I have found this whole debate very educational. I have not seen such a freewheeling, almost – dare I say – conversational debate in this chamber. So that has been a new experience, and I intend to continue in the same vein; I think we can have a nice fireside chat about this bill.

This bill is about repealing things that are obsolete or are out of date. I guess in some senses the first impression is that there should be some other things in here that should be repealed that are out of date – things like Treasurer’s advances, I think they should be in here, because that is something that is clearly past its use-by date. It is now something that even the Premier has admitted has been used inappropriately, so that probably should have been in here.

I think if we are also repealing things that are out of date, I think the housing targets should probably come off, because they are out of date and will not be met, so they are probably obsolete. I thought the 2024 budget would be in here, because I think that should be coming off the books, because that was out of date within about three months of being issued. It is a fairly redundant document, and most of the key transactions took place off-budget, so that probably should be out of here. I think the other one – the Suburban Rail Loop costings should be in this and the SRL act should be in this, because there is no plan being followed there. That is all redundant as well. But it is not about those things. There is a good list of things in there.

Harriet Shing interjected.

Richard WELCH: Well, yes, the risk assessment, that should be in there as well.

Harriet Shing: It is five years old.

Richard WELCH: That is right – it is old, yes. The Road Safety Act 1986 – some of the conversation pursued into the areas of road investment, and we had an interesting discussion about the Wallan diamond and the Watson Street duplication. That has been like a pea and shell game, where the state government did not fund it and then they funded it and then the federal government did not fund it, and the Labor members in that area have danced around that project for a good 10 years now. The region has always suffered from a lack of proper advocacy from the Labor members in that area, and it is actually a relief to that community now that they have got a Liberal candidate in Jason McClintock, who is actually genuinely fighting for work to be done. Jason McClintock – if you did not know, the Liberal candidate for McEwen – is probably the best candidate we have had there since Fran Bailey. Fran Bailey was the only one who actually delivered anything in her tenure.

There have been 10 years of a barren wasteland in the McEwen electorate. I can attest, with significant personal knowledge of the area, that nothing has been delivered in that area. There has been excuse after excuse after excuse from there, with a fair bit of body language as well. The people of Wallan – and the people of Kilmore, for that matter, with the Kilmore bypass – have been waiting and probably have reached the point where they are so cynical about the Labor Party’s promises for their area on roads that they have given up. But thankfully, they have an advocate in Jason McClintock, who is willing to do something about it. They have an advocate in my colleague Evan Mulholland. He is willing to stick up for the community. And of course, David Mulholland was the person who advocated for the North East Link. No one on the Labor side had the imagination to come up with something like that, so thankfully we removed the inertia from those areas as well.

Another area that is being removed from the statute books relates to the Docklands Act 1991. For me, it is good that is coming off. I think it has very, very strong parallels with the laws around the new activity centres. What we could all say in retrospect is Docklands in its execution has been an appalling set of urban planning. It did not meet anywhere near the potential that that region represented and a lot of it is that instead of providing choice and instead of addressing quality of life, it said, ‘Let’s just build towers.’ It was unfettered development – ‘Let’s build towers’ – and the quality of life in the Docklands is very poor, which is why the amount of accommodation that has been taken up there is very, very small for the actual capacity that exists within that area.

Harriet Shing interjected.

Richard WELCH: No, families are not rushing to the Docklands, and we are now replicating that in areas where there is good quality of life – in Box Hill, in Burwood, in Blackburn. The urban planning design there is to build tower blocks and put families into those tower blocks if they can indeed afford to buy flats. So it is not providing choice. It is actually almost a Stalinist approach: ‘We will build the accommodation. You will live there, and you will live according to the quality that we define.’ So it is very, very bad urban planning. It will not achieve the outcomes desired. In fact what it is doing is it is taking investment that is needed on the fringe areas and putting it into the areas that have reasonable equilibrium of infrastructure for people. So what we will end up with, as we do in all Communist areas, is everyone will be equal but they will be equally miserable because the outer suburbs will not have infrastructure. They will have population but no infrastructure, and then we will double the population somewhere that has adequate infrastructure so that it is in a sense atomised, so you are degrading the quality of life.

Like the Docklands, what we had was great potential and what we ended up with was degraded quality of life. That is the vision of the government for Box Hill, and that is the vision of the government for Blackburn. The residents of Blackburn, I think, are waking up to the very rude shock that their shopping strip is going to be torn down and towers are going to replace it. That suburb, with some of the best tree canopy in Melbourne, is going to be denuded by intense development. And what will they get instead? Nothing. There is no benefit to them at all. This is not serving the needs of the local community; it is serving the needs of the government to raise tax, if indeed it knew how it was going to do it, because of course there is no formula for the value capture tax. The Docklands is, I guess, the analog. It is the precedent. It is the example that is being followed, and I predict it will have equally disastrous results for them.

I think I will end my contribution there. Thank you everyone for the conversation, but I do think we are supporting this bill.

A member interjected.

Richard WELCH: We are not opposing it.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (16:24): I am pleased to rise on the Statute Law Repeals Bill 2024 today. I am a bit disappointed that Mr Welch ran out of puff there, because I would have liked to have had more from him in his exhortations about why living in apartments is really bad. He spent most of the speech in reference to his critique of Docklands, talking down his nose at those Melburnians who live in apartment buildings. As a representative of southern metropolitan Melbourne, where we have some of the most wonderful areas, some of the most densely populated parts of the country in Southbank –

Harriet Shing interjected.

Ryan BATCHELOR: Well, we are working on that. In other parts of southern metropolitan Melbourne, particularly if you look at that precinct around Chapel Street and Toorak Road, there is a lot of significant development that has gone on there. I do not think if you walked down the street on Chapel Street or on Toorak Road, whether you walked down City Road or Kavanagh Street, whether you walked down to Port Melbourne or whether you walked into South Melbourne, that you would tell people that they had made the wrong kind of decision about where they lived. That is what Mr Welch was doing, looking down his nose at people who live in apartment buildings, telling them that they have a second-class home and that the families – as my colleague Ms Watt was pointing out by way of interjection – who have chosen to call Docklands home and who are enrolling their children in such great numbers at Docklands Primary School, a school that is continually expanding –

A member interjected.

Ryan BATCHELOR: It is a great school, and it is a great school because of the demand from the families who are living in Docklands, the ones that Mr Welch says have a second-class form of housing – a form of housing that he turns his nose up at. We on this side support people who wish to live in a variety of settings, whether they want to live in detached homes, whether they want to live in semi-detached homes, whether they want to live in multistorey apartments. We want to support Victorians to make their housing choices and have the opportunity to get housing that meets their needs, whether that is in Docklands or whether it is in other parts of the city or other parts of the state. This government has an agenda to support people to get the housing that they want, the housing that they need, in the communities that they choose and want to live in. That is my reflection on the parts of Mr Welch’s speech where he was most impassioned in deriding those who choose to live in apartment buildings, in multistorey dwellings.

The Statute Law Repeals Bill before us today is part of the necessary regular tasks that we have as legislators to make sure that our statute books are free from obsolete, no-longer-used, no-longer-necessary provisions. I have been elected now for a little over two years to this Parliament. This is now the third calendar year of this parliamentary term. I think when all of us are elected there are a lot of things that we think about and that we get provided advice about. A lot of that is about the time we spend representing our communities, engaging with our communities, having discussions with them – I know you, Acting President Ermacora, are spending a lot of time in Western Victoria, giving the people of Warrnambool their first Labor office in a very long time, if at all – so that is an important part of the job.

Just as equally is probably a little under-thought-of task, which is our role as legislators. A key part of what we are doing in here every day – above the hubbub that occurs through certain parts of the day – is that we legislate, and the votes that we take, for the most part – excluding the motions and other things – result in the laws that govern how this state operates. It is a significant task that we have and one that we should never take lightly. Part of that responsibility as a legislator is to make sure that our statute books are maintained in a way that ensures that obsolete and redundant provisions – provisions that previously had operated with an intention and purpose but due to the operation of those principal acts and their amending acts and due to the passage of time are no longer necessary – do not remain on the statute books. It is an important part of the housekeeping, if you will, of curating our statute books here in the state of Victoria, that obsolete and redundant provisions in the law are routinely taken out such that things that no longer apply are no longer there. If you do not undertake such a regular program and regular process of keeping the statute books free of obsolete material, you end up with legislative anachronisms that sit and fester on our statute books, and having obsolete anachronisms sitting around and festering is in no-one’s best interests, least of all the people of Victoria.

This legislation before us today seeks to make amendments to a handful of acts that have such obsolete and redundant provisions in them, including amendments to the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012, the Docklands Act 1991, the Filming Approval Act 2014, the Greenhouse Gas Geological Sequestration Act 2008, the Marine (Drug, Alcohol and Pollution Control) Act 1988, the Road Safety Act 1986 and the Yarra River Protection (Wilip-gin Birrarung murron) Act 2017.

The first of those is obviously the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act, and I want to, in discussing consumer law and fair trading law here in the state of Victoria, briefly congratulate the new Minister for Consumer Affairs, the member for Bentleigh, Nick Staikos, a colleague and friend of mine. We share a street where our offices are located, Centre Road in Bentleigh. I am near the Aldi, and he is at the moment down near East Boundary Road in East Bentleigh. Nick and I catch up a lot. We do a lot together, particularly with local schools. He has been a tireless advocate for local schools in the local community in and around the electorate of Bentleigh. Following a redistribution before the last state election parts of the boundaries of Bentleigh were changed, and some of the duty areas that I look after, which are now not in Bentleigh, he used to look after. In particular we spend a lot of time working with the Hampton East School, the merger of the old Katandra and Berendale specialist schools. With the construction of brand new facilities there, Nick and I went and opened those new facilities last year. Nick’s been a fantastic advocate for his local community for the last 10 years, since he was elected in 2014, and his elevation to the ministry at the end of last year as the Minister for Consumer Affairs I think is a recognition of his hard work and achievements. I also know that he will conduct himself as a minister of the Crown, as Minister for Consumer Affairs – also as Minister for Local Government but relevantly here as Minister for Consumer Affairs – with the same sort of enthusiasm, vigour and dedication as he has done as a member and as a parliamentary secretary over the course of the last two and a half parliamentary terms. I wanted to pass that on.

One of the first things that Nick got to do as Minister for Consumer Affairs was make the announcement with the Premier of the government’s new fair fuel plan. Part of the way that this Labor government is strengthening consumer protections here in the state of Victoria is by introducing a new plan to make sure that motorists get a better deal at the pump when they fill up their cars with fuel. We all know the frustration you can feel when you know you need to fill up your tank, driving either a short or a long distance, and seeing petrol prices move around. One of the things that this government wants to do is give Victorians certainty about what the petrol prices are going to be on any given day and also make sure that the information about where the cheapest fuel is is able to be easily communicated to motorists so that they can shop around and get the best deal. The fair fuel plan, which was announced by the Minister for Consumer Affairs and the Premier just a couple of weeks ago, will do just that. It is going to require petrol stations to make sure that they lock in their petrol prices in advance for 24 hours so that there cannot be a fluctuation during the day. We no longer have that frustration of driving one way past a petrol station and seeing it display one price and then maybe a couple of hours later on our way home driving back and finding the price has gone up by 10, 15 or 20 cents per litre. That will be a thing of the past here in Victoria.

But most importantly I think is ensuring that as part of that price setting there is a collection and distribution of that price information to consumers, to motorists, so that we will know where the cheapest petrol is in our local area and can drive to make sure we fill up and get that price, saving motorists money – saving Victorians money. It is not going to change the world. It is not going to change the international oil market. But it is a little thing that we can do to make life a little bit easier for Victorians and for Victorian motorists, and if we can shave a few cents off every time we fill up at the petrol pump – fill up our cars with fuel – even if it is just a few cents, as everyone who is watching their household budgets carefully at the moment knows, a few cents here and a few dollars there all adds up.

That is what this fair fuel plan that the Minister for Consumer Affairs and the Premier announced just a few short weeks ago will absolutely do. It will make sure that Victorians have information to enable them to get the best deal when they fill up their car, and that is going to help ease, a little bit – a little bit – some of the cost pressures on families. If Labor can help even just a little bit, it is something worth doing. We are always going to do things to help with the cost of living for Victorian families, and we will always be there supporting Victorians to make sure they get the best deal that they can.

One of the other pieces of legislation that is before the Parliament here today which I wanted to make special mention of is the Yarra River Protection (Wilip-gin Birrarung murron) Act 2017. There are some small provisions in that act. One provision is dealing with Yarra River land protection, which has commenced and is spent and therefore no longer has any work to do and will be repealed by this statute law bill. I just want to make mention that obviously the Yarra, the Birrarung, is the northern border of the Southern Metropolitan Region. I had the pleasure the other day of taking the kids down to Studley Park – we had an ice cream at the Studley Park Boathouse – and it was just spectacular seeing summer fun on the Yarra River in Melbourne. I would not want to go in the water necessarily, but people were certainly having fun on top of the water. People were having fun on the banks of the Yarra. This bill, through the principal legislation, the Yarra River protection act, which this statute law bill repeals a redundant provision from, is really landmark legislation that is about ensuring that the wonderful Yarra River, the Birrarung – which, as I say, runs as the northern border of the Southern Metropolitan Region – is in good health and is protected for generations to come, so that many families like mine can spend a Sunday afternoon getting an ice cream on its banks and enjoying the wonder that it is.

There is so much more in this legislation that I could spend probably another 15, 20, 30 minutes talking about. Sadly my time today dealing with the statute law bill has come to an end. There are a range of other pieces of legislation that I sadly have not been able to speak about here, including the Road Safety Act 1986, the Marine (Drug, Alcohol and Pollution Control) Act 1988, the Filming Approval Act 2014 and the Greenhouse Gas Geological Sequestration Act 2008. I am sorry that I have not had a chance to get into those at this point in time, but I am sure others may have that opportunity, and I hope in the future I get to have another chance to speak on these bills.

Nick McGOWAN (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:39): It is a great honour this afternoon to stand and speak on this bill, although –

Harriet Shing: It’s an honour to listen to you.

Nick McGOWAN: Well, thank you, Minister. It is a pleasure to be here, and I will try to make it somewhat informative.

Ryan Batchelor interjected.

Nick McGOWAN: I could not help but hear, even from the far distance of my office from this place, that you were talking about some fair fuel policy the government have, and I was thinking about that on the way up here as I walked up to the chamber. I could not help but muse on the fact that I thought that it would have little impact, sadly. I hate to disappoint you, Mr Batchelor, but I think it will have very little impact on the cost-of-living pressures that Victorians are facing – in large part because of your government of course, but not just your government; it is shared equally perhaps with the federal government, who are equally incompetent and in very many ways contributing to the increasing costs that our families are facing right across the state and right across the country, I regret to say. But nonetheless road safety of course is an issue that is close to my heart. It has been well noted in these past days, particularly the last couple of days, that we have got off to a very poor start indeed. And I say ‘we’ as being all Victorians. No-one wants to see the road toll and lives lost on our roads. What we ought to be doing is actually achieving zero. I was going to say we want it to be as little as possible; that is not true. We do not want anyone to be dying on our roads. There are many reasons for that, and year after year we try and eliminate those reasons and make it safer for motorists and pedestrians.

It was not that long ago, near on 12 to 18 months, that I mooted the idea that what we ought to be doing, certainly working with our federal counterparts, was having a policy where all cars were required to have their driving lights – but you do not just need to have driving lights, you can have any lights, parking lights, whatever you want – on during the daytime. The suggestion I made was really picking up on work that had been well and truly done and studied and researched. Because what it showed was that if you had driving lights on, as I said, or parking lights or other lights in addition to those indicators – clearly we cannot be driving around with an indicator on everywhere we are going when we are going forward – that it actually reduced the chances of having a fatal accident. And it was not only a fatal accident but any accident for that matter, particularly at dusk and dawn. That is critical. It is by no means new of course, because those who live in regional and country Victoria already know this. Those who live in country and regional Victoria, as the minister would know, have done this for quite some time. Do you drive with your headlights on, Minister? Parking lights?

Harriet Shing: Do I drive with my parking lights on?

Nick McGOWAN: Not your parking lights. But if you had to?

Harriet Shing: Metaphorically, probably.

Nick McGOWAN: I sometimes find myself in park, and I try to find the D for drive. I get up in the morning and I just keep going. That is what I do.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): Mr McGowan, through the Chair, please.

Nick McGOWAN: Stick shift. That is where we got up to. Sadly, Chair, I do have a stick shift, as some call it.

Harriet Shing interjected.

Nick McGOWAN: I think it is amazing. In fact perhaps I can put forward an amendment for this chamber to consider. Perhaps we should suggest that all Victorians are required to learn how to drive a manual car before they are given an automatic licence. Because one could argue, I think, quite successfully that if you can drive an automatic car, you cannot actually drive a car at all, all you can drive is a dodgem car. That is about it.

I digress slightly, but nonetheless if you did find yourself in a manual vehicle and you were not able to drive it, that would be very unfortunate one would think. It also aids the driver to understand the vehicle they are driving and to understand the gears and how to use the gears, going up in gears, going down in gears, controlling yourself around the corner and using all those aspects of a vehicle for the purpose of road safety. So that was the suggestion I made quite some months ago, maybe a year and a half ago, with respect to driving lights. Notwithstanding that they are standard features on new vehicles, which is a very good thing, nonetheless we still have very many vehicles on our roads, including my own vehicle I will admit, which are somewhat older than new. In fact mine is not quite antique, but it is going to head toward that point. I think I have got something in the order of close to 500,000 k’s on my beautiful Beast. It is a Toyota, and it is still going strong.

Harriet Shing interjected.

Nick McGOWAN: Well, I just call it the Beast, but it does not resemble the presidential beast that I am actually probably channelling here. It is certainly not anywhere near the value of that beast nor does it provide the same level of protection, sadly.

John Berger: It is only just run in.

Nick McGOWAN: At 500,000 k’s I think it is just warming up. It has got a long life ahead of it. Sadly, as I go back to something here for a moment, anything we can do on our roads to increase safety I hope will in these months and years ahead be efforts and measures that we actually adopt. I recall very well being on Spencer Street at the police headquarters. There they have a tree, and every year they put an ornament on that tree for every life lost. It would be a magnificent thing if that tree was to stand there naked one year and have not a single ornament to mourn the loss of a single life. All too sadly, that is simply not the case.

The other aspect that concerns me greatly in terms of road safety is buses. Buses, like helicopters, go down with clockwork-like regularity. I refer to helicopters because in my time certainly in Africa it was never a fond occasion that you would be flying in a UN helicopter, because they have a particularly poor track record. Planes were not much better, but by comparison, helicopters I tried to steer well and truly away from. Well, in Australia, buses, for me, are a very big problem, and this came into stark attention certainly for me when, all too tragically in the early months of being a member of Parliament, there was an accident in New South Wales that included a large number of Victorians. Tragically, not only were there lifelong injuries from that accident but deaths as well. It strikes me that we have not learned from that accident in a way that I think we ought to have and that we continue, at least in this state, to manufacture buses that do not have seatbelts. It sort of seems the logical and obvious thing to do, but I am standing here in this chamber in 2025 and we are about to put off the production line here in Victoria tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars worth of new buses, and it is not mandatory to have seatbelts in public buses. It is a massive missed opportunity. I will never for the life of me understand why we do not require, in this day and age, seatbelts on public buses.

We ought to also have a complete redesign of buses. Buses ought to be, like they are at the airport, designed so that the driver is completely separate from the passengers, in a completely separate cabin. That ensures two things. It ensures that the driver – he or she – is always safe. We cannot say that that is the case as it currently stands. We all have seen way too many examples where a driver is attacked. If you completely separate the two and put them in a completely separate compartment, then their exposure to violence is reduced dramatically, very significantly. You would literally have to smash glass to get through to the driver. I would much prefer that all new buses have that kind of design.

When you talk about the interior design for the passengers, I would much prefer, again, that we looked at a design similar to the United States, where the school buses have a single aisle and they have seats either side, in the same way that a 737 or an A320 have seats either side – three on the right and three on the left. Again, what we would actually do is eradicate – get rid of – standing areas. When you have a bus trundling down the Eastern Freeway, any part of CityLink, the Mornington Peninsula Freeway or the Western Freeway at 100 kilometres an hour, it would only take one vehicle – or one bicycle, for that matter, one motorbike – to accidentally encroach upon a bus lane and suddenly you will send a bus either into other traffic or into a median strip and you will have very serious, I dare say, deadly consequences. It is a ticking time bomb waiting to happen. And I know as much as I say those words, those words will come to life, because we in this chamber will stand up in the months ahead at some point and there will be a tragic accident. There was an accident not too dissimilar to this which involved children in Bacchus Marsh. Thankfully, none of those children died, but they will have lifelong scars, mental scars, and some of them had injuries too. As I say, it is fortunate that they did not die, but not fortunate that they were in the accident, and certainly not fortunate that, for the rest of their life, they will have traumatic memories and in some cases injuries from what occurred.

So we ought to have seatbelts in buses, we ought to have the drivers separate from the passengers, we ought to have no standing, and in addition to that, we ought to have a grade of glass on either side of the buses that means that when the bus does experience an accident, the passengers are actually protected from the glass, because the irony today is, such is the low standard of the glass on the side of buses – so, if you are a passenger, you are looking out the window on the right or left side heading forward – that glass will not necessarily disintegrate into millions of little pieces like your windshield would. It will actually splinter, and it does not take too much of an imagination to understand that when glass splinters, it forms in the shape of shards, and those shards are deadly. In too many accidents those shards will be a catastrophic cause for injury and death to the passengers and the driver alike. It will be indiscriminate, and it will fly everywhere because it is precisely what it does on impact. When a bus is involved in an accident, when a bus collides with a vehicle, so much of the injury that will occur is avoidable, because if we only had a better grade of glass, it would never be the object of harm that it actually is.

I understand we are building some of these buses right here in Victoria, but standing in this place I cannot understand for love or money why we are about to embark on this significant public expenditure, or investment, on what is a convenient transport form – convenient because it is not reliant, like a train, on a rail system and a rail network – but nonetheless is demonstrably less safe. I hope that before this Parliament ceases and my time is done in this place that we in Victoria actually turn our minds to road safety in a comprehensive way that does not just look at pedestrians, does not just look at motorcyclists and does not just look at vehicles, who drives them, their design, what we can do and how we can use technology to avoid injury and death but we also look seriously, for the first time in way too many decades, at buses, because the other element here that I have not discussed in great detail is that it is not just commuters and workers coming into the city and going to their suburban jobs and their regional towns and cities day in, day out, there are also tens of thousands of children and students who use school buses. Not all of those school buses are private charter companies, who do have some seatbelts; very many children, including in the electorate of Ringwood and very many of the schools – these are some of the conversations I have had just recently – rely on the public network to get from school to home and from home to school. Right now they do that, and we have the knowledge that they are doing that in a vehicle that really is substandard in respect to their safety, substandard in respect to the safety of the driver and certainly substandard in respect to a collision that involves a number of vehicles, because it will result in the worst possible outcome.

In conclusion, while there are many aspects of this bill in particular which seek to address a number of issues, I can only hope that in the future when we talk about road safety and things that need to be done, buses are at the forefront and what is driven and the objective we have is to make sure that all commuters, when they use public transport, particularly buses, do so in a much safer manner than they do today.

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop, Minister for Housing and Building, Minister for Development Victoria and Precincts) (16:54): To say that I have a sense of immense moment about the opportunity to speak on the Statute Law Repeals Bill 2024 on the Thursday afternoon of a sitting week would be somewhat of an understatement, because there is so much in this Statute Law Repeal Bill that warrants very carefully consideration and analysis, and I am grateful for the opportunity in these next 14 minutes to be able to at least scratch the surface of the rich vein of detail in the various pieces of legislation that are improved as a consequence of, hopefully, a resounding level of support for this bill and its passage. A number of speakers from around the Parliament have been united in the importance of addressing the statute book in a way that does enable us to have a clearer understanding of the intention of legislation and in a way in which we better reflect the world around us and the way in which rules and regulations occur, whether that is through our consumer law – and I will get onto that in a moment – or the Docklands Act. There is obviously a very clear connection between my work within precincts and Development Victoria and that portfolio and the Docklands Act 1991. In the 49 days that I have had responsibility for the new portfolios that it is my honour to serve in, the Docklands Act has been a very familiar part of my reading list. It does occupy, much to probably the horror of anybody following along at home, a pretty prized position on my bedside table.

The Filming Approval Act 2014, as well as the Greenhouse Gas Geological Sequestration Act 2008, the Marine (Drug, Alcohol and Pollution Control) Act 1988, the Road Safety Act 1986 and the Yarra River Protection Act 2017, again another piece of legislation which was very, very dear to my heart in the former portfolio of water, which I was again privileged to hold until it was allocated to my dear friend and colleague Gayle Tierney to continue with. I know that it is down to the importance of a nuanced and unambiguous approach to lawmaking and to continuous improvement that helps us to do better as a Parliament.

On the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012, I do want to touch on this by reference to the work that newly appointed Minister for Consumer Affairs Nick Staikos is undertaking in this space. Consumer Affairs Victoria does an exceptional job of making sure that not only do we have a good access point for people to be able to understand what their rights and obligations are but that we have an opportunity for public education on what it is that traders can do, what they are not reasonably able to do and where and how we find a pathway through any inequities or imbalances that might arise.

I did want to, by way of example for the chamber, touch on the consumer legislation and a matter which came to my attention when I was walking back to my city accommodation the other night. As is my wont, I am fond of a walk through various department stores. It is a nice way to pass some time and to get some contact with the outside world beyond the colour and movement of this place, which I know we all treasure but which is important to have as a counterpoint to what it is that people do when they are in a world that does not involve thinking about politicians each and every day. When I was at this department store, which shall remain nameless, trotting down the hill en route to my reading for the evening at my accommodation, I came across a tag on a particular item of clothing. This tag was two-sided and on one side of the tag it said, ‘By choosing this department store’s cotton products you are supporting our investment in Better Cotton’s mission.’ There was a big logo there that said ‘Investing in Better Cotton’ with a link to presumably the site for Better Cotton. That is all fine until you turn over the tag and it says, ‘This product is sourced via a mass balance system and therefore may not contain Better Cotton.’ The paradox of what was discovered here with the simple act of turning over a tag at this department store was something that was not lost on me as a result of what happens here and this careful education that we have about the importance of words, the importance of accuracy and indeed in this sense the importance of good consumer protection.

I think there is always more work to do and clarifying the way in which laws operate is important. When we look to the definition of subordinate instruments and the way in which the removal of redundant provisions owing to duplication is addressed in the Docklands Act, we can see that this is a process which enables law to do better. Wherever we can be lean, where we can have an economy of words in the way in which we draft our laws, we are doing better to perhaps move away from a conclusion that people might reach, probably unfairly – certainly in Mr McGowan’s case unfairly – from any conclusion that words are wasted in this place, because they are not.

What I would say is that the phraseology, the content, the detail and the process, the traditions of this house in particular, are lean as a whippet, they are streamlined, they are geared toward a better understanding of the law and the statute book –

Nick McGowan interjected.

Harriet SHING: Well, Mr McGowan, you have used the word ‘svelte’. I do not want to word shame here, so I am not going to use that particular phrase; that might be something if you were to seek by leave to make a further contribution you could put onto the record. I do not intend to do that at this point in time.

But when we talk about economy of words, the Statute Law Repeals Bill and these amendments are intended for us to streamline the statute book. If anyone is ever so privileged – ‘privilege’ being quite a pun there, because we note the nature of parliamentary privilege and all that it entails – as to sit here at the Parliament overnight, and we have done that a couple of times, there are many, many corridors. I have likened this place to Hogwarts because around every corner you can find a treasure or a terror. There are many, many mahogany items of furniture. There are many things that are capable of housing documents. There are volumes and volumes. I suspect they may have started as all being leather-bound and that we have since moved to a more sustainable model, perhaps involving some form of Better Cotton initiative – or not. You might turn it over and it says in fact there is no Better Cotton in this particular product, referencing back to the example on consumer law that I gave earlier.

What I would encourage anyone to do in the event that we find ourselves wandering, lonely as a cloud at 3 o’clock in the morning or even indeed at 2 in the afternoon, is to go past one of these vast mahogany Tardises, to open one of the drawers – obviously not in someone’s office; do not do that –

Nick McGowan interjected.

Harriet SHING: Not the bottom drawer. Well, Mr McGowan, you might want to open the bottom drawers of various cupboards and cabinets that you come across. I am actually just interested in seeing what it is that those fine red volumes can tell us about the operation of law over time. One of the things that I have discovered late at night is – and I say this as somebody who has a copy of the Docklands Act on my bedside table as evening reading, and that is a recreational pursuit for me as well as a professional one. Thank you, Mr Tarlamis, I might just grab that for a second if I may. I am actually allowed to use notes for the purposes of understanding and making my contribution – that is within the standing orders.

Nick McGowan: Will you table it?

Harriet SHING: Well, Mr McGowan, I have in fact accessed a document which was quite literally on the table, therefore rendering the act of tabling redundant, which again brings me back to the earlier point about removing redundancy from our statute book. Speaking of that, here comes Mr Davis. Now, Mr Davis, I am really glad that you are here because I was just getting to the point of removing redundant phraseology from our statute book. When we go through the volumes from, say, 1851and we look at any kind of removal of regulation for sheep dip or the changing of fence perimeters and primary material requirements in and along the Wimmera region, it makes for excellent reading – it does, it really does – as much as anything because it is a time capsule to the evolution of this place. Some might say this place has not evolved nearly to the extent that we might like it to, but I would say as a woman I am here in this Parliament and that constitutes evolution, because it was not that long ago that not only was I not allowed to be here, but I was also not allowed to have an education, let alone a microphone. But that aside, people are probably wishing that that was still the case for the last category there. But what I would say is that when we are in a position to better understand the nature of good lawmaking, lawmaking for proper purpose, then we talk about economy of words, that lean-as-a-whippet approach to our statute book. Again, you used the word ‘svelte’, Mr McGowan; I think that is uncharitable. What I would say is that we are in a position to be better and to do better. When we talk about current legislation that is repealed, that is not in fact going to affect the operation of other acts, it is important to remove doubt wherever we can possibly find it. It is incumbent upon us to be certain about the work that we are here to do, and what could be a better example than the Filming Approval Act?

This is a piece of legislation which makes consequential amendments to other acts because those provisions have commenced and are spent. The last thing we would want to see is for our exceptional world-class film, short film and creative industries to suffer as a result of any ambiguity in the interpretation and the interaction of various pieces of legislation. Nobody wants to see any delay, whether it is sitting in a cinema waiting for a film to start or whether it is in the understanding about when and how provisions of legislation have commenced, such that they would interrupt a filming approval process.

Maintaining our statute book in an accurate way is also important so that it is accessible to the public. Access to public enjoyment is one of those things that we take great pride in in this place. It is not something that is intended to reflect upon a party-specific position. The entire chamber is united – I am sure I speak for everyone here – in talking about the importance of orderly and accessible public access. When I look to the gallery and the thousands of people who are gathered here this afternoon to hear what it is that we are in the process of doing, I can think of no better example to really spotlight the excellent contribution that this place makes to the canon of democracy than what is happening right here and right now. Downplay it though ye may, do so at thine peril is what I would say.

I would imagine, again, for the many people who have travelled considerable distances to be here in the gallery this afternoon, that these will be treasures that they will take with them and tell to their children, in the same way that I have taken the stories of sheep dip and fence regulation amendments from the 1850s and shared that with you in the Parliament today. It is almost as though everything old is new again, except new and improved. This is where, again, there is no end to continuous improvement. We do have opportunities to make sure, for example, and I will go back to the Filming Approval Act, that we have establishment and promotion of film-friendly principles for the issuing of film permits by public agencies and reducing red tape. The only red that we should see in our film industry, particularly here in Melbourne, is red carpet. That is something that we have excelled at, and that is where efficiency comes in. The dividends are plain for all to see.

We have got a lot to do here, and it is omnibus approaches to statute law revision that again reflect our commitment to efficiency, simplicity and, again, the real economy of words. I hope that I have demonstrated that here today. This is an opportunity for me, as I always do, to get straight to the point and to make sure that points are made in an unambiguous way that do not contain florid turns of phrase, that do not contain unnecessary Shakespearean references and that do not actually seek to create any misapprehension, for example, about the popularity of this particular debate.

In the remaining minute that I have what I do want to talk to is the work that has gone on to reflect, for example, the careful process of consultation. Nothing says consultation better I think than the work of this chamber here this afternoon. We are in the process of working through the product of rich engagement with our communities around the refinement and the improvement of our statute books. What I would suggest is that when the many people who are gathered here in the gallery today read the public record of this debate, they will be left under no illusion as to the quality of the contributions that are made, they will be left under no illusion as to the seriousness with which we have all applied ourselves in this debate and they will be left under no illusion as to the work that our statute book has to do in making sure that laws withstand the passage of time, in the same way that this place has withstood and will continue to withstand the passage of time and the inevitability of progress. I commend this bill to the house.

Wendy LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (17:09): I also rise to join the debate on the Statute Law Repeals Bill 2024, which repeals redundant or spent provisions across seven Victorian acts. We have just heard 15 minutes of why we need to remove things from acts. Yes, we do need to keep modernising acts, as the minister who spoke before me and I had an exchange on in question time. Many things need to be updated as they go along. Whether they be risk analysis of all the very risky projects that this government is undertaking or whether they be the statute law, everything needs to be reviewed and updated as we go along. We make changes to various acts on a daily basis. Sometimes several acts are changed in a day here in Parliament. Each act interacts with the others and can have a consequence on other acts, so we need to make sure from time to time that all those things are kept up to date and that interaction is right. We also often have in these statute law reform bills just the replacement of a comma with a full stop or something to correct grammatical errors –

Harriet Shing: That saves time.

Wendy LOVELL: Yes. But also when we do this and we look at the various acts that we are amending, it gives us an opportunity to speak on some of the things that those acts affect in Victoria. In this particular Statute Law Repeals Bill there are amendments to the Filming Approval Act 2014, and one area that has been subject to many filming approvals is the beautiful Mount Rothwell in Little River. This, according to Catriona Rowntree, is actually the number one film location in Victoria, so it would have been subject to many filming approvals over the years. But what does this government think the beautiful Mount Rothwell in Little River is good for? It thinks it is only good for putting solar panels on it. This is going to destroy this area, and Catriona has been very, very vocal against this particular project. She lives in the area, and she knows the impact that this will have. In the Herald Sun on the weekend Catriona said:

This is actually the no. 1 film location in Victoria. This has been the scene of so many incredible movies and productions, bringing in a fortune for the local government.

This incredible area Vic Labor is now considering covering … with a solar farm in its rush for renewables.

They want to put a lithium facility in a fire zone.

What did Little River ever do to the Labor government? I don’t know why you keep picking on us.

This is something that is echoed in many, many communities around the state. In my own electorate there is the Cooba solar factory that the government is proposing on the beautiful Mount Camel range in Colbinabbin. The one at Colbinabbin will be a 2500-acre – or 645-hectare – area that will be covered in 740,000 solar panels, with 300 batteries that are the size of shipping containers. There are over 30 wineries that have established themselves on the Heathcote-Rochester Road to make use of the beautiful views from Mount Camel and will have those views destroyed because a solar factory is proposed by this government, totally out of keeping with the area in a prime agricultural –

Tom McIntosh: President, on a point of order, I do note that the member was talking about solar panels from a section on the film act that was related to a particular part of Victoria. Now we are sort of going on a wide frolic of an anti solar panel agenda across all of Victoria. I just do not think it is really staying within the act.

The PRESIDENT: This sort of legislation covers a lot of things. I will bring the member back to the bill.

Wendy LOVELL: I was finishing up on that point anyway, but I was just making the point that it is not just filming locations; it is also tourism locations and prime agricultural land that is being destroyed by solar factories under this government.

But another act that is amended by this Statute Law Repeals Bill is the Road Safety Act 1986, and that covers a lot of roads across Victoria. Of course what we know is that every road across Victoria is riddled with potholes. They are in an appalling condition. Just this week I have raised two road safety issues in the Parliament. I raised Lorenzs Road in Strathmerton, which is an intersection between Lorenzs Road and the Murray Valley Highway that is extremely unsafe due to it being a 100-k road that intersects with a major highway and is just controlled by a give-way sign. It has a hump in the road from an old rail reserve that actually obscures the view of the highway and the fact that you are approaching a major highway, and it needs safety improvements. It needs a stop sign and it needs some rumble strips to tell people that they are approaching a major intersection.

I have raised other road issues this week, but today I had an inquiry from the Wangaratta Chronicle about an issue that has occurred in Wangaratta. On Monday a lady tripped. She tripped on a manhole covering. It is sort of like metal but filled with concrete, this covering, and the concrete had deteriorated so badly that it had created potholes within the manhole covering. She tripped on that and was actually hospitalised with upper-body injuries. The council had identified this manhole as being a state government responsibility and had notified the relevant authority several times, but no-one did anything about it until somebody was badly injured, somebody was hospitalised. Within just a few hours of that incident occurring they came out and repaired it. Well, if they had repaired it when it was first reported to them, the lady would not have been so badly injured that she needed to be hospitalised.

Another issue that I am deeply concerned about is that regional Victorian road deaths to date this year have almost doubled compared to what they were last year, and this is reflective of the state of our roads. It is a real concern that this is happening in regional Victoria, and we need the government to invest in regional roads so that we are not seeing so many accidents and so many deaths in regional Victoria. In fact it has got to the point that it is so bad that when two Chinese tourists were recently killed in an accident the Chinese government actually issued a warning to tourists coming to Australia about the dangerous state of Victoria’s roads, encouraging their tourists not to drive on the roads in Victoria because of the very poor condition of Victorian roads.

We have a number of other roads that are either in poor condition or need upgrading, and Donnybrook Road, which Mr Mulholland and I continually talk about in this place, is one that is in a dreadful condition. It is an old country laneway that is now servicing a growing population of people in Donnybrook and Kalkallo. It is a huge expansion that has gone on out there, but this old country lane that is riddled with potholes is the only access and egress that they have from many estates along the eastern side of the freeway. If you come out there tonight at about 6:30, you will see cars backed up onto the freeway trying to get off and across the flyover bridge onto Donnybrook Road and you will see cars backed up the entire length of Donnybrook Road. It takes them hours to get in and out. There have been several fires on that road this year that have been a real problem, there was an accident before Christmas that kept people out of their homes for hours on end and in fact one child who was in a car backed up on Donnybrook Road ended up in hospital due to dehydration from being in the car and unable to move anywhere for so long. That is an indictment on this government. There are no footpaths on Donnybrook Road, so people who are trying to walk to the station are battling with cars on this single-lane laneway that really should be a dual-carriage major road.

Yan Yean Road stage 2 is also something that we continually raise in this place, because it is, again, a country road that is trying to support an edge-of-the-city, metropolitan population. It is full of potholes and it is dangerous as well. This government keeps saying, ‘Oh, we’re going to do that, we’re going to do that’, but they never get around to doing it. Well, the people of Yan Yean are absolutely sick of this government. They have had enough. They want Donnybrook Road upgraded. They also want a second road that will act as a –

Members interjecting.

Wendy LOVELL: The people that live in the estates on Donnybrook Road also need a second road that will allow them an alternative entrance or exit from their homes when Donnybrook Road is cut off because of an accident or a fire.

Echuca Road in Mooroopna is a classic. It has been pothole-ridden for probably three years, but the government have been very, very slow to act on that road. They are finally – finally – doing some repairs on that road, and I can tell you the people of Mooroopna are very happy. The gentleman who lives just near the worst pothole-ridden section –

Members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Interjections are unruly, and if you are going to interject, you should be in your place – but they are unruly even if you are in your place.

Wendy LOVELL: The gentleman who lives just near the worst pothole-ridden section of Echuca Road came out to see me last year when I was taking some photos of it, and he said he had not had any sleep for months because of the trucks going over these potholes that were keeping him awake at night. That road should have been upgraded long ago. It is finally being done, but there are many, many more in our electorate.

The Midland Highway on the first turn-off to Tatura – actually coming from Tatura as you turn onto the Midland Highway – is in shocking condition. Just before Christmas there was heavy torrential rainfall. There were about nine cars that actually burst their tyres or damaged their rims, which were all pulled over on the side of the road changing tyres, changing wheels, because of the damage that was being caused to cars by the deplorable condition of roads here in Victoria.

I could go on and on and on. There are so many more roads that I could talk about. Particularly I would like to mention two bypasses: the Shepparton bypass and the Rutherglen bypass, which it is absolutely essential to build. Shepparton was cut off from Mooroopna during the floods because we did not have a road above flood level. We need that bypass to give us a road above flood level that will not cut off the east and west of the state on a major transport route. We also need the Rutherglen bypass planned and delivered, because at the moment trucks are going through the main street of Rutherglen and accidents are happening. We had a pedestrian killed there last year. We had a truck leave the road and go through the verandah of a cafe. It is absolutely dangerous, and this government could not care less.

This government have got to start doing the basic things that need to be done in this state, providing for the people the basics of road safety, and that means fixing the potholes, fixing the roads.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Third reading

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop, Minister for Housing and Building, Minister for Development Victoria and Precincts) (17:24): I move, by leave:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council has agreed to the bill without amendment.